PeterHilton

LOL..true. I think the only thing that you can fairly compare the WWE to in terms of storytelling is daytime soap operas: continuous and ever-evolving characters, programs and storylines that never really end, but there are still episodes with cliffhangers leading to (hopefully) climactic resolutions... If you watch soaps, they even 'put over' their young stars by having them work with established characters and will 'push' certain characters by portraying them in a way that would make the viewer want to root for or against them more.

I think chris answered this WWE isn't a sport.

You know, to be polite I was going to respond to this, but then I read Stennick's reply on the bottom of page 42 and Mr Canada's after you posted this and they did a wonderful job explaining my point. So go read that and then get back to me if you still feel like the point fell flat.

Yes and no. As I mentioned before, when you talk about music or literature or movies, artistic license and creativity and an ability to be unique were ALWAYS part of the process; there were always people in those fields who made conscious decisions to pick mainstream success over artistry. But wrestling was born as a con job. It's a work. A sham. It was literally a way to take money from people by lying to them. So when people say things like this: it makes me realize that the reason why people in the industry ignore net fans is because ..for the most part...they don't have one single iota of a clue as to what they're talking about.

It means that the WWE has consistently produced a product that more people across a wider variety of audience types are interested in spending their money on for a longer period of time than any other promotion in history. If that doesn't mean 'better' to you ..so be it. But they are the most successful at doing the most important thing in their industry. Everything else is totally subjective. EDIT: to be clear, I'm not saying that I enjoy everything the WWE does or that indy companies aren't entertaining, but it's sort of a joke to see net fans whine about how th WWe doesn't know what they're doing or how to develop talent when they're making so much f'n money in an industry where making money is really the only thing that counts.

The Godfather was one of the most successful movies in the history of the film industry. To Kill a Mockingbird sold 30 million copies at the time of it's first release in the 60s. At the time it was made, Beethoven's musis WAS the pop music of the day.

Because in all those instances, creativity and artistic achievement were ALWAYS part of the equation. The people in those fields were actually concerned with making something beautiful, or original, or unique. The people in pro wrestling never were. They wanted to sell tickets. That's it. The fans and dorks on internet boards created this 'artistic imperative.' Even guys like Jim Cornette (wrestling genius to the IWC) and Paul Heyman (same) ..when they criticize the stuff TNA and WWE do, it's not about how "creative" or "good" the shows are...it's that they feel the things they do don't make people want to watch. Listen to Cornette's tirade about TNA a few pages back. What's the one thing he says consistently: "How is THIS selling our product? How is THIS making any stars?" They may all have differing opinions on the means, but everyone in wrestling has the same ends in mind: selling tickets.

So..? Unless he's done a masters in the viewing habits of American TV ratings with a second degree in pro wrestling fans, it's nonsense.

No. Because TNA has such a proven and loyal fanbase that's actually the worse case to be made. TNA has such a built in rating of 1.0 on Thursday (it rarely fluctuates) that I almost want to assume that it was those fans that watched again out of loyalty/habit that popped the .9.

Popular equals better in pro wrestling. Pro wrestling is a work. It's a con. It's the result of carnies realizing that crowds wanted to pay to see fighters they LIKED more than they wanted to see fighters they thought were "GOOD." Net fans can talk about workrate or move-set or whatever other gibberish they want, but at the end of the day the business was created specifically to trick fans into spending their money on the most popular 'fighters' in the area. There was never any distinction or desire for artistic merit or critical acclaim. That's something that was invented by people who report or follow the business. But the promoters? The guys running things..they understand the truth: The more people you draw, the better you are. That's wrestling.

It was like one of those DC comics Infinite Crisis uber-crossover epic issue deals...where every other panel has seven characters from a critically acclaimed comic you've never heard of before so you don't have any clue who they are...so it's just a bunch of faces drawn in to create the sense that "whoah everyone in the DC universe really IS affected." Like that.

It's a storyline. Suspend your belief.

Oh wrell..a just reward for all his hard work then.

Fantastic. Who? And i only ask because literally every single time I've suggested someone be fired, you say no and then suggest 10 more people to sign. lol

Overall, I was entertained. Seeing all those 'names' was cool in a very visceral markish kind of way. But I've never not watched TNA because of the roster. I've always stayed away because of the booking. Because I though they made bad decisions on who to push. And because the storylines were ridiculous. And sadly nothing on this show made me think that's going to be fixed. In 3 weeks, if Impact is more of the same I won't be a regular viewer.

Unless I missed him, Christopher Daniels wasn't used AT ALL. Coming off of two spectacular PPV matches and another great match with Nigel on Impact.

This. And this. Hyde Hill, I respect the fact that you're a TNA fan, but my criticism has nothing to do with the company specifically so much as it's a theory on writing for TV in general. When you have too many characters, then it becomes too hard to give proper time for each individual character's story to be told. They have..what..60 guys on the roster? Not counting whoever is signed or will be signed soon? And two hours of prgoramming each week? and they've made it a point to dedicate at least 20 minutes to the Knockouts? Not possible. Which is why Impact is such a hot mess most of the time.

So predictable. But so good.

Right. But whenever this issue gets brought up, you want TNA to hire everyone and anyone and then still try to run coherent storylines. IMO they need to cut the roster by almost half. And 3D have served their purpose.

This.

Possibly. But the Nastys suck.

I wouldve fired 3D and never hired the Nastys and then built a tag division around my relevant talent. And no..I dont think we've even gone back to the game since Val showed up.

Before tonight it was Tyson Tomko. But now..it could be anyone. NOOOO! not a commercial break!

No. Only the hardcore TNA nutjobs would really disagree. TFC is right..the payoff didn't do anything for anyone because instead of a proper ending, they just sort of let the MEM fade away. Morgan should have been made by his feud with Angle, but look at where he's at now.

Nasty Boys are a poor man's Public Enemy. True story.