James Casey Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 I think TNA will benefit massively from their upcoming move to two hours of TV. More time to develop feuds and wrestlers, more time for workers to create personas and practise promos, more time for matches... I don't think too much is wrong with TNA, to be honest - but I'm not a regular enough viewer to pretend that I get it all. I would like to see some of the workers who've been around a while change their act a little, though. Sting, the 3 Dudleys, Jeff Jarrett... These acts haven't changed since 1999. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's always good to keep moving. At least Jarrett is out of the title scene for the time being - at least six months away from the main event, please, Jeff. * Raw is in dire need of some vertical movement among the wrestlers. No-one has moved up or down the card all year long. A New Talent Initiative a la Smackdown would help matters here - so long as the new guys were a) ready for the upper card, and b) treated as being ready. How Shelton Benjamin and Charlie Haas have ended up misfiring is anyone's guess. A reunion of the WGTT would make everyone happy, I'm sure. * Smackdown could also do with a little freshening up top. The men on top are overwhelmingly veterans. While the passion is clearly still there, it's kinda embarrassing to see Undertaker still in the main event after fifteen years. Otherwise, I don't think the blue brand is in bad shape at all. Both sides could do with improved tag divisions. Raw's is okay in terms of quantity, but surely if you had to pick two men to team up from Val Venis, Charlie Haas and Viscera, you'd leave the pyjama guy out of the equation. Smackdown seems to break up teams as soon as they wrestle ten matches. The Mexicools are gone, Kid Kash has been let go, Gymini have disappeared (not a bad thing), the Dicks were a joke, Finlay and Regal had chemistry, but broke up... Tag wrestling between settled, talented teams has always done well (Think E&C/Dudleys/Hardys a few years back) so why the bookers don't go back for more, I'm not sure... * To paraphrase Mick Foley, wrestling is a circus, and like any circus, you need a little bit of everything to keep people's interest. Clowns, tigers, acrobats, rope walkers... The talent is there in TNA and WWE - a little of everything, right? Using that talent correctly is the trick. Of course, it's not easy - as much as us armchair bookers like to think we'd know what to do, we don't have an entire roster to keep happy, hundreds of jobs relying on us, the pressure of deciding whom to push, who to revamp, how to make a title meaningful... And if we were to just hire our favourite wrestlers, well, how'd that make us any better than the hoss-a-maniac that is VKM, or the Narcississt, Jeff Jarrett? To be honest, it's amazing we've got as many good memories to look back on as we do. Let's not forget that while we had Stone Cold vs. Shawn Michaels, or the nWo formation, at much the same time we had Rockabilly, Judy Bagwell, and Terry Funk with pantyhose on his head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Casey Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 I think TNA will benefit massively from their upcoming move to two hours of TV. More time to develop feuds and wrestlers, more time for workers to create personas and practise promos, more time for matches... I don't think too much is wrong with TNA, to be honest - but I'm not a regular enough viewer to pretend that I get it all. I would like to see some of the workers who've been around a while change their act a little, though. Sting, the 3 Dudleys, Jeff Jarrett... These acts haven't changed since 1999. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's always good to keep moving. At least Jarrett is out of the title scene for the time being - at least six months away from the main event, please, Jeff. * Raw is in dire need of some vertical movement among the wrestlers. No-one has moved up or down the card all year long. A New Talent Initiative a la Smackdown would help matters here - so long as the new guys were a) ready for the upper card, and b) treated as being ready. How Shelton Benjamin and Charlie Haas have ended up misfiring is anyone's guess. A reunion of the WGTT would make everyone happy, I'm sure. * Smackdown could also do with a little freshening up top. The men on top are overwhelmingly veterans. While the passion is clearly still there, it's kinda embarrassing to see Undertaker still in the main event after fifteen years. Otherwise, I don't think the blue brand is in bad shape at all. Both sides could do with improved tag divisions. Raw's is okay in terms of quantity, but surely if you had to pick two men to team up from Val Venis, Charlie Haas and Viscera, you'd leave the pyjama guy out of the equation. Smackdown seems to break up teams as soon as they wrestle ten matches. The Mexicools are gone, Kid Kash has been let go, Gymini have disappeared (not a bad thing), the Dicks were a joke, Finlay and Regal had chemistry, but broke up... Tag wrestling between settled, talented teams has always done well (Think E&C/Dudleys/Hardys a few years back) so why the bookers don't go back for more, I'm not sure... * To paraphrase Mick Foley, wrestling is a circus, and like any circus, you need a little bit of everything to keep people's interest. Clowns, tigers, acrobats, rope walkers... The talent is there in TNA and WWE - a little of everything, right? Using that talent correctly is the trick. Of course, it's not easy - as much as us armchair bookers like to think we'd know what to do, we don't have an entire roster to keep happy, hundreds of jobs relying on us, the pressure of deciding whom to push, who to revamp, how to make a title meaningful... And if we were to just hire our favourite wrestlers, well, how'd that make us any better than the hoss-a-maniac that is VKM, or the Narcississt, Jeff Jarrett? To be honest, it's amazing we've got as many good memories to look back on as we do. Let's not forget that while we had Stone Cold vs. Shawn Michaels, or the nWo formation, at much the same time we had Rockabilly, Judy Bagwell, and Terry Funk with pantyhose on his head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mystic Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 [QUOTE=James Casey;159716]I think TNA will benefit massively from their upcoming move to two hours of TV. More time to develop feuds and wrestlers, more time for workers to create personas and practise promos, more time for matches... [/QUOTE] no doubt they will benefit [B]when [/B]they get their second hour. I see this test next show as a test run to see how a two hour show will work for spike tv. The only questions spike tv really has to deal with now from a scheduling point is when to offically give them 2 hours and do they move the show to a different day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mystic Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 [QUOTE=James Casey;159716]I think TNA will benefit massively from their upcoming move to two hours of TV. More time to develop feuds and wrestlers, more time for workers to create personas and practise promos, more time for matches... [/QUOTE] no doubt they will benefit [B]when [/B]they get their second hour. I see this test next show as a test run to see how a two hour show will work for spike tv. The only questions spike tv really has to deal with now from a scheduling point is when to offically give them 2 hours and do they move the show to a different day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djthefunkchris Posted November 14, 2006 Author Share Posted November 14, 2006 [QUOTE=mystic;159727]no doubt they will benefit [B]when [/B]they get their second hour. I see this test next show as a test run to see how a two hour show will work for spike tv. The only questions spike tv really has to deal with now from a scheduling point is when to offically give them 2 hours and do they move the show to a different day.[/QUOTE] Do you have proof that TNA not being two hours is a spike tv request? I don't mean undeniable truth, I just mean is that something you read on a respectable websight or something, even TNA's would be ok with me. I was always under the impression it was TNA's decision that they only want one hour. This is just my opinion, but I think they are trying to make one good hot HOUR before committing to a two hour show. Remember the cost is alot more for two hours then one hour. I was also under the impression that the two hour special for the kick off of the new time slot was exactly that, and maybe an underlying test for TNA to see how it goes, not Spike TV. These are things I am talking about from the original post. What is the real truth here. I can understand from someone's point of view that just thinks TNA is the "Best" show around, thinking it would be only on everyone else's back as to why they don't get the time slot they should, or the two hour slot, etc. I just can't help thinking that after being able to hold a fan base, and a pretty good rating (much better then alot of shows that Spike TV has to offer), that Spike TV would actually deny them the time frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djthefunkchris Posted November 14, 2006 Author Share Posted November 14, 2006 [QUOTE=mystic;159727]no doubt they will benefit [B]when [/B]they get their second hour. I see this test next show as a test run to see how a two hour show will work for spike tv. The only questions spike tv really has to deal with now from a scheduling point is when to offically give them 2 hours and do they move the show to a different day.[/QUOTE] Do you have proof that TNA not being two hours is a spike tv request? I don't mean undeniable truth, I just mean is that something you read on a respectable websight or something, even TNA's would be ok with me. I was always under the impression it was TNA's decision that they only want one hour. This is just my opinion, but I think they are trying to make one good hot HOUR before committing to a two hour show. Remember the cost is alot more for two hours then one hour. I was also under the impression that the two hour special for the kick off of the new time slot was exactly that, and maybe an underlying test for TNA to see how it goes, not Spike TV. These are things I am talking about from the original post. What is the real truth here. I can understand from someone's point of view that just thinks TNA is the "Best" show around, thinking it would be only on everyone else's back as to why they don't get the time slot they should, or the two hour slot, etc. I just can't help thinking that after being able to hold a fan base, and a pretty good rating (much better then alot of shows that Spike TV has to offer), that Spike TV would actually deny them the time frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.