|
|
Post by tafkaga on Oct 19, 2005 1:02:38 GMT -5
You should state this as an opinion, not a fact... because that is after all what it is.  I did state it as an opinion...not an english major are ya? But thanks for the advice Paint-light... Fact: I have to say it has not gotten any better. Opinion: I don't believe it has gotten any better. I was not attempting to nitpick grammar, I was mainly speaking from my belief that you've seemingly taken an adversarial position to TNA and can only see the flaws. |
|
|
|
Post by swarm on Oct 19, 2005 1:16:02 GMT -5
I've watched the show 2 straight weeks. It's bad.
Believe me, I wish it were better. But it's not.
The show, the roster, and the writing, both in and out of the ring are saddled with flaws. It's bush-league in the way the show is directed, including the audio, and especially the camera angles and shots...
They do nothing to add "star power" to any of the wrestlers, and build to PPV match-ups with predictable brawls following nearly every match...the matches themselves mean NOTHING if a guy can't celebrate with the fans all alone afterwards every once in a while...
The main guys are washed-up WWF cast-offs, and the guys who are carrying the company in the flag-ship X-divison are given little to no mic time (and when they are, they drop the ball), and are all way too small to be taken seriously over a long peroid of time at or near the top of the roster by any wrestling fan in this century...
If it were good, I would admit it. I love wrestling. But it's bad. It borders on "sucks", and it isn't getting any better.
|
|
|
|
Post by Big Bri on Oct 19, 2005 11:05:25 GMT -5
I enjoyed the show very much. It could use a few tweaks, but like I've said before, Rome wasn't built in a day. Let them get past "Bound For Glory" and then we can judge where they are going.
That "Bentley Bounce" thing was pretty innovative, even though the obvious TNA plants in the first 3 rows were the only ones doing it. I hope I'm wrong about that, but it did seem pretty obvious.
|
|
|
|
Post by tafkaga on Oct 19, 2005 14:28:08 GMT -5
I've watched the show 2 straight weeks. It's bad. Believe me, I wish it were better. But it's not. The show, the roster, and the writing, both in and out of the ring are saddled with flaws. It's bush-league in the way the show is directed, including the audio, and especially the camera angles and shots... They do nothing to add "star power" to any of the wrestlers, and build to PPV match-ups with predictable brawls following nearly every match...the matches themselves mean NOTHING if a guy can't celebrate with the fans all alone afterwards every once in a while... The main guys are washed-up WWF cast-offs, and the guys who are carrying the company in the flag-ship X-divison are given little to no mic time (and when they are, they drop the ball), and are all way too small to be taken seriously over a long peroid of time at or near the top of the roster by any wrestling fan in this century... If it were good, I would admit it. I love wrestling. But it's bad. It borders on "sucks", and it isn't getting any better. See if you would phrase your comments as an opinion, I would care...but you come on the forum and act like you have the authority to label something as "good" or "bad" ... and I suppose we're all just deluding ourselves by enjoying it? I suppose we're being irrational by backing it and being optimistic about its future? Do you realize that "good" and "bad" in this case are completely relative? This is why most others in this thread are remarking that they enjoyed it. If i went into the WWE forum and started saying "This is bad, I'm sorry... you may think it's good but it's not, it sucks... it's never going to get any better" you'd probably have a cow. Don't be so abrupt with your opinions. |
|
|
|
Post by thefamoustommyz on Oct 19, 2005 15:04:18 GMT -5
Okay guys...can we, and I'm ESPECIALLY looking at tafkaga here, stop with this "frank discussion" B.S. and get back to the flamewars and namecalling? I'm starting to think I've stumbled onto the wrong boards or something.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe on Oct 19, 2005 15:17:46 GMT -5
I thought any time a person states something dealing with his own personal taste, it is taken for granted by all those reading that it is a personal opinion. It doesn't matter if he prefaces the statement with "I believe..." or "I think..." It is assumed by the reader it is the writer's opinion.
I happen to agree with Swarm that, for the most part, TNA is pretty bad. I'll go one step further and say the only real improvement they have made in three years is taking Vince Russo off the air and getting rid of the ugly girls dancing in cages. The move to Florida also gave it a slightly less trailer park feel, so I suppose that is a step in the right direction, too.
People on this board have not diluded themselves into thinking the show is good, but they are overreacting with their praises of it. Perhaps this is because it is the first wrestling program with a national prime time deal outside of WWE in nearly five years. People want to like it, out of their questionable disdain for WWE and desire for an alternative, so therefore they do like it because they have low expectations.
Maybe I see TNA in the light I do because I have watched it pretty frequently since its inception and am not judging it on the "Rome wasn't built in a day" scale.
|
|
|
|
Post by thefamoustommyz on Oct 19, 2005 15:37:58 GMT -5
I like that..."questionable disdain"...so hard to believe there's anyone who couldn't be entertained by the McMahon family hour?
It is pretty cool though how Taboo Tuesday is being marketed with old WWE/F has-beens in all the top slots except the title match. Just saying.
My point is that I think both the pro-TNA and pro-WWE guys each go too far in their respective directions. But opinions vary and that's fine. Hell, I thought ECW always looked like bush league stunt wrestling, just on a far more idiotic scale than the X division because Bently and Sabin don't need to put each other through flaming tables.
And WCW produced a LOT of wrestlecrap (what fed hasn't?), but I would still have sat through any WCW show before I would have a WWF show. Just because to me, the good WCW stuff was better than the good WWF stuff. My opinion on that didn't really start to change until Russo came on board and turned WCW in WWF-Lite.
|
|
|
|
Post by swarm on Oct 19, 2005 15:50:21 GMT -5
I've watched the show 2 straight weeks. It's bad. Believe me, I wish it were better. But it's not. The show, the roster, and the writing, both in and out of the ring are saddled with flaws. It's bush-league in the way the show is directed, including the audio, and especially the camera angles and shots... They do nothing to add "star power" to any of the wrestlers, and build to PPV match-ups with predictable brawls following nearly every match...the matches themselves mean NOTHING if a guy can't celebrate with the fans all alone afterward every once in a while... The main guys are washed-up WWF cast-offs, and the guys who are carrying the company in the flag-ship X-divison are given little to no mic time (and when they are, they drop the ball), and are all way too small to be taken seriously over a long peroid of time at or near the top of the roster by any wrestling fan in this century... If it were good, I would admit it. I love wrestling. But it's bad. It borders on "sucks", and it isn't getting any better. See if you would phrase your comments as an opinion, I would care...but you come on the forum and act like you have the authority to label something as "good" or "bad" ... and I suppose we're all just deluding ourselves by enjoying it? I suppose we're being irrational by backing it and being optimistic about its future? Do you realize that "good" and "bad" in this case are completely relative? This is why most others in this thread are remarking that they enjoyed it. If i went into the WWE forum and started saying "This is bad, I'm sorry... you may think it's good but it's not, it sucks... it's never going to get any better" you'd probably have a cow. Don't be so abrupt with your opinions. People on here complain about the WWE all the time, myself included. Maybe you haven't ever read one of my "opinions" about HBK or The Undertaker... More importantly, I don't care what you think. I don't care what anyone thinks about TNA, or the WWE. Do you know why? Because it isn't my fed. I don't wrestle there, I don't write for them, and I don't work there. I have just as much right to express my opinions as everybody else on here, and in whichever way I choose too. It's not my fault if you can't decipher my English. No one else seems to have ever had a problem reading "fact" from "opinion" in any of my posts...and I've never hidden my feelings, so I'm not doing anything different than I ever have before. Really, it's a stupid thing to keep harping on me about. People act like TNA just opened their doors a few weeks ago. They have had a lot of time to improve, and I, along with many others, just don't see it. If you do, great. |
|
|
|
Post by Big Bri on Oct 19, 2005 19:27:08 GMT -5
I realize that TNA has been around for over three years now. My "Rome..." statement was pertaining to this new "era" of "Impact" being on Spike. TNA might have to tweak the show here and there to appeal to a different audience than it's accustomed to.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe on Oct 19, 2005 20:08:32 GMT -5
I like that..."questionable disdain"...so hard to believe there's anyone who couldn't be entertained by the McMahon family hour? It is pretty cool though how Taboo Tuesday is being marketed with old WWE/F has-beens in all the top slots except the title match. Just saying. My point is that I think both the pro-TNA and pro-WWE guys each go too far in their respective directions. But opinions vary and that's fine. Hell, I thought ECW always looked like bush league stunt wrestling, just on a far more idiotic scale than the X division because Bently and Sabin don't need to put each other through flaming tables. And WCW produced a LOT of wrestlecrap (what fed hasn't?), but I would still have sat through any WCW show before I would have a WWF show. Just because to me, the good WCW stuff was better than the good WWF stuff. My opinion on that didn't really start to change until Russo came on board and turned WCW in WWF-Lite. If the has-beens to which you are referring are Shawn Michaels and Ric Flair, those are two washed-up guys that can put on a better show in their sleep than anyone on TNA with the exception of perhaps, Styles and Daniels. Michaels and Flair would actually have to wake up to outperform those two. |
|
|
|
Post by thefamoustommyz on Oct 19, 2005 22:03:58 GMT -5
I was talking about Flair (along with Austin and Foley), but wasn't talking about Michaels...catch the "except the title match" part in there.
Flair's best years are LONG past, and his even decent in-ring performances are far and few between (one was against Angle, which isn't saying much, and the other against Carlito, which I credit Carlito for as much as I do Flait since everyone else stinks it up against Ric anymore)...
|
|
|
|
Post by Omen on Oct 20, 2005 8:58:37 GMT -5
Next week we may get our first title change on TV....When was the last time WWE did that for the Fans? Well just this year: Carlito beat Shelton for the I-C Title on RAW... MNM beat Eddie and Rey for the Tag Team Titles on Smackdown... Murdoch and Cade beat The Super Chumps for the Tag Team Titles on RAW... Eugene beat Angle for his medals on RAW... Nunzio beat Paul London for the Cruiserweight Title on Velocity... And Edge and Hardy had a great Ladder Match for the Money in the Bank contract on Raw. You call the gold medals a championship match...come on .... and the money in the bank is a shot at the titles not the Title...the tag team matches would count if the tag team division was not full of nothing...They don't even call them "World" tag team champions anymore....What about the the titles that Cena and Batista wear ... You know they will not change hands in TV....I do remember title changes in WCW but not in WWF/E... |
|
|
|
Post by Joe on Oct 20, 2005 9:03:24 GMT -5
If you were talking about TNA with that last statement, Tafkaga would tell you to state it as an opinion, but since you're talking about Ric Flair, I guess it's ok.
Flair, in my OPINION, can still have a good match with damn near anybody.
True enough, Austin is a shell of his former self, but all he has to do is show up to create excitement and sell tickets. The same cannot be said anymore for Kevin Nash or B.G. James, and it could never be said about Jeff Jarrett.
I don't know what Foley has left, but he entertains in every comeback match I have seen of his.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe on Oct 20, 2005 9:07:40 GMT -5
Well just this year: Carlito beat Shelton for the I-C Title on RAW... MNM beat Eddie and Rey for the Tag Team Titles on Smackdown... Murdoch and Cade beat The Super Chumps for the Tag Team Titles on RAW... Eugene beat Angle for his medals on RAW... Nunzio beat Paul London for the Cruiserweight Title on Velocity... And Edge and Hardy had a great Ladder Match for the Money in the Bank contract on Raw. You call the gold medals a championship match...come on .... and the money in the bank is a shot at the titles not the Title...the tag team matches would count if the tag team division was not full of nothing...They don't even call them "World" tag team champions anymore....What about the the titles that Cena and Batista wear ... You know they will not change hands in TV....I do remember title changes in WCW but not in WWF/E... I remember the title changes on WCW, too...almost every week. Is that what you want, Frank? If the Tag Team titles shouldn't count in WWE, then I gues TNA shouldn't have considered them either for the majority of their history, huh? After all, a great deal of the past three years has seen AMW battling a bunch of makeshift teams. The closest thing to a legit team was Daniels and Skipper, and they shot that all to hell by doing that stupid gimmick where the teams swapped partners. |
|
|
|
Post by swarm on Oct 20, 2005 11:10:16 GMT -5
Well just this year: Carlito beat Shelton for the I-C Title on RAW... MNM beat Eddie and Rey for the Tag Team Titles on Smackdown... Murdoch and Cade beat The Super Chumps for the Tag Team Titles on RAW... Eugene beat Angle for his medals on RAW... Nunzio beat Paul London for the Cruiserweight Title on Velocity... And Edge and Hardy had a great Ladder Match for the Money in the Bank contract on Raw. You call the gold medals a championship match...come on .... and the money in the bank is a shot at the titles not the Title...the tag team matches would count if the tag team division was not full of nothing...They don't even call them "World" tag team champions anymore....What about the the titles that Cena and Batista wear ... You know they will not change hands in TV....I do remember title changes in WCW but not in WWF/E... no I don't condsider the changing of the medals a championship belt... it was just an example of the moving and shaking the WWE does in fact do on TV. |
|
|
|
Post by pikemojo on Oct 21, 2005 17:31:44 GMT -5
I don't even want to get into this. I am excited for the match.
But to Joe, I really don't think you thought about that last statement before you typed it. AMW taking on makeshift teams? Team Canada, The Naturals, 3LK, Triple X? I agree that the partner swapping was dumb but there is no way you can call any of these teams makeshift. They have all been together practically since they joined TNA. It has been quite a while since I remember a makshift team making any real waves in TNA.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe on Oct 24, 2005 10:37:03 GMT -5
I don't even want to get into this. I am excited for the match. But to Joe, I really don't think you thought about that last statement before you typed it. AMW taking on makeshift teams? Team Canada, The Naturals, 3LK, Triple X? I agree that the partner swapping was dumb but there is no way you can call any of these teams makeshift. They have all been together practically since they joined TNA. It has been quite a while since I remember a makshift team making any real waves in TNA. They feuded with Hoyt and Kash. 3LK, by their own admission, were three guys who were thrown together because two of them, at the time, were in no shape to wrestle but they had names. Now, they are essentially two has-beens and one guy who has been hailed as great since he showed up but has always fallen short of a break-through. I mentioned Triple X, and the Naturals didn't show up until around the first of this year, so that still goes along with my statement of, "a great deal of the past three years." |
|
|
|
Post by thefamoustommyz on Oct 24, 2005 22:30:04 GMT -5
Um...The Naturals were around when I started watching Impact a year ago. In fact, they were already former tag team champions at that point.
Hoyt and Kash weren't "thrown together". Dunno if they were legit relatives, but they Hoyt was brought in as Kash's cousin...and even if 3LK WERE thrown together in the beginning (despite the fact that Killings and James were former tag team partners before TNA), they've been consistently together ever since.
Not saying you can't bash TNA, but *these* arguments don't hold water.
|
|
