|
|
Post by josharpie99 on Jan 31, 2006 22:06:00 GMT -5
From Lords of Pain....
TNA Impact finally scored a rating above a 1.0. Due to Sting's first appearance on national television since the demise of WCW, last Saturday's edition of TNA Impact managed to garner a record breaking 1.1 rating. An average 1.3 million viewers watched the show. Among Males 18-34 and Males 18-49, the episode did a 1.0 rating.
While 1.1 isn't a "stop the presses" type of thing, it is a good sign. I'm rooting for TNA (considering what happened on Smackdown! tapings this week, I can sense that TNA has an opportunity here...the WWE's poor showing at R.R. is an opportunity for TNA).
|
|
|
|
Post by gwffantrav on Jan 31, 2006 22:34:58 GMT -5
As much as everyone criticizes TNA, I try and watch every week, even if I tape it. We really need two promotions out there.
Even if you're strictly a WWE fan, you should watch if you can because if TNA succeeds, then the WWE will succeed to an even greater scale...
|
|
|
|
Post by pikemojo on Jan 31, 2006 23:15:32 GMT -5
It is kinda funny that the thing that is getting TNA so much heat recently got them their best rating thus far.
Just so everyone knows, that rating comes out to about 1.3 million viewers from what I have read.
|
|
|
|
Post by gatekeeper on Feb 1, 2006 0:54:19 GMT -5
As much as everyone criticizes TNA, I try and watch every week, even if I tape it. We really need two promotions out there. Even if you're strictly a WWE fan, you should watch if you can because if TNA succeeds, then the WWE will succeed to an even greater scale... I agree. TNA has a long way to go to get to WCW status as far as a competitor to Vince. But, since there has been no competition, the creative juices of the WWE haven't been as good like they were when they had direct competition. |
|
|
|
Post by LWPD on Feb 1, 2006 7:38:26 GMT -5
It is kinda funny that the thing that is getting TNA so much heat recently got them their best rating thus far. Pike the 'heat' you read on the Internet is paper thin compared to what appeals to most people who watch pro wres. It's actually become a repeated pattern for many of the booking topics that get 'trashed' on the Net (such as Diva Search, the importance of skits over matches, the importance of creating 'big men' stars, older 'big name' stars getting spotlighted) to wind up drawing the highest ratings, selling the most merch and making the most money for the promotions involved. The preferences of the typical 'smart fan' often has little in common with what the average casual pro wres consumer will watch and buy...and it's this larger universe which makes this whole thing possible. As a general rule Internet sentiment is a contrarious indicator of what appeals to the general public on any topic. In any entertainment, political, social genre the people who watch, think and talk about an activity/concept/whatever far more than the average person tend to 'fall out' of the original demo that's being targeted. Sting's popping the highest PPV Buy and Impact Television Rating in the company's history while his signing was being bashed as _BAD FOR BUSINESS_ by those ironically labeled as 'smart fans' is just par for the course.
Like Watching Paint Dry (who remembers the old Undertaker quote on the irrelevance of Internet sentiment...a guy who constantly gets 'heat' on the Net for a variety of reasons but just broke a single brand PPV record that hasn't been touched in years...welcome to the real world of what really 'works' in a worked form of entertainment  )
"I don't really have too many positive things to say about the Internet. A lot of people are self professed experts that have never been in the ring, never booked a territory and never been responsible for their writing actions. But a lot of people can sit back and criticize what we do. I try not to pass judgments till I walked in someone’s shoes.
If it was up to the Internet and we did what they suggested there would be a lot whole lot less people watching. They are a very small group. I am not talking about all of the Internet. There are a lot of fan based sites that are really good and fans who are knowledgeable and understand it for what it is. People just need to remember that we do this for their entertainment and should stop critiquing and enjoy it for what it is."-Undertaker dropping science |
|
|
|
Post by Wad on Feb 1, 2006 14:05:13 GMT -5
If it was up to the Internet and we did what they suggested there would be a lot whole lot less people watching. ... People just need to remember that we do this for their entertainment and should stop critiquing and enjoy it for what it is." [/i] -Undertaker dropping science[/quote] Undertaker is right about the IWC sites that inject fantasy booking into every criticism of the product. I have written film and theater criticism for newspapers, and one thing to keep in mind is to be the critic, not the director or producer. You judge each product on its own merits, not by what you wish the production included to curry your interests. Criticism is inevitable in everybody, though, and Undertaker's defense that everyone must only shut up and watch because they are mere viewers is limp. That means fans have to enjoy every Katie Vick for every Chris Benoit mat clinic in equity. Not everything WWE or any federation has to put on is perfect. Even great programs have weak moments. But to say that only wrestlers have the right to criticize the product because they are professionals, or the flipside is that fans have no standing in the matter, is to demand that the entire audience must be sheep. The worst thing to happen is when the people in the business get tired of all the criticism and begin to antagonize the "smarter" fan base. You saw this during Vince Russo's booking tenure in WCW, and an even better example is "The Simpsons." A lot of fans believed the show jumped the shark anywhere from the late 1990s to the first years of the 2000s. The production team faced several challenges: Matt Groening focusing more attention on "Futurama," the flood of adult-oriented animation in this decade, and harsh criticism from the die-hard fans. The writers and producers took the last one personally and began to make episodes more self-referential as a sort of pissing contest with the fans. The writers obviously "read their press" and knew they were getting negative reactions, but to them, a reaction is a reaction. So they began baiting the fans even more by patching together everything the fans now hate: inside jokes, one-dimensional characters and cribbing from the "shock-value-for-its-own-sake" style of South Park to the absurd non-sequiturs of Seth McFarlane's cartoons. Obviously, with regards to "The Simpsons," I share the sympathies of its fans, as I was one myself. I think the show jumped the shark at around the time "Futurama" premiered, and since then the shows have been bad more consistently than good. However, I am a wrestling fan and probably most "Simpsons" fans aren't, so I am familiar with the concept of working the crowd. The show's fans are screaming for episodes they want to see, but they don't realize they are getting it. Fantasy bookers should be careful what they wish for, because they just might get what they want: acknowledgement. |
|
|
|
Post by josharpie99 on Feb 1, 2006 21:13:18 GMT -5
Wad and LWPD....way too deep, gentlemen. Hahaha...I just thought we'd congratulate TNA for a nice rating (it really isn't that awe-inspiring..but it was a nice rating). Instead, I'm bored with reading your posts...sorry guys. I love posting in this forum but there are some people who take their knowledge about wrestling way too seriously. It's fun...enjoy....and unless you're paid a handsome salary by a wrestling organization, no need for the long tiresome posts about really....nothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by swarm on Feb 1, 2006 23:15:05 GMT -5
Wad and LWPD....way too deep, gentlemen. Hahaha...I just thought we'd congratulate TNA for a nice rating (it really isn't that awe-inspiring..but it was a nice rating). Instead, I'm bored with reading your posts...sorry guys. I love posting in this forum but there are some people who take their knowledge about wrestling way too seriously. It's fun...enjoy....and unless you're paid a handsome salary by a wrestling organization, no need for the long tiresome posts about really....nothing. agreed. I don't have to give a three page book report on the history of the Hoover Vacuum to tell you the Undertaker sucks...it's just wrestling. |
|
|
|
Post by LWPD on Feb 2, 2006 7:00:53 GMT -5
Josharpie
While I respect that you have your own posting style preferences, try to keep in mind that a message board can be very diverse in it's membership and their ideals. The tone and content level one poster may view as 'fun' may be considered as utter dreck and stupidity by someone else. What another considers 'too serious' another may consider a standard of basic competency that bridges together those worth interacting with. In my eyes there's no harm no foul in that...it's just a case of different strokes for different folks.
Personally I get bored by posts where there's little in the way of substance, or when someone makes a blanket statement without giving me a link or citation for broader reference, or when there's just no semblance of intelligent thought behind what's being posted. Also posts that appear to be written by someone I view as on the 'slow' side get little more than a split glance. I just don't read those posts because that stuff is boring to me. I enjoy posts that respectfully challenge my thinking or result in me learning something new or perhaps in a more comprehensive way. The topic can be anything (even pro wres) but that's the standard of what's 'fun' for me and I try to give back at that same level.
Publicly announcing periods of 'boredom' when I run across posts that don't appeal to me probably wouldn't be a good idea. I just ignore what I don't like and move on. Maybe that would be a more productive approach for you to take in attempting to solve your 'boredom' dilemma?
Like Watching Paint Dry (who is probably guilty of 'boring' Josharpie in the process of this post...but I can live with that ;D)
Such labored nothings,
In so strange a style,
Amaze the unlearned,
And make the learned smile
-Alexander Pope (who grasped the appeal of message board posting long before it's time)
|
|
|
|
Post by LWPD on Feb 2, 2006 7:49:46 GMT -5
That's a great standard to shoot for...even if it's impossible to perfectly attain. When reading an analysis about anything I enjoy when such an approach is combined with as many first person perspectives as possible. In between the meshing of all of that 'somewhere' lies elements of 'truth'.
I think there's also an importance in acknowledging the limits inherent in one's perspective. With anything there's bound to be a division of what one knows and understands based upon first hand experiences. When a fan's experience with pro wres doesn't reach beyond their television set they are experiencing a very different 'reality' than a guy like Undertaker who's been very successful doing this as a job for over a decade, is working through injuries with responsibilities 'not seen on television' ...while what 'is being seen' is limited by terms set by the road agents and others in terms of 'what he can do' inside the ring.
When this same guy does his job effectively and is productive in the eyes of Vince...who sees an even 'broader picture' of the results (internal surveys, ratings, merch sales, per appearance revenue, etc) something is definitely being lost in translation when a mindless goof types that he 'sucks' on a message board. I think that's where the 'not passing judgments till one walks in my shoes' line rings most true. It's just not that simplistic.
I never really watched The Simpsons...but I don't think Vince Russo ever 'intentionally' antagonized the 'smarter' fan base. If anything he drastically overestimated the degree online sentiment reflected his viewing audience and geared his writing toward trying to entertain that demo. In public appearances he bragged about attempting to 'swerve' the audience while using insider terms on air that made little sense to anyone.
He wanted to challenge them and 'keep them watching' while not realizing that they weren't nearly as large of a demo as he deluded himself into thinking they were. Not to mention the content in execution was just horrid regardless of who he was targeting. He was just too in over his head.
Like Watching Paint Dry (who has a very difficult time believing Russo rose so far in the pro wres business whenever I hear him speak publicly)
|
|
|
|
Post by gatekeeper on Feb 2, 2006 9:21:21 GMT -5
LWPD,
Why do you abbreviate "pro wrestling" when your posts are 10 years long?
|
|
|
|
Post by Wad on Feb 3, 2006 18:28:35 GMT -5
To josharpie99 and Swarm: LWPD summed up my thoughts on the matter well.
As for LWPD, I took the Undertaker comment as a swipe at the more articulate internet columnists, saying that their comments are as worthless as those who say he sucks without being able to back up that assertion.
I'm sure that Undertaker, being the seasoned performer he is, can take a million juvenile sucks comments and let it slide, but just have a few fans who can really dissect his performance and come to that same conclusion, and he'd take it very personally. How he chooses to respond to it is his business.
Undertaker, for the most part, acknowledges his press and then chooses to be above it. JBL's behavior seems to be to not only read his press, but actively antagonize them. This, in a way, can be good, as the WWE has figured out a way to work the smarks without knowing that they are being worked. And, it's not done in such a scenery-chewing manner as Vince Russo's WCW tenure or the last 8 seasons of "The Simpsons."
Wad (who wants to see what happens when IWC poster boy Chris Benoit does a William Shatner and tells his biggest fans to get a life)[/i]
|
|
|
|
Post by Big Bri on Feb 3, 2006 20:14:38 GMT -5
Wad (who wants to see what happens when IWC poster boy Chris Benoit does a William Shatner and tells his biggest fans to get a life) [/i][/quote] Well, his promo skills are so bad that if he did tell me that, I probably wouldn't believe him. Hey now, all of Benoit's fans aren't "IWC marks" for him... Big Bri (who has been a hardcore Chris Benoit fan since spotting him in the NWA World Tag Team Title Tournament during a Clash Of The Champions in June 1992, long before he had even heard of the internet, let alone used the damn thing, and who didn't join an internet discussion board [this one] until AFTER Benoit had won the World Title). |
|
|
|
Post by Wad on Feb 3, 2006 21:21:41 GMT -5
Wad (who wants to see what happens when IWC poster boy Chris Benoit does a William Shatner and tells his biggest fans to get a life) [/i][/quote] Well, his promo skills are so bad that if he did tell me that, I probably wouldn't believe him.[/quote] Many people who aren't great speakers make up for it by writing really well. We may end up seeing it on the web. Oh, the irony. Wad, (who, by blatantly imitating LWPD's post-script, is only helping it become a COTG Proboards meme )[/i] |
|
|
|
Post by Wad on Feb 3, 2006 21:41:37 GMT -5
I never really watched The Simpsons... You are the second person I have known to admit that. Scott Keith also wrote about the same phenomenon in his anti-Russo tract. Russo's tenure was such a fiasco because he assumed that if he played to the audience who knew who he was and what he did, he'd be thought of as a genius. His stuff went over the heads of most of the audience, and the smarks knew about the inside baseball but didn't want to see it become the focus of what was on TV. It won over no one and helped snowball WCW into its own demise. That's also WCW management's fault. The late 1990s was marked with corporate believing any former WWF guy being a rainmaker. Vince Russo was there for the Attitude era, but at least the McMahons knew who were the boss. Attitude carried on beyond Russo, while Russo was just another one of WCW's misfires. |
|
|
|
Post by Big Bri on Feb 3, 2006 22:00:29 GMT -5
I never watched the Simpsons either. The initial overexposure in 1990 turned me off after a few episodes, sort of like John Cena after about three weeks on RAW.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwffantrav on Feb 3, 2006 22:08:42 GMT -5
I actually didn't watch the Simpson until around the 3rd or 4th season. Like Bri said, overexposure.
Now how in the heck is the Simpson is still on the air. I guess they're taking the old Cornette saying, "You can recycle a wrestling angle every 6 years...", except they're taking it every 3 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by LWPD on Feb 4, 2006 7:16:41 GMT -5
If that happens I may have to sue on the grounds of 'gimmick infringement' 
Like Watching Paint Dry (who notes even the Tripster may back me up on this one)
|
|
|
|
Post by Wad on Feb 8, 2006 13:43:25 GMT -5
If that happens I may have to sue on the grounds of 'gimmick infringement'
The hard part is that you would have to prove how you suffered financially or emotionally. And for the Simpsons skeptics, I recommend you get the DVDs of Seasons 4 through 8. This was when the show was at the top of its brilliance. Some of the best television ever. Wad (who finds its strange that the media law class taken over 7 years ago comes in handy to defend meme-creation) |
|
)
