|
|
Post by Joe on Jun 21, 2006 14:11:03 GMT -5
Is this me, or does anyone get tired of TNA's number one contender, King of the Mountain, four man elemination matches, or whatever to see who gets a shot at the title. How bout, building a guy up, then moving him up towards the top of the card, building some heat for his title shot and having him face of the champ one on one Seems like there are tooooo many gimmick matches that aren't one on one in TNA Title matches. I made this exact point yesterday in this thread. The post got deleted, so I doubt anyone saw it, but I made the point. TNA, at least when Jarrett is champion, has always been overly-fond of running multiple-man, gimmick matches to crown a number one contender, only to then have the number one contender jump through a couple more hoops before getting his shot at Jarrett. The no. 1 contender then loses with a B.S. finish and falls back down the ladder of contention. I've been a pretty regular viewer of TNA over the past four years, and it seems that they do not stray too far from this formula. Before anyone of the pro-TNA guys jumps on me and points out an example of how the bookers didn't follow this formula, note that I said "seems." I realize this is not how every single program works, but there are elements of the formula in damn near every Jarrett angle since TNA's inception. |
|
|
|
Post by pistonhurricane on Jun 21, 2006 14:20:18 GMT -5
I want to like TNA.
I think it could be a great promotion.
I think a lot of their guys are talented.
But how many times are you going to decide your title situations in gimick matches or 4 way dances? I thought the TNA title, with its "history", is supposed to be about prestige?
|
|
|
|
Post by PureHatred on Jun 21, 2006 14:23:14 GMT -5
I have to admit, after months of bashin on TNA your opinion means zilch. How does being consistent make someone's opinion less important? Wouldn't it be the opposite. TNA makes a ton of booking mistakes. Often the same ones, repeatedly. So if a company makes the same stupid errors, then someone who criticizes the first mistake would probably criticize all the other ones as well. |
|
|
|
Post by swarm on Jun 21, 2006 14:36:40 GMT -5
I want to like TNA. I think it could be a great promotion. I think a lot of their guys are talented. But how many times are you going to decide your title situations in gimick matches or 4 way dances? I thought the TNA title, with its "history", is supposed to be about prestige? This is basically how I feel as well. If they got rid of about 15 guys on the roster that do nothing to help build up the future of the fed, and that stupid ring, TNA could be pretty good. They are like a growing flower bed that a bunch of old dogs keep taking leaks on each week. That's my analogy. |
|
|
|
Post by steelthunder814 on Jun 21, 2006 15:19:02 GMT -5
Ive said it for awhile TNA is WCW version 2.5 all they need now is David Arquette back and the stupidity will be complete!
|
|
|
|
Post by canadianpittbull on Jun 21, 2006 15:23:44 GMT -5
Ive said it for awhile TNA is WCW version 2.5 all they need now is David Arquette back and the stupidity will be complete! Don't say that! It might actually happen! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by steelthunder814 on Jun 21, 2006 15:24:51 GMT -5
Whoops!!!! time to put a south jersey hex on the idea!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by blueraider1 on Jun 21, 2006 16:54:44 GMT -5
sprinkle holywater on it so it will die.  |
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jimmyface on Jun 21, 2006 17:05:04 GMT -5
As I've always said, the state of your heavyweight title says VOLUMES about your federation. I don't care if it's COTG or TNA. If your title does not remain strong, it will mean less to the worker that wears it. As best, your heavyweight title should represent the pinnacle of the industry, and the dream of every wrestler in your company. But when booking becomes haphazard, titles become repeatedly disputed, and matches become inconclusive (ESPECIALLY on pay per view), you take away from that imagery and turn your title into just another prop.
I am not a TNA basher, and I want to see them and ECW succeed so I can enjoy watching 4 different wrestling shows in prime time weekly television. But if the last PPV is any indication of their direction, they are going to suffer. ECW gets off lighter due to their show being new and going through growing pains, but you'd think TNA would have gotten past bad booking by this point. I really hope they can find a way to make up for this bad show and get the show on the right track again. Their future is depending on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by traviz on Jun 21, 2006 18:31:16 GMT -5
Is there ANYONE who wanted to see Jarrett win that belt again? I can understand if he was getting great heel heat like Flair back in the late '80's, but they are purposely killing their own audience. I have to admit, the Ultimate Warrior was right when he said that TNA was Jarrett's "get-over fantasy"... and how often does anyone agree with Warrior?
|
|
|
|
Post by PureHatred on Jun 21, 2006 18:44:01 GMT -5
Is there ANYONE who wanted to see Jarrett win that belt again? I can understand if he was getting great heel heat like Flair back in the late '80's, but they are purposely killing their own audience. I have to admit, the Ultimate Warrior was right when he said that TNA was Jarrett's "get-over fantasy"... and how often does anyone agree with Warrior? When the Ultimate Warrior is your voice of reason, you're iun trouble. The TNA clones in the live audience don't give heel heat to anyone, so the only heat in TNA is "face/Iookat me I'm a smart" heat and Jeff Jarrett heat. |
|
|
|
Post by Chewey on Jun 21, 2006 21:00:13 GMT -5
I don't like Jarrett, but as long as the TNA faithful keep watching the program despite him holding the title, I will continue to fault the stupidity of TNA iMPACT Zone fans for Jarrett's push even over the questionable booking decisions of TNA management.
I watch less and less TNA these days, but I still can't stand the dueling chants in EVERY match when I do watch the program.
Jarrett getting bottles thrown at him only SUPPORTS the fact that he should be made champion... he's the only guy on the whole entire roster that can draw significant heel heat. Babyface Christian has been a horribly failed project. But he can't sustain heel heat with the iMPACT zone fans either, so how else would you play him?
If a significant portion of the iMPACT zone crowd would stop cheering for BOTH wrestlers in every matchup (and I don't doubt that there are probably fans who do participate in chanting both wrestlers' names at the same time), and started booing other wrestlers not named Jarrett, maybe TNA would have a few more options to book around.
Point #2: If TNA fans start abandoning their show in droves, maybe TNA management will finally find the folly of their ways, but my thought is that the current TNA fanbase is loyal enough to stick with TNA no matter what. The TNA booking team can have their way with this fanbase, and they'll still be there for the next show.
Sort of like how the current WWE fanbase is currently, although WWE has become much more entertaining in the last couple of months to their credit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jimmyface on Jun 21, 2006 21:38:15 GMT -5
Chewey brought up a point that made me think of something.
In Mick Foley's book "Have A Nice Day", he mentioned that when WCW did TV tapings in Orlando, they had a sign for the crowd to cheer and a sign for the crowd to boo. In other words, it was like an applause sign on the old sit coms from the 50's and 60's.
Does anyone know if they still use something like that in the TNA studio?
|
|
|
|
Post by Splattercat on Jun 22, 2006 2:43:57 GMT -5
If they do, they must have thrown out their boo sign...
|
|
|
|
Post by Splattercat on Jun 22, 2006 2:46:08 GMT -5
As I've always said, the state of your heavyweight title says VOLUMES about your federation. I don't care if it's COTG or TNA. If your title does not remain strong, it will mean less to the worker that wears it. As best, your heavyweight title should represent the pinnacle of the industry, and the dream of every wrestler in your company. But when booking becomes haphazard, titles become repeatedly disputed, and matches become inconclusive (ESPECIALLY on pay per view), you take away from that imagery and turn your title into just another prop. What does this say about Raw then..? They don't even HAVE a heavyweight title...To my knowledge, nobody on the show has mentioned anything about it either... |
|
|
|
Post by swarm on Jun 22, 2006 7:07:04 GMT -5
As I've always said, the state of your heavyweight title says VOLUMES about your federation. I don't care if it's COTG or TNA. If your title does not remain strong, it will mean less to the worker that wears it. As best, your heavyweight title should represent the pinnacle of the industry, and the dream of every wrestler in your company. But when booking becomes haphazard, titles become repeatedly disputed, and matches become inconclusive (ESPECIALLY on pay per view), you take away from that imagery and turn your title into just another prop. What does this say about Raw then..? They don't even HAVE a heavyweight title...To my knowledge, nobody on the show has mentioned anything about it either... What do you think Edge is fighting for in 4 days? Here's a hint, it ain't the ECW Title. |
|
|
|
Post by pistonhurricane on Jun 22, 2006 8:15:25 GMT -5
Chewey brought up a point that made me think of something. In Mick Foley's book "Have A Nice Day", he mentioned that when WCW did TV tapings in Orlando, they had a sign for the crowd to cheer and a sign for the crowd to boo. In other words, it was like an applause sign on the old sit coms from the 50's and 60's. Does anyone know if they still use something like that in the TNA studio? they do not use this at TNA tapings...it is interesting that they film TNA in the nickelodeon studios...heres hoping Jarrett throws his back out, and therefore vacates the title, slipping on some double dare slime.... |
|
|
|
Post by chris72 on Jun 23, 2006 17:08:27 GMT -5
I think putting the belt on jeff jarret wasn't a bad idea since he is the top heel in tna and the fans literally hate his guts(i.e.-the fire jarret chants on impact).But i think when you put the belt on your top heel you create alot of heat,especially with someone like jarret who people really want to see get beat.I also saw the heel heat he generated at slammaversary and loved it. i personally don't think jeff jarrett is that bad of a worker for his age,which i'm guessing he pushing 40.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris72 on Jun 23, 2006 17:09:23 GMT -5
I think putting the belt on jeff jarret wasn't a bad idea since he is the top heel in tna and the fans literally hate his guts(i.e.-the fire jarret chants on impact).But i think when you put the belt on your top heel you create alot of heat,especially with someone like jarret who people really want to see get beat.I also saw the heel heat he generated at slammaversary and loved it. i personally don't think jeff jarrett is that bad of a worker for his age,which i'm guessing he pushing 40.
|
|
|
|
Post by swarm on Jun 23, 2006 18:18:47 GMT -5
see that's the thing, people don't want to see Jarrett "get beat", they want to see him "get lost." big difference and not the kind of heat you want your "top heel" generating.
|
|
