|
Post by worldbreaker on Aug 11, 2010 20:50:11 GMT -5
Saying there is no potential for new fans is retarded. If TNA did something different rather than copying other companies then maybe they'd bring new fans in. Everything they've done lately is copying someone. If they were actually their own brand and developed definitive usps then maybe they'd got more fans. It is true they have had a usp now and then but they ALWAYS fuck it up somehow. There is a potential for new fans. There is also a potential that the Sun will fall out of the sky tomorrow. People who make that bolded comment know very little about professional wrestling. It is a standard tradition for feds to take something successful that a competitor has done and copy it. The second most moronic comment is the "filled with ex-WWE" guys. I expect that one from you next. "Fuck it up" is subjective. Considering that their ratings for the most part are stable, they keep the fans they have.
|
|
Taylor
Senatorial Stable
Posts: 255
|
Post by Taylor on Aug 11, 2010 21:26:20 GMT -5
A wrestling company needs to expand to be successful, that includes bringing in new fans. Plateuing at the same rating forever proves nothing other than you have a product that isn't good enough to attract people to it. If they had USPs that drew people in instead of being a WWE clone then they would be able to expand and maintain it. Being an ECW clone is equally stupid. They need to be TNA, you can argue that they were before but there are still many things they could do to really create a definitive brand. They have a lot of wrestling brains they could use but it seems these people, just like YOU are stuck in the past. TNA is never going to be successful aka able to expand and keep fans until they create new USPs which make it different from other feds out there. You can say everything has already been done..that's BS. They could do a hell of a lot to shake the show up - sure it would be risky but you have to take risks to be successful.
|
|
|
Post by worldbreaker on Aug 11, 2010 22:01:16 GMT -5
A wrestling company needs to expand to be successful, that includes bringing in new fans. Plateuing at the same rating forever proves nothing other than you have a product that isn't good enough to attract people to it. If they had USPs that drew people in instead of being a WWE clone then they would be able to expand and maintain it. Being an ECW clone is equally stupid. They need to be TNA, you can argue that they were before but there are still many things they could do to really create a definitive brand. They have a lot of wrestling brains they could use but it seems these people, just like YOU are stuck in the past. TNA is never going to be successful aka able to expand and keep fans until they create new USPs which make it different from other feds out there. You can say everything has already been done..that's BS. They could do a hell of a lot to shake the show up - sure it would be risky but you have to take risks to be successful. Your first points are relevant but also apply to the WWE. Your second point is wrong. You do not need to develop your own stars to become successful and this has been proven NUMEROUS times. Vince basically stole all of the rock and wrestling guys from the AWA, NWA, Stampede and elsewhere. He did not create his own stars, most kept their same gimmicks from those places. The only difference was he gave them a platform and exposure and hit the jackpot. Again, that is not development, that is money thrown on a product to increase it, something again TNA does not have. WCW became successful using the same formula in the 90's. Vince stole nearly the entire attitude era from Paul Heyman.As I said earlier, pro wrestling's history is almost entirely built off this philosophy and if you don't think so I would ask you to school yourself and find some credibility. At the end of the day it basically boils down to WHO HAS THE MOST MONEY. Turner, McMahon - it is all the same. You can take two wrestling products, both being virtually the same and the viewer will watch the one that looks more "pretty and epic." ECW is the perfect case of this. Their formula was not successful on a national stage due to the fact how they displayed their product. Vince took the idea, slapped money on it and it blew up overnight.
|
|
|
Post by Kim Jong CP on Aug 12, 2010 0:28:12 GMT -5
Your second point is wrong. You do not need to develop your own stars to become successful and this has been proven NUMEROUS times. Vince basically stole all of the rock and wrestling guys from the AWA, NWA, Stampede and elsewhere. He did not create his own stars, most kept their same gimmicks from those places. The only difference was he gave them a platform and exposure and hit the jackpot. Again, that is not development, that is money thrown on a product to increase it, something again TNA does not have. WCW became successful using the same formula in the 90's. Vince stole nearly the entire attitude era from Paul Heyman.As I said earlier, pro wrestling's history is almost entirely built off this philosophy and if you don't think so I would ask you to school yourself and find some credibility. This is the truest statement in this entire thread. It's almost sickening how right TK is and that everyone appears to be jumping down his throat. I love great wrestling as much as the next person but I can find that anywhere. It's why I buy certain DVD's, watch Puroresu/PWG/ROH and a lot of old AWA/Stampede stuff. What I have trouble finding a lot of is great storylines ... something that TK has always advocated for and where I find some semblance of fault in TNA because it's not the re-hashing that I find problematic, it's how things seem incredibly hokey. They already used 'Janice' with Black Reign and 'Darkness Falls'. Instead of putting the title on the top of the ladder, they're sticking that fucking stick, it's absolutely stupid. You can have the best work rate guys putting on an hour classic and sure I'll watch, but one of the greatest matches ever in my opinion was Owen Hart vs. Bret Hart in a steel cage. For nearly two years they built into that and even knowing the result, every time Owen made a mad dash for the cage I wanted Bret to catch him. On it's own, that match is really lack luster, they spend over half of it just knocking each other along the cage and it'd be otherwise boring, but the build up made it incredibly intriguing. That is what wrestling needs, is story telling that makes sense, brings the people in and give them a reason to care about who wins or loses. I don't care if Abyss wacks RVD with the title, don't care if he wins the title. Removing this level of apathy in myself and other wrestling fans is how TNA can bring in a new audience ... say as Taylor and Freeman want, which ironically enough, is the old audience that TK speaks of that WOULD come back to wrestling if it were appealing.
|
|
|
Post by Dan White on Aug 12, 2010 0:35:25 GMT -5
But it's less about the older wrestling fans and more about bringing in younger fans. WWE have done this excellently. They appealed to the younger generation in the early to mid 90s, grew them up in the Attitude Era, and then for the first 3-4 years afterwards a good deal of those fans left, prompting the WWE to start over (hence this PG thing).
What do TNA want to do? If they want to grow as a company, then they're probably going to have to compete for those new potential fans and as a result, change their company to a more preteen-friendly programme. But if they want to stick out and continue going down the path they're on (which is fine), they're gonna neither gain nor lose out on fans, so it's a catch-22. I reckon that TNA aren't gonna realistically compete with the WWE for a long long time, until they know that they can compete against them and not be forced to change their direction. And I think that works fine for them. I just wish that they wouldn't keep referring to the WWE (directly or indirectly) because it's embarrassing, and they don't need to do that. They should be focusing on themselves, not others. The WWE makes sure that they mention nothing of people's past because they don't want people looking up their history (unless it's to ridicule them, like Danielson). By referring to the WWE, surely that might spark one fan to go "hey, I wonder what they're doing right now?" and switch over.
|
|
|
Post by Kim Jong CP on Aug 12, 2010 0:40:35 GMT -5
I reckon that TNA aren't gonna realistically compete with the WWE for a long long time, until they know that they can compete against them and not be forced to change their direction. And I think that works fine for them. I just wish that they wouldn't keep referring to the WWE (directly or indirectly) because it's embarrassing, and they don't need to do that. They should be focusing on themselves, not others. The WWE makes sure that they mention nothing of people's past because they don't want people looking up their history (unless it's to ridicule them, like Danielson). By referring to the WWE, surely that might spark one fan to go "hey, I wonder what they're doing right now?" and switch over. I don't necessarily agree with the first statement because how many of those 'old guys' now have kids who will get hooked on wrestling. I know that's how I did, the same as Kenny did if I recall correctly. It actually makes sense to bring those guys in, and just put in enough to keep the kids in front of the TV sets. As for the quoted part I agree, but when you look, WCW started as Jim Crockett Promotions and had twenty years before Turner came in ... infused 100 million dollars into it then became big. It gets back to what TK said in that if the money was added to TNA, they'd compete ... but that money was also the downfall of WCW. There needs to be fiscal responsibility, a steady growth with a gradual increase in expenditures, the same as TNA is doing? First Christian, then Angle, now Hogan and RVD.
|
|
VorteX
Experienced Member
Stay a while...and listen.
Posts: 723
|
Post by VorteX on Aug 12, 2010 1:45:29 GMT -5
It's almost sickening how right TK is and that everyone appears to be jumping down his throat... FYI I think another way to phrase what TK is getting at is that wrestling without heart is useless. You can put two of the greatest athletes in the world in the ring together and it doesn't mean much if they just go at it without purpose.... Generalizations are bad CP . Anyway, unfortunately I doubt TNA is going to magically turn around and start building great stuff when they've had 8 or so years to do so. It would be great, yet we have Dixie who sees that Vince's product is successful and thus wants to emulate that instead of forging new ground. The main problem is, your average viewer who isn't on forums is so used to the way WWE does things that it is just 'normal'. There is no alternative for them as there really needs to be none, Vince provides enough old material to keep the new fans happy and thus never has to change. If you look to the 'new audience' (the children), they love John Cena and that's that. And why shouldn't they, he's some big invincible guy like Hogan or Austin or Rock was back in the day. It's almost as if it is impossible for TNA to move forward at this stage in the game. It's honestly like Boxing trying to take out the UFC at this point, it just isn't happening.
|
|
TWMoney
Senatorial Stable
Posts: 457
|
Post by TWMoney on Aug 12, 2010 15:16:59 GMT -5
Exactly. Everyone wants to jump down Cena's throat when all the big guys are built the same way. IMO Hogan is NOT THAT GREAT. Yes i like to watch him from time to time but thats only because of everything he was built up as in the past. He is the PERFECT example of someone who was the product of good writing. With out the right charchter and the perfect writing...Hogan would have never reached where he is today.
|
|
|
Post by worldbreaker on Aug 12, 2010 16:21:20 GMT -5
The WWE makes sure that they mention nothing of people's past because they don't want people looking up their history (unless it's to ridicule them, like Danielson). By referring to the WWE, surely that might spark one fan to go "hey, I wonder what they're doing right now?" and switch over. Oh yeah?
|
|
Jason Freeman
Competition Judge
Long Island Iced Free
Posts: 3,271
|
Post by Jason Freeman on Aug 12, 2010 16:29:15 GMT -5
I do agree that good stories are important as well, but TNA really has neither <_<
The WWE is where to go for stories. Nothing in wrestling is more epic than matches like HBK vs Flair at WM 24 and Taker vs Michaels at WM 26. But since TNA CANT do that, they might as well play to what they can, like X-division wrestling. There is a huge portion of the audience that are young kids that just watch WWE, and they've never seen it before. I know that's what hooked ME on TNA back in the day like six years ago. I had never seen anything like what they were doing before.
|
|
|
Post by worldbreaker on Aug 12, 2010 16:37:43 GMT -5
He is the PERFECT example of someone who was the product of good writing. With out the right charchter and the perfect writing...Hogan would have never reached where he is today. No, he has only himself to thank for his character and perhaps just a tiny bit of the AWA. Hulk Hogan made himself who he is with his charisma, appearance and microphone skills. All he had to do is talk wild, rip his shirt off and flex his muscles and the audience was HIS. That has nothing to do with writing. Vince deserves credit in the only fashion I have already talked about and that's giving Hogan the platform to perform. But that is not saying much because as I have proven, if you throw money on anything it is not that hard to get viewers. Also, take into consideration that today's wrestling fan is so ill informed I do not even react when I read things such as "LOL HOGAN SUX." Most of the people who make those comments did not grow up in the only two eras where wrestling dominated - two eras which were Hogan driven. It is the same as people saying Fred Fred Astaire was a bad actor because he worked in black and white films and nothing current that they have seen. Dan White is right that the WWE gets new viewers because they sold out to children. When you fire someone because an action figure company didn't want their customers to see someone getting choked with a tie that pretty much paints a picture on who you are. The only problem is in the old WWF the kids grew up and most still watched. Today, you "grow" out of the WWF because wrestling does not become cool as you grow older. Also, I expect Dan White to say "those videos are old." Yes, yes they are and they come from a time when Vince had his balls against the wall. When you threaten his profit, he does all the shit the smarks nail TNA for and this is proven. For the first time ever Vortex sums up my feelings in his post. Scary.
|
|
Jason Freeman
Competition Judge
Long Island Iced Free
Posts: 3,271
|
Post by Jason Freeman on Aug 12, 2010 16:52:47 GMT -5
But you can say the same (They just come out and the audience is THEIRS) about Orton and Cena, and you dont like them either. What makes Hogan better than them?
|
|
VorteX
Experienced Member
Stay a while...and listen.
Posts: 723
|
Post by VorteX on Aug 12, 2010 17:00:28 GMT -5
I'm thinking the difference is Cena and Orton are living off a proven formula (Hogan, Rock, Austin, etc.) and it may look like the same thing, however the old guys really had to play around with how a crowd would react and build off that, where the new guys can just look at what the old did and go 'oh that works, so let me do that'.
I think that's the main disparity today, as I mentioned before. When Hogan, Rock, and Austin did it, you had old and young people cheering for them. When Cena and Orton do it, you basically have kids who buy the merchandise going crazy for them and the older fans sitting back and going...you know what, we've seen this before...so there is no real reason to care here. That is not to say that someone like Cena lacks charisma...he has plenty of it. What he does lack is originality and overall age appeal, he's basically a children's Hogan and that's about it (thus is why he was strutting around at the Teen Choice awards...).
|
|
|
Post by worldbreaker on Aug 12, 2010 20:05:03 GMT -5
But you can say the same (They just come out and the audience is THEIRS) about Orton and Cena, and you dont like them either. What makes Hogan better than them?And Freeman, this is the part where I start ignoring you because you say something so inane that I cannot believe it. I don't even know if I should take the time to answer that, but if I did it would have the following typed in it: money, ratings and house hold name.
|
|
|
Post by worldbreaker on Aug 12, 2010 22:17:14 GMT -5
I do agree that good stories are important as well, but TNA really has neither <_< The WWE is where to go for stories. Nothing in wrestling is more epic than matches like HBK vs Flair at WM 24 and Taker vs Michaels at WM 26. But since TNA CANT do that, they might as well play to what they can, like X-division wrestling. There is a huge portion of the audience that are young kids that just watch WWE, and they've never seen it before. I know that's what hooked ME on TNA back in the day like six years ago. I had never seen anything like what they were doing before. Funny how I just said everyone in this current gen doesn't know how to entertain and to prove your point that WWE has better stories you immediately go to two guys from the past gen who do nothing but prove my point.
|
|