|
|
Post by sean™ on Apr 15, 2009 9:23:00 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure if they added a second show on TV, it would just be Inside The Actors Studio, but with their roster instead of interesting people. Russo: So I said to him "Why don't we just put it on a poll?" Borash: Absolutely Existencial... |
|
|
|
Post by Jimmy on Apr 15, 2009 10:12:52 GMT -5
My brother said it best a few weeks ago. He said when watching TNA he feels like he's watching a documentary because of how much guys talk about what they did in WWE, WCW or ECW. i'm really never a fan of talking about your competition, ESPECIALLY if they are more popular than you. my favorite was WCW in 1999 when Russo took over, where entire storylines were based on storylines from the WWF (ie: The Montreal Screwjob and Goldberg/Bret). it's like "wait, why am I watching this shitty WCW show when I could be watching the WWF?" |
|
warmachine76
Main Eventer
Big Sexy! I'm gonna kick your ass from here to Jacksonville!
Joined on: May 30, 2006 13:43:20 GMT -5
Posts: 1,032
|
Post by warmachine76 on Apr 15, 2009 11:14:22 GMT -5
I have to agree that the "TNA owns WWE" statement is just goofy and that is coming from a TNA die hard. I also agree that TNA shouldn't do a brand split, EVER. WWE should have never done the brand split. I think it has completely diminished the value of their titles and in my opinion it actually hurts their ratings. It divides their viewing audience. Why would that ever be a good idea? I don't have a problem with them having three shows but all three should just feature the entire WWE roster. I know they have a ton of contracted wrestlers but, feuds don't have to revolve around title belts to be entertaining. However that would take creativity and in my opinion WWE is a wasteland for creativity these days. After watching E:60 last night I understand why. As I watched Triple H examining the script for the part where he buries another deserving younger talent. I have always thought that active wrestlers have no business being on the booking team.
Now I may be in the minority but, I think TNA could have a second show though. If said show revolved around a certain division within the company. Say like a one hour show that focused only on the X-Division or the Knockouts. I know I would tune in for one solid hour of the X-Division for sure.
|
|
Grapple Arcade
Main Eventer
WF 10 Year Member
Joined on: Dec 30, 2001 10:53:53 GMT -5
Posts: 2,680
|
Post by Grapple Arcade on Apr 15, 2009 11:28:30 GMT -5
I have to agree that the "TNA owns WWE" statement is just goofy and that is coming from a TNA die hard. I also agree that TNA shouldn't do a brand split, EVER. WWE should have never done the brand split. I think it has completely diminished the value of their titles and in my opinion it actually hurts their ratings. It divides their viewing audience. Why would that ever be a good idea? I don't have a problem with them having three shows but all three should just feature the entire WWE roster. I know they have a ton of contracted wrestlers but, feuds don't have to revolve around title belts to be entertaining. However that would take creativity and in my opinion WWE is a wasteland for creativity these days. After watching E:60 last night I understand why. As I watched Triple H examining the script for the part where he buries another deserving younger talent. I have always thought that active wrestlers have no business being on the booking team. Now I may be in the minority but, I think TNA could have a second show though. If said show revolved around a certain division within the company. Say like a one hour show that focused only on the X-Division or the Knockouts. I know I would tune in for one solid hour of the X-Division for sure. problem is, their ratings are already crap. Its no secret they pull the biggest audience when the knockouts are on (no pun intended), so if you made a prog, just with knockouts, it would probs get ok ratings, but the main show would die fast. I would love an x divison show, but the general public dont, infact im pretty sure that x divison suffers most during ratings. shame |
|
|
|
Post by King Bálor (CM)™ on Apr 15, 2009 11:42:12 GMT -5
TNA officialy owns WWE. I can't imagine how bad TNA would be if it broke up unless it was done in a much better manor than WWE. How wold you feel if TNA broke into 2 or 3 brands? Would it be better or worse overall? TNA cant even competently put on one show.....much less 2. |
|
|
|
Post by The Mac on Apr 15, 2009 12:09:53 GMT -5
TNA would get pretty bad ratings if the had to shows and the roster for each brand would not be alot!
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. PerpetuaLynch Motion on Apr 15, 2009 12:29:31 GMT -5
I have to agree that the "TNA owns WWE" statement is just goofy and that is coming from a TNA die hard. I also agree that TNA shouldn't do a brand split, EVER. WWE should have never done the brand split. I think it has completely diminished the value of their titles and in my opinion it actually hurts their ratings. It divides their viewing audience. Why would that ever be a good idea? I don't have a problem with them having three shows but all three should just feature the entire WWE roster. I know they have a ton of contracted wrestlers but, feuds don't have to revolve around title belts to be entertaining. However that would take creativity and in my opinion WWE is a wasteland for creativity these days. After watching E:60 last night I understand why. As I watched Triple H examining the script for the part where he buries another deserving younger talent. I have always thought that active wrestlers have no business being on the booking team. Now I may be in the minority but, I think TNA could have a second show though. If said show revolved around a certain division within the company. Say like a one hour show that focused only on the X-Division or the Knockouts. I know I would tune in for one solid hour of the X-Division for sure. Dividing your viewing audience is never a bad thing... as long as they watch one of your three brands they are still watching and giving you money... If all three shows featured every wrestler then you do know that people like Evan Bourne and CM Punk probably would never have a chance to really shine. I can guarentee you Punk wouldn't have won MITB two years in a row. It's because there are 3 brands that force each show to push different stars and create new ones... that is NEVER a bad thing. Personally I enjoy the WWE Brand split because the WWE's roster is SO large that a lot of people would be lost in the shuffle otherwise... There would be no room for the upper mid carders we've come to enjoy (Kofi, Punk, Swagger) Hell I have trouble believing that Edge would have rose to being the best heel in the WWE if it wasn't for the roster split.... That's just me though, but I think the rosters would be far to cluttered otherwise. |
|
Bret_Hart_Mark™
Main Eventer
Joined on: Apr 5, 2005 13:34:12 GMT -5
Posts: 2,272
|
Post by Bret_Hart_Mark™ on Apr 16, 2009 14:11:03 GMT -5
TNA officialy owns WWE. I can't imagine how bad TNA would be if it broke up unless it was done in a much better manor than WWE. How wold you feel if TNA broke into 2 or 3 brands? Would it be better or worse overall? Seriously? They already ruin 2 hours of wrestling on tv a week. Four if you count the weeks they have a ppv. How about they do 2 hours of good tv before they even contemplate a second show/brand. My brother said it best a few weeks ago. He said when watching TNA he feels like he's watching a documentary because of how much guys talk about what they did in WWE, WCW or ECW. ROFL that is a great way to put it. +1 for your brother! |
|
|
|
Post by King Shocker the Monumentous on Apr 16, 2009 16:41:17 GMT -5
"Oh my god, Mike! Eric Young has been drafted to the Xplosion roster!"
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 28, 2024 5:57:53 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2009 19:53:28 GMT -5
My brother said it best a few weeks ago. He said when watching TNA he feels like he's watching a documentary because of how much guys talk about what they did in WWE, WCW or ECW. It's funny 'cause it's true.  |
|
|
|
Post by ilol on Apr 16, 2009 21:09:42 GMT -5
My brother said it best a few weeks ago. He said when watching TNA he feels like he's watching a documentary because of how much guys talk about what they did in WWE, WCW or ECW. It's funny 'cause it's true. I sadly agree. Even though i prefer TNA over WWE, since i an very biased, i agree that its like Welcome, TO STORYTELLERS ON SPIKE TV!!!!! |
|
WFK
Main Eventer
Leave The Memories Alone
Joined on: Oct 27, 2004 17:56:58 GMT -5
Posts: 4,632
|
Post by WFK on Apr 17, 2009 8:00:23 GMT -5
The Draft episode of RAW will get bigger ratings then the next episode of iMPACT... therefore WWE owns TNA... just saying. episode of RAW gets better ratings than iMPACT. |
|
|
|
Post by King Silva on Apr 17, 2009 23:18:28 GMT -5
Tna does NOT own anyone.
They can barely handle one show how could they split the roster and have two shows?
|
|
