J.Freek
Main Eventer
Best in the World
Joined on: Dec 8, 2007 18:22:57 GMT -5
Posts: 2,870
|
Post by J.Freek on Mar 28, 2008 22:18:37 GMT -5
let me get this straight, and they want to go head to head with Raw HA HA HA HA HA HA
|
|
|
|
Post by The UndyTaker on Mar 28, 2008 22:49:49 GMT -5
Of course the ratings started to go up. When people heard WWE stars were in the audience they started to tune in to see who was there. My brother did that, and I suspect he wasn't the only one.
|
|
|
|
Post by wrestlingvader1 on Mar 29, 2008 11:41:18 GMT -5
I hate fact they did a 1.0 but some of it probably because NCAA dont get me wrong i still think TNA is f'd up right now but with a good rating Spike would probably start going live . I like the live feel the crowd was hot and by going live it keep russo hands tied a lil bit, But the main reason I wish they would got a higher rating because their finally trying to push Joe right now a homegrown i want the ratings to be good while he 's carrying the company so TNA managment can start having some faith in their homegrown talent.
|
|
|
|
Post by ZMaster on Mar 29, 2008 13:44:07 GMT -5
Nothing draws anymore. You can bring in all the names you want but it won't put a dent in the ratings for TNA.
|
|
|
|
Post by hollywood06 on Mar 29, 2008 13:51:13 GMT -5
I don't get why going "live" would attract more viewers. The show looked the same as always. They need to get out of the impact zone for a taping once and awhile if anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by King Shocker the Monumentous on Mar 29, 2008 15:06:40 GMT -5
I don't get why going "live" would attract more viewers. Because OMG ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN!!!!!1!111!1!oneoneone!1! |
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Mar 29, 2008 15:11:48 GMT -5
Seriously... What is left that TNA can blame their product not being highly rated? Like originally it was because they needed to go Primetime... They did and the ratings stayed the same. Then they needed 2 hours... They got that and the ratings stayed the same. Then it was that they needed to go live. They've now done that and the ratings are the EXACT same... When is TNA going to realize that it is their crappy booking that is keeping people from wanting to watch? SHHHHH! They probably still think we don't know that! But seriously, you nailed it. |
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Mar 29, 2008 15:13:57 GMT -5
Why is it everytime TNA does like a tv show thats expected to be a huge hit and then when they get the low ratings, they go "Phew! Thank god we can blame it on Nascar!" or whatever show is playing on at that time
|
|
|
|
Post by King Shocker the Monumentous on Mar 29, 2008 16:08:04 GMT -5
Why is it everytime TNA does like a tv show thats expected to be a huge hit and then when they get the low ratings, they go "Phew! Thank god we can blame it on Nascar!" or whatever show is playing on at that time Because at any given time, there's usually something better on than TNA? |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 25, 2024 16:37:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2008 16:35:31 GMT -5
This isnt a big suprise at all. The show was really bad no offense. The technical stuff had issues too as the sound was gone for a little bit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Mar 29, 2008 21:39:44 GMT -5
Why is it everytime TNA does like a tv show thats expected to be a huge hit and then when they get the low ratings, they go "Phew! Thank god we can blame it on Nascar!" or whatever show is playing on at that time Because at any given time, there's usually something better on than TNA? Ironic no? |
|
|
|
Post by perilloboy123 on Mar 29, 2008 21:54:06 GMT -5
Karma's a bitch, I guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thick Justice on Mar 29, 2008 23:29:53 GMT -5
Well. It's pretty much over for TNA. They can't get higher ratings live, with two hours, with Sting and Kurt Angle, with Booker T, not even live. TNA needs too change into an edgier, better wresrling product. I don't think a bunch of santanic wrestlers and flying fish are going to up the ratings. Gimmick matches aren't going to do it either. The only thing that'll get there ratings up is John Cena, better wrestling, and less dumb gimmicks.
|
|
|
|
Post by King Shocker the Monumentous on Mar 29, 2008 23:49:06 GMT -5
Because at any given time, there's usually something better on than TNA? Ironic no? By definition, no, not ironic at all. To be ironic, the result has to be the opposite of what's expected. And let's face it...we expected this. |
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Mar 29, 2008 23:57:33 GMT -5
By definition, no, not ironic at all. To be ironic, the result has to be the opposite of what's expected. And let's face it...we expected this. Not TNA! LOL |
|
|
|
Post by mercennario1080 on Mar 30, 2008 0:55:25 GMT -5
WTF?! 1.0?
TNA is dead.
|
|
Returnal
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jun 5, 2005 3:05:14 GMT -5
Posts: 3,679
|
Post by Returnal on Mar 30, 2008 1:06:23 GMT -5
I find it sad that some WWE Marks think this is good.
You want a better WWE product? Something like the Attitude Era? If so you'd want TNA to get better and better so that WWE finally makes it shows more entertaining.
|
|
|
|
Post by BV on Mar 30, 2008 1:32:44 GMT -5
lolz, TNA has tried everything to get good ratings, theyve done all the minor stuff when they fail to realize that they have yet to touch there biggest subject and improve it, and thats the crappy booking...
|
|
|
|
Post by jake_317 on Mar 30, 2008 2:02:40 GMT -5
Oh well, none of my concern. They can get amazing, and they'll problay still get the same ratings.
|
|
|
|
Post by King Shocker the Monumentous on Mar 31, 2008 13:36:21 GMT -5
I find it sad that some WWE Marks think this is good. You want a better WWE product? Something like the Attitude Era? If so you'd want TNA to get better and better so that WWE finally makes it shows more entertaining. I want TNA to get better, I want them to get better ratings, and I want them to be in some position that it forces WWE to put out a better product. What pertubs me is that TNA keeps trying everything except better booking to do it. When they were on Fox Sports Net at 3PM on Fridays, it was "We need a better network that more people get." When they were on Spike Saturdays at 11, it was "We need to be on a weekday when people are home." When they moved to Thursdays at 11, it was "We need a primetime slot." When they moved to primetime, it was "We need 2 hours." When they got 2 hours, it was "We need to go live." So they went live, and still got a 1.0 rating. Not once at any point in these precedings did they think, "Maybe we need to improve the onscreen product." In fact, looking at the history of Impact, the product was probably at its best when it was on FSN. |
|
