4 Months Into TNA's "Soft" Reboot

[ABMorales787]

I say soft (Enzo Amore says S-A-W-F-T) but what I mean is hard reboot. Over the past 4 and a half months we've seen TNA change immensely with very little notice. Think about it. Besides every title changing hands at BFG:

* TNA has debuted 6 new talents. (ECIII, MVP, Wolves, Tapa, Alpha Female)
* 2 more have debuted on Xplosion and await contracts. (Extreme Tiger, Santana Garrett)
* Repackaged 4 wrestlers. (Samuel Shaw, Willow, DJ Zema, Rockstar Spud)
* With a 5th rumored (Kenny King)
* Madison Rayne returned after 1+ hiatus.
* The Bromans, Gunner, Chris Sabin, Bully Ray, etc. have had minor but notable role changes in the timeframe.


Looking deeper into things, TNA's rearranged their One Night Only events sensing the potential for larger drawings. This is pretty evident with the events "Hardcore Justice 3", "#OldSchool" and the upcoming interpromotional event "Outbreak" with Wrestle-1.


Simply put, TNA has made very drastic changes to their programming in the past few months. And whether these changes are good or bad is subject of debate. So... Well here it is.

 

[klunderbunker]

It's been a bit better without Aces and 8's dragging everything down, but it doesn't help when we've moved right into another power struggle story. MVP is a nice addition to the company and is certainly good at what he's doing, but at the end of the day he's involved in a story that just holds no interest for me or seemingly the majority of the fans.

The other problem is Dixie Carter. She's just so horribly bad in front of a camera that I don't so much want to see her get what's coming to her as much as I want her off camera forever. She comes off like she's buying into what she's saying which is good, but at the same time she's not someone people want to see out there, even as a villain.

Joe has been getting a renewed push, but here's the question: is he getting it on his merits, or because there's no one else to get the title shot?

The changes have been noticeable, but the problem for me is I have no faith in it lasting. TNA has made changes or fixes so many times now and every time they last for a few months before dropping the ball even more than they did previously and fall down into a Joseph Park. I like the changes while they last, but I'm not sure if anyone is going to be breaking the door down to see Magnus vs. MVP for the title.

 

[mlp420]

I don't get the people crying "power struggle" all the time. There's certain plot elements that will/should always exist in TV shows, and wrestling is no different. There's not really a storyline TNA can do that hasn't been done in some shape or form besides maybe scrapping storylines altogether and just having 5 star matches back to back. Which is of course, the solution to all of their problems and a sure billion dollar idea...

Besides, I think MVP can end up being the 2nd best TV authority figure of all time, behind only Vince McMahon. MVP makes it very believable and he's extremely entertaining.

But I think what's happening here is TNA wants to use MVP as the mouthpiece for the changes they plan to make going foward. Dixie they are using to establish a fresh set of heels. So on the MVP side we have The Wolves, Samoa Joe's resurgence, and what ever they're planning on doing if he gains control at Lockdown. On Dixie's side there's TNA's heels of the future: Magnus, ECIII, Spud, Bromans etc. I'm very curious as to where this is going.

The other problem is Dixie Carter. She's just so horribly bad in front of a camera that I don't so much want to see her get what's coming to her as much as I want her off camera forever. She comes off like she's buying into what she's saying which is good, but at the same time she's not someone people want to see out there, even as a villain.

This logic is severely outdated. With the exception of Bully Ray (for now), good villains get cheered in 2014. I think both TNA and WWE going foward should do whatever it takes to put people out there that will get heat, even if it's X-Pac/Vickie heat. Wrestling is built on good vs. evil. WCW collapsed once those lines were blurred. It's the same reason WWE can't make new stars today.

 

[klunderbunker]

This logic is severely outdated. With the exception of Bully Ray (for now), good villains get cheered in 2014. I think both TNA and WWE going foward should do whatever it takes to put people out there that will get heat, even if it's X-Pac/Vickie heat. Wrestling is built on good vs. evil. WCW collapsed once those lines were blurred. It's the same reason WWE can't make new stars today.

Well you must be right as Dixie and Ray's time on top has shot the company to heights it hasn't seen in.....what, weeks? The idea that WWE can't make any new stars is what's outdated but that's a different story.

Your own opening statement shows you're off base. Ray was a pure evil villain and was booed. Dixie is trying to be a villain but just isn't a good actress. Wrestling is indeed built on good vs. evil, but TNA needs someone that people will actually be intimidated by, not someone that belongs on Are You Serious and looks up to Stephanie McMahon as an acting icon. Ray was the kind of villain you need, but given that this is TNA, people weren't interested because it was the same idea they've always had.

 

[mlp420]

Well you must be right as Dixie and Ray's time on top has shot the company to heights it hasn't seen in.....what, weeks? The idea that WWE can't make any new stars is what's outdated but that's a different story.

Your own opening statement shows you're off base. Ray was a pure evil villain and was booed. Dixie is trying to be a villain but just isn't a good actress. Wrestling is indeed built on good vs. evil, but TNA needs someone that people will actually be intimidated by, not someone that belongs on Are You Serious and looks up to Stephanie McMahon as an acting icon. Ray was the kind of villain you need, but given that this is TNA, people weren't interested because it was the same idea they've always had.

1. WWE can't make new stars. I mean Rock, Austin, Hogan, Cena type stars. WWE can give anybody a belt and put them at the top of the card. Getting new people to watch or at least getting some of the old ones back is another story. But that's beside the point.

2.As far as ratings goes, TNA can have the greatest shows ever and it would take several months to see numbers move. Looking at a given weeks rating and letting that cloud your perception of the product is just silly. At some point people will just have to just judge the show for what it is instead of watching everything with a critical eye because we're so desperate to see ratings go up so WWE will stop sucking.

3. Didn't I say Bully Ray was the exception? What about Randy Orton's previous heel run where was the evil Viper? Didn't he get cheered? The Wyatts, The Shield, Brock Lesnar, CM Punk, Jericho, and so on. These guys were all good heels but they all got cheered. That was my point, don't know why you're going on about Ray.

 

[klunderbunker]

1. WWE can't make new stars. I mean Rock, Austin, Hogan, Cena type stars. WWE can give anybody a belt and put them at the top of the card. Getting new people to watch or at least getting some of the old ones back is another story. But that's beside the point.

WWE can't make once in a generation stars while one of those stars is still around? Shocking. Also, the company seems to be doing just fine with the system they have. Stock prices higher than ever, Wrestlemania setting records, etc.

2.As far as ratings goes, TNA can have the greatest shows ever and it would take several months to see numbers move. Looking at a given weeks rating and letting that cloud your perception of the product is just silly. At some point people will just have to just judge the show for what it is instead of watching everything with a critical eye because we're so desperate to see ratings go up so WWE will stop sucking.

WWE doesn't suck, to begin with. Another common misconception.

Also I'm not looking at a single week's worth. Aces and 8's were on top for about eight months and went nowhere. Dixie hasn't done anything with them. The shows have gotten worse and worse as they become WWE lite. Again, I could go on but I think you get the point.

3. Didn't I say Bully Ray was the exception? What about Randy Orton's previous heel run where was the evil Viper? Didn't he get cheered? The Wyatts, The Shield, Brock Lesnar, CM Punk, Jericho, and so on. These guys were all good heels but they all got cheered. That was my point, don't know why you're going on about Ray.

Not a ton, no.

A few people cheer them, because a few people are jerks that feel the need to take over a show and make it all about them. Most of the time the fans don't cheer for monsters though.

 

[AegonTargaryen]

TNA are certainly taking themselves seriously again and it was about damn time. Thank goodness the paycheck-and-spotlight stealing Grandpa Hogan left, Sting is gone, for good. Kurt Angle hardly has anything left to do/prove in TNA. (With most of the former WCW/WWE stars gone), there's only so many times Angle will fight Bobby Roode, Jeff Hardy and Mr. Anderson in Steel Cages and singles and tag matches. He can only feud with Samoa Joe so many times. And it hardly makes sense for a legend like Angle to feud with the likes of Kenny King, Gunner, Magnus, etc.

As far as Hogan and Aces and Eights, it's hardly any secret how it ruined TNA the last few years but now they're finally focusing their show on exciting Wrestling. I've not really watched entire episodes of TNA in a long time(or WWE for that matter), but I watched some Dixie Carter segment for the first time lately on youtube, and it grossed me out.

But will TNA prosper long-term without established big stars like Sting, Angle, etc. ? Will Bully Ray, Jeff Hardy/Willow, MVP, Mr. Anderson, and Bobby Roode be enough for their World title contenders?

 

[AegonTargaryen]

1. WWE can't make new stars. I mean Rock, Austin, Hogan, Cena type stars. WWE can give anybody a belt and put them at the top of the card. Getting new people to watch or at least getting some of the old ones back is another story. But that's beside the point.

WWE can't create stars? Surely, stars like Rock, Austin, Hogan and Cena cannot be created yearly whenever a Wrestling company wants. They're all once-in-a-lifetime stars/performers. I'd add to that list Taker, Michaels, Bret Hart , and Kurt Angle. You can't just wake up one day and say, alright you're going to be Bret Hart, you're going to be Kurt Angle to some bum at the WWE performance centre.

And how hasn't WWE not created stars?? For the first time in YEARS I've realized how exciting WWE has become. I remember feeling dreary every RAW for like 2 years when John Cena used to be champion and feud with the likes of Umaga, Khali, Lashley, while DX and Mcmahon idiocy was the primary storyline.

2013, You've got the most exciting potential top stars in a long time. Cesaro, Roman Reigns, Shield, Bray Wyatt. Add to that, there's a solid group of mid-card performers for the first time after years. Wade Barrett, Dolph Ziggler, Big E.

I don't see any "Top stars" created in TNA. Sting, Kevin Nash, Scott Steiner were all Ex-WCW. Ric Flair and Hogan Ex-WCW, Ex-WWE, Kurt Angle Ex-WWE. Jeff Hardy, Bully Ray , Mr Anderson- Ex WWE.

Besides Samoa Joe, and Bobby Roode, I don't even see any recognizable main-event talents TNA has which were home-grown. Magnus? I don't see him as a top star.

So yeah, you can't expect Austin, Rock ,Cena level stars to be created anywhere anytime soon.

 

[Zeven_Zion]

WWE can't create stars? Surely, stars like Rock, Austin, Hogan and Cena cannot be created yearly whenever a Wrestling company wants. They're all once-in-a-lifetime stars/performers. I'd add to that list Taker, Michaels, Bret Hart , and Kurt Angle. You can't just wake up one day and say, alright you're going to be Bret Hart, you're going to be Kurt Angle to some bum at the WWE performance centre.

And how hasn't WWE not created stars?? For the first time in YEARS I've realized how exciting WWE has become. I remember feeling dreary every RAW for like 2 years when John Cena used to be champion and feud with the likes of Umaga, Khali, Lashley, while DX and Mcmahon idiocy was the primary storyline.

2013, You've got the most exciting potential top stars in a long time. Cesaro, Roman Reigns, Shield, Bray Wyatt. Add to that, there's a solid group of mid-card performers for the first time after years. Wade Barrett, Dolph Ziggler, Big E.

I don't see any "Top stars" created in TNA. Sting, Kevin Nash, Scott Steiner were all Ex-WCW. Ric Flair and Hogan Ex-WCW, Ex-WWE, Kurt Angle Ex-WWE. Jeff Hardy, Bully Ray , Mr Anderson- Ex WWE.

Besides Samoa Joe, and Bobby Roode, I don't even see any recognizable main-event talents TNA has which were home-grown. Magnus? I don't see him as a top star.

So yeah, you can't expect Austin, Rock ,Cena level stars to be created anywhere anytime soon.

Why not? I'm sorry, but the WWE has literally no excuse. They have the money, the exposure, the publicity, the talent, the platform, the audiences and LOADS of TV time to make someone into a mega star again.

If they could do it in the 90's, why can't they do it now? Because they no longer know how to. Their writers aren't as good, their vision isn't as good, their drive isn't as good and they focus more on their corporate identity and branding than they do on creating stars and a wonderful experience for us.

TNA on the other hand has managed to create some respectable names in the wrestling industry with less than half of WWE's exposure, a mere fraction of WWE's finances and an even smaller cut of the market and their brand awareness. They built their own guys and made them into something. In fact, they continue to do so with people like Austin Aries and Magnus.

Aries, Magnus, Bobby Roode, James Storm, Kazarian, Daniels, AJ Styles, Samoa Joe, among others have all been a vital part of TNA's main events and programming in general and have consistently contributed to the product. Meanwhile, WWE's been betting their money on the same two people for the last twelve years. John Cena, and Randy Orton.

Guys like Punk, Bryan, Ziggler, Miz and so forth have only had short stints at the top and WWE has failed to capitalize on whatever appeal they had. I already told you why this happens.

Instead, they keep coming back to The Rock, to Batista, to Brock Lesnar and a slew of other former stars like Hogan and whoever else they can dig up, to sell their WrestleMania. With so much focus on that kind of business, there's less time for the other talent and they end up eating their dust. So much, that some of them straight up quit, like CM Punk. Don't think for a second his frustrations aren't shared among the locker-room. He's just the only one that is financially stable enough to leave, and also crazy.

Say whatever you want about TNA, but in the last few years they have slowly transition from a company that focuses more on established talent from other companies, to a company that focuses more on building its own guys, pushing them to the Main Event while establishing others to take their place and continue the circulation of talent.

It took TNA 2 years to build Aries, Roode, Storm, Magnus, and even Bully Ray into legitimate Main Event stars. What's WWE been doing for the last 12? Figuring out who's coming back for WrestleMania, that's what.

TNA simply can't build a mega star because they lack the exposure to their product required for that to happen, they can just have a guy who's really over in front of 4000 people. WWE, however, does. Big arenas, 2-3 million people watching every week - no excuse.

 

[Rayne]

Why not? I'm sorry, but the WWE has literally no excuse. They have the money, the exposure, the publicity, the talent, the platform, the audiences and LOADS of TV time to make someone into a mega star again.

If they could do it in the 90's, why can't they do it now? Because they no longer know how to. Their writers aren't as good, their vision isn't as good, their drive isn't as good and they focus more on their corporate identity and branding than they do on creating stars and a wonderful experience for us.

TNA on the other hand has managed to create some respectable names in the wrestling industry with less than half of WWE's exposure, a mere fraction of WWE's finances and an even smaller cut of the market and their brand awareness. They built their own guys and made them into something. In fact, they continue to do so with people like Austin Aries and Magnus.

Aries, Magnus, Bobby Roode, James Storm, Kazarian, Daniels, AJ Styles, Samoa Joe, among others have all been a vital part of TNA's main events and programming in general and have consistently contributed to the product. Meanwhile, WWE's been betting their money on the same two people for the last twelve years. John Cena, and Randy Orton.

Guys like Punk, Bryan, Ziggler, Miz and so forth have only had short stints at the top and WWE has failed to capitalize on whatever appeal they had. I already told you why this happens.

Instead, they keep coming back to The Rock, to Batista, to Brock Lesnar and a slew of other former stars like Hogan and whoever else they can dig up, to sell their WrestleMania. With so much focus on that kind of business, there's less time for the other talent and they end up eating their dust. So much, that some of them straight up quit, like CM Punk. Don't think for a second his frustrations aren't shared among the locker-room. He's just the only one that is financially stable enough to leave, and also crazy.

Say whatever you want about TNA, but in the last few years they have slowly transition from a company that focuses more on established talent from other companies, to a company that focuses more on building its own guys, pushing them to the Main Event while establishing others to take their place and continue the circulation of talent.

It took TNA 2 years to build Aries, Roode, Storm, Magnus, and even Bully Ray into legitimate Main Event stars. What's WWE been doing for the last 12? Figuring out who's coming back for WrestleMania, that's what.

TNA simply can't build a mega star because they lack the exposure to their product required for that to happen, they can just have a guy who's really over in front of 4000 people. WWE, however, does. Big arenas, 2-3 million people watching every week - no excuse.

Which would all be swell and good if the ultimate goal of a professional wrestling company was to make great art. Of course, it isn't, and the goal of a professional wrestling company is to make money. People who know better too often forget this.

It is entirely irrelevant if the WWE can 'create new stars' or not. That isn't a function of business success or failure, that's a function of individual boredom. The WWE isn't targeting the memories of 18-30 year olds; they're focusing on providing an entertaining product to kids 12-18. If you have John Cena, there's no reason to create a second John Cena while John Cena is still around. You don't create megastars because you're bored with TV. You create one when you know you'll lose the one you have. Professional wrestling organizations, all the way back to Lou Thesz, have been built upon having a single megastar. Megastars don't share the spotlight, they steal it from each other.

But hey- say whatever you want about TNA- they've been moving in a very steady, slowly meandering circle, that keeps bringing them back to exactly the same point they were a couple of years ago. But at least they've been moving, right? Magnus is a totally respectable name in the professional wrestling industry who totally hasn't been promoted to his current position based on the recent departure of several other performers, and who totally would have risen to that position naturally in the fullness of time. (It's been a few months- let me know when people are ready to bring back "you don't knoowowowwow", I'll be there.)

If you're entertained by what TNA's putting out there- and the best I personally can say is that at least it isn't as bad as last year so far- that's all well and good. Can't begrudge people what they're entertained by, I've been watching Twitch Plays Pokemon for five days now. But for the love of Frank Gotch and the Gold Dust Trio, don't come in here talking about how the really important thing is putting on a great show using only homegrown competitors who work at professional wrestling full time. This is a money making operation. Your WWE/TNA angst aside, you should know better.

 

[AegonTargaryen]

Why not? I'm sorry, but the WWE has literally no excuse. They have the money, the exposure, the publicity, the talent, the platform, the audiences and LOADS of TV time to make someone into a mega star again.

If they could do it in the 90's, why can't they do it now? Because they no longer know how to. Their writers aren't as good, their vision isn't as good, their drive isn't as good and they focus more on their corporate identity and branding than they do on creating stars and a wonderful experience for us.

TNA on the other hand has managed to create some respectable names in the wrestling industry with less than half of WWE's exposure, a mere fraction of WWE's finances and an even smaller cut of the market and their brand awareness. They built their own guys and made them into something. In fact, they continue to do so with people like Austin Aries and Magnus.

Aries, Magnus, Bobby Roode, James Storm, Kazarian, Daniels, AJ Styles, Samoa Joe, among others have all been a vital part of TNA's main events and programming in general and have consistently contributed to the product. Meanwhile, WWE's been betting their money on the same two people for the last twelve years. John Cena, and Randy Orton.

Guys like Punk, Bryan, Ziggler, Miz and so forth have only had short stints at the top and WWE has failed to capitalize on whatever appeal they had. I already told you why this happens.

Instead, they keep coming back to The Rock, to Batista, to Brock Lesnar and a slew of other former stars like Hogan and whoever else they can dig up, to sell their WrestleMania. With so much focus on that kind of business, there's less time for the other talent and they end up eating their dust. So much, that some of them straight up quit, like CM Punk. Don't think for a second his frustrations aren't shared among the locker-room. He's just the only one that is financially stable enough to leave, and also crazy.

Say whatever you want about TNA, but in the last few years they have slowly transition from a company that focuses more on established talent from other companies, to a company that focuses more on building its own guys, pushing them to the Main Event while establishing others to take their place and continue the circulation of talent.

It took TNA 2 years to build Aries, Roode, Storm, Magnus, and even Bully Ray into legitimate Main Event stars. What's WWE been doing for the last 12? Figuring out who's coming back for WrestleMania, that's what.

TNA simply can't build a mega star because they lack the exposure to their product required for that to happen, they can just have a guy who's really over in front of 4000 people. WWE, however, does. Big arenas, 2-3 million people watching every week - no excuse.

You're missing the point I made about WWE not being able to create a megastar recently. It's not about having resources, money, etc. It's more about timing, era, and the sort of available performers. Austin and Rock weren't just product of some "creative scriptwriters" even if Vince Russo gave them a bunch of catchphrases. If you think 1998 had a superb and motivated creative team unlike today, why didn't Val Venis, The Godfather, Mark Henry, Viscera, Gangrel, all became superstars or megastars?
Inference is that in any age/era, there can only be N number of megastars based on charisma, natural aptitude, etc. If talent and stardom were so easy to replicate, then why aren't so many 6-ft-2 and 6-ft-4'ers becoming Hollywood Megastars like the Rock? The answer is obvious. It's not creative that creates a megastar.

Look at Brock Lesnar. Sure, WWE invested in him, dubbed him as the next big thing and all, but without his natural aptitude, his amazing in-ring ability crafted and created by years of his amateur wrestling background, we wouldn't have gotten Brock Lesnar that was never quite the Megastar but could've become(had he not left in 2004). Case in point- Mason Ryan.
You can't just take a tall beefed up musclehead and give him a name and gimmick and expect him to be a blockbuster success or create a Wrestlemania classic. If that were true, by now we'd have seen the advent of dozens of Muscle-heads who'd all have been as intriguing as Lesnar,Cena, etc .

TNA hasn't even been close in creating a household name. I don't consider Austin Aries, Samoa Joe, or Magnus a "household name". AJ Styles, yes. But he's gone now.

And WWE hasn't been "figuring out who's coming back for Wrestlemania" for the last 12 years. That's a gross overestimation of time by you.
As far back as 2010, WWE main events all comprised home-grown talent from the 90s and Ruthless Agression Era including John Cena, Edge, Batista, Undertaker, HHH ,Randy Orton.

It was only from 2011 that this trend of bringing up stars from the past to sell/sustain Wrestlemania has begun. So yeah, I'll admit to that that the WWE has never relied on CM Punk or others to be in main events or sell the event on their own but instead brought back The Rock.

And while you bash WWE for bringing The Rock, Brock, or Batista to sell their "biggest ppv of the year", why not consider what TNA has done with Bound for glory? At least WWE brings performers still in their prime and under Age 45.

Bound for Glory's main event in 2010 was Jeff Hardy vs Mr. Anderson vs Kurt Angle- all Ex-WWE stars.
In fact, more than half of the card featured Ex-WCW and Ex-ECW superstars. Was TNA really so desperate that one of the main-event matches on BFG comprised of Stevie Richards and company?

In 2011, TNA did what WWE wouldn't do. Feature 2 very old superstars in one of the main events where Grandpa Hogan faced off against Sting. Seriously, did TNA have to redo it just for the sake of Nostalgia or to have an appearance of Spectacle and Grandeur?
Kurt Angle , again a WWE-created star def Bobby Roode for the Heavyweight title.

BFG 2012 once again had 2 main-events feature Ex-WWE talents in Aces and Eights, and then Jeff hardy def Austin Aries.

It's not just the WWE that'll use "big names" to sell/promote their biggest ppv. TNA has been desperately doing the same, until 2012. I needn't cite any more references.

 

[Zeven_Zion]

You're missing the point I made about WWE not being able to create a megastar recently. It's not about having resources, money, etc. It's more about timing, era, and the sort of available performers. Austin and Rock weren't just product of some "creative scriptwriters" even if Vince Russo gave them a bunch of catchphrases. If you think 1998 had a superb and motivated creative team unlike today, why didn't Val Venis, The Godfather, Mark Henry, Viscera, Gangrel, all became superstars or megastars?
Inference is that in any age/era, there can only be N number of megastars based on charisma, natural aptitude, etc. If talent and stardom were so easy to replicate, then why aren't so many 6-ft-2 and 6-ft-4'ers becoming Hollywood Megastars like the Rock? The answer is obvious. It's not creative that creates a megastar.

Look at Brock Lesnar. Sure, WWE invested in him, dubbed him as the next big thing and all, but without his natural aptitude, his amazing in-ring ability crafted and created by years of his amateur wrestling background, we wouldn't have gotten Brock Lesnar that was never quite the Megastar but could've become(had he not left in 2004). Case in point- Mason Ryan.
You can't just take a tall beefed up musclehead and give him a name and gimmick and expect him to be a blockbuster success or create a Wrestlemania classic. If that were true, by now we'd have seen the advent of dozens of Muscle-heads who'd all have been as intriguing as Lesnar,Cena, etc .

TNA hasn't even been close in creating a household name. I don't consider Austin Aries, Samoa Joe, or Magnus a "household name". AJ Styles, yes. But he's gone now.

And WWE hasn't been "figuring out who's coming back for Wrestlemania" for the last 12 years. That's a gross overestimation of time by you.
As far back as 2010, WWE main events all comprised home-grown talent from the 90s and Ruthless Agression Era including John Cena, Edge, Batista, Undertaker, HHH ,Randy Orton.

It was only from 2011 that this trend of bringing up stars from the past to sell/sustain Wrestlemania has begun. So yeah, I'll admit to that that the WWE has never relied on CM Punk or others to be in main events or sell the event on their own but instead brought back The Rock.

And while you bash WWE for bringing The Rock, Brock, or Batista to sell their "biggest ppv of the year", why not consider what TNA has done with Bound for glory? At least WWE brings performers still in their prime and under Age 45.

Bound for Glory's main event in 2010 was Jeff Hardy vs Mr. Anderson vs Kurt Angle- all Ex-WWE stars.
In fact, more than half of the card featured Ex-WCW and Ex-ECW superstars. Was TNA really so desperate that one of the main-event matches on BFG comprised of Stevie Richards and company?

In 2011, TNA did what WWE wouldn't do. Feature 2 very old superstars in one of the main events where Grandpa Hogan faced off against Sting. Seriously, did TNA have to redo it just for the sake of Nostalgia or to have an appearance of Spectacle and Grandeur?
Kurt Angle , again a WWE-created star def Bobby Roode for the Heavyweight title.

BFG 2012 once again had 2 main-events feature Ex-WWE talents in Aces and Eights, and then Jeff hardy def Austin Aries.

It's not just the WWE that'll use "big names" to sell/promote their biggest ppv. TNA has been desperately doing the same, until 2012. I needn't cite any more references.

And you're missing the point that TNA is a small, struggling wrestling company. You're putting it on the same level as WWE and making a comparison. It's impossible.

Yes, they brought in big names for Bound for Glory. They have to. They're not doing too swell, they need all the help they can get. Small companies pair up with bigger ones for benefit. They form partnerships and cooperations to rub off others' success and hopefully get some themselves. That's what TNA did with the Hogans and Stings.

Yes, they don't have household names, neither will they until they're on WWE's level. You can't build a household name with give or take one million people watching you every week. You can build someone who's over, but that's it. This argument holds no value because you're expecting too much out of a small company.

Meanwhile, we're expecting something normal out of a giant company. Need I remind you that WWE is UNCONTESTED on the market? They have a monopoly and they will keep it. They have absolutely no excuse not to build someone properly.

It's not about timing, this thing doesn't just "happen". It's about writing, noticing the right talent and pushing him. WWE has NONE of TNA's problems right now. They're more stable than they were in the 90's. If anything, now that they have money, a market position, brand awareness, partners, sponsors and a comfy spot on a major TV network, one wonders why the hell they don't just sit back, relax a bit and give us something worth watching.

Instead, they antagonize their own fans! You want Ziggler? No, fuck you. You want Punk? No, we'll make him quit. You want Bryan? No, we'll destroy his credibility. Here's Cena, here's Orton because those are the guys WE like.

Meanwhile, TNA is trying to do just that, even though THEY should be the ones clinging on to every single major WWE star and firing all the unknowns. THEY take guys from the indies now and build them up as their own. THEY fire the big WWE/WCW names and replace them with new guys. Is it a good strategy? It is for us, I'm not sure if it'll do good for their business.

Then again, maybe they realized bringing in those big names was not as profitable so they decided to do without them. Who knows. All I know is that WWE is inexcusable nowadays. They're blissfully ignorant to how much they suck at the moment and do nothing about it.

 

[Rayne]

Then again, maybe they realized bringing in those big names was not as profitable so they decided to do without them. Who knows. All I know is that WWE is inexcusable nowadays. They're blissfully ignorant to how much they suck at the moment and do nothing about it.

Well, all you know, ain't much. WWE's stock is currently at a ten-year high. (Source) Before you make the argument, the stock has absolutely no history of a pre-Wrestlemania peak year-to-year, which would be of more interest to a wrestling fan than an investor. (Wrestlemania, while being the WWE's largest publicized event of the year, doesn't account for nearly enough of their yearly revenue to be a major individual factor to their overall profit/loss.)

It's almost as if the WWE weren't trying to cater to an audience which has been watching professional wrestling for ten years, but has focused on selling the same story, again and again, to an audience which is either new to the material or too young to have noticed how often it's been used. And it's almost as if that strategy is.... working.

So you're bored with John Cena and Randy Orton. Great, so am I to be honest. Professional wrestling isn't art. It's a money generating operation, and the spoils go to the promoter best able to gauge what the market wants and deliver it. The WWE has identified a target audience and is incredibly good at delivering what that target audience wants. You and I, we aren't a part of that target audience. The WWE will take us if they can get us, and they get enough.

TNA would like to serve that audience which has been watching professional wrestling for a while, but they clearly have no long-range plan as to how to do it. Right now they seem happy just to be on television, catering to a steadily diminishing portion of the same fan base. They're doing what they can with this reboot, but that's exactly it- they're doing what they can, and it ain't much. There's no gas left in the tank; they spent that over the past four years.

I like art, but I also recognize that the things that I like may not be profitable, and thus might not be produced as a mass commodity. The problem with professional wrestling, for you, is that there is no room for art in professional wrestling outside of a high school gym. You don't like the WWE? Get a good, hard look, because they're more profitable than ever and that model is where professional wrestling is headed.

 

[TDFG]

It's going to take a while for TNA to get any momentum going again, all the title divisions have or are being rebuilt and the roster has been trimmed.

I really hope it works out for them, I suppose it depends on if the deal with Spike gets extended.

 

[mlp420]

Why are so called fans defending crap because it's "profitable" and a "great business model"? It's not exactly a news bulletin that WWE has built a huge following from the days when their show was actually good, and that they enjoy the fruits of that labor to this day. Good for them. That doesn't mean that everything they're doing today is great and that since TNA doesn't have that going for them that everything TNA does is wrong. If WWE booked TNA's guys the exact same way TNA has, they would be bigger stars in WWE because it's WWE. Guys in WWE aren't more reconizable because they book everything brilliantly.

To be honest, neither company is exactly lighting the world on fire. I think they're close to even quality wise with TNA being slightly better. But most people seem to have it in their heads that TNA should be able to morph into WCW so everything they do is under a microscope. TNA is just an easier target for a bunch of people that like to feel like they're smarter than everybody and have the answers for everything.

 

[tnafan23]

wwe is unwatchble. when cena taker orton retire who is there next face of the wwe. punk quit. they have no one. Hogan back now. you think punk wants to go back. divas are a joke. as for tna. I like the new era. they are starting to rebuild there roster. I don't care what wwe marks says. I like tna I hope they stay around. for a wile. hope they resign with spike or look somewere else

 

[Rayne]

Why are so called fans defending crap because it's "profitable" and a "great business model"?

Well, the argument was stated explicitly in the original post, but:

A) Your personal opinion of 'crap' is not the universal opinion of 'crap'.
B) Professional wrestling, as seen on television, is not a form of art, but a way to move dollars from pockets in the most efficient means possible.
C) Understanding the economics that are in play behind any product does not make anyone less of a fan than you.

Great, you think the WWE's crap?

I'm bored by it too, don't watch it, and get most of what I know about it right now from Botchamania. This doesn't change the fact that their stock price, right now, is higher than it's been at any point within the past ten years. Your boredom doesn't change the fact that the people who operate the WWE- TNA as well- aren't interested in making your personal interpretation of what a great product is, they're interested in making money. The WWE is doing that. TNA- unless people think it's been long enough that the 'private company' nonsense will fly again- has not.

But that ten year stock price high, clearly, that's just based on when they were good. Investors aren't interested in the prospects of a company in a year, or six months, or today- they want to know what happened in the company five years ago.

The WWE is getting plenty of new fans interested. They just aren't you.

Hey, if you're enjoying what you're watching on TNA, live the moment. I think you've just latched onto a team to root for at this point in the failure of any more palatable option, but that's economics for you when one company is much better at what they do than any of the others. What is TNA's target market these days? Fans who want another two hours of wrestling programming per week? Disaffected WWE fans? Men who like combat sports between the ages of 18-30? None of TNA's actions would give you any idea who they're trying to target. I've been saying it for four years, while the company has very steadily and slowly trended downwards- the economics behind TNA aren't sustainable. I've said for much of the past two years that if TNA didn't make changes then, they were in for a period of drastic change later when the economics balanced back out. That period of drastic change is here- you think that the some of the people I've spent the past two years explaining this to would finally be in the mood to listen.

Live the moment. The economics for TNA look better than last year, but they still don't make sense and they're no reason to believe that's going to suddenly change.

 

[mlp420]

Well, the argument was stated explicitly in the original post, but:

A) Your personal opinion of 'crap' is not the universal opinion of 'crap'.
B) Professional wrestling, as seen on television, is not a form of art, but a way to move dollars from pockets in the most efficient means possible.
C) Understanding the economics that are in play behind any product does not make anyone less of a fan than you.

Great, you think the WWE's crap?

I'm bored by it too, don't watch it, and get most of what I know about it right now from Botchamania. This doesn't change the fact that their stock price, right now, is higher than it's been at any point within the past ten years. Your boredom doesn't change the fact that the people who operate the WWE- TNA as well- aren't interested in making your personal interpretation of what a great product is, they're interested in making money. The WWE is doing that. TNA- unless people think it's been long enough that the 'private company' nonsense will fly again- has not.

But that ten year stock price high, clearly, that's just based on when they were good. Investors aren't interested in the prospects of a company in a year, or six months, or today- they want to know what happened in the company five years ago.

The WWE is getting plenty of new fans interested. They just aren't you.

Hey, if you're enjoying what you're watching on TNA, live the moment. I think you've just latched onto a team to root for at this point in the failure of any more palatable option, but that's economics for you when one company is much better at what they do than any of the others. What is TNA's target market these days? Fans who want another two hours of wrestling programming per week? Disaffected WWE fans? Men who like combat sports between the ages of 18-30? None of TNA's actions would give you any idea who they're trying to target. I've been saying it for four years, while the company has very steadily and slowly trended downwards- the economics behind TNA aren't sustainable. I've said for much of the past two years that if TNA didn't make changes then, they were in for a period of drastic change later when the economics balanced back out. That period of drastic change is here- you think that the some of the people I've spent the past two years explaining this to would finally be in the mood to listen.

Live the moment. The economics for TNA look better than last year, but they still don't make sense and they're no reason to believe that's going to suddenly change.

In other words, people that criticize WWE should stop doing it because WWE is a billion dollar company therefore you're in the minority and your criticism is insignificant.

TNA on the hand is struggling so they're fair game. Get on the internet and pretend you can run a wrestling company. Pretend you have answers that will drive ratings and attendance through the roof. At the end of the day you can always look at their numbers and get a sense of validation even though you're opinion is just as insignificant either way.

Way to make my point for me:

TNA is just an easier target for a bunch of people that like to feel like they're smarter than everybody and have the answers for everything.

 

[Rayne]

In other words, people that criticize WWE should stop doing it because WWE is a billion dollar company therefore you're in the minority and your criticism is insignificant.

TNA on the hand is struggling so they're fair game. Get on the internet and pretend you can run a wrestling company. Pretend you have answers that will drive ratings and attendance through the roof. At the end of the day you can always look at their numbers and get a sense of validation even though you're opinion is just as insignificant either way.

Way to make my point for me:

Well, that's not at all what I said. Not even remotely close. I was trying to get you to understand that this is a for-profit industry, and that criticism based upon the artistic merit of a product doesn't have much of a place in a purely capitalist endeavor. Unfortunately, you seem to have taken it as "the professional wrestling you like is stupid!"

If your point of view is that TNA is teh greatest wrestling in teh world, and everything else is stupidfarts, you're going to come away with that impression. I don't criticize Justin Bieber, because he's not targeting a demographic I'm anywhere near. When you realize the same thing about the WWE, you're that much closer to finding revelation.

Here's a mindfuck for you. When we're looking at things from an economic perspective..... money is important!!! Companies which operate based on making money will change their operations if they aren't making money! And the economic perspective drives absolutely everything else about a company!

This isn't a TNA thing. This isn't a WWE thing. This has nothing to do with your preconceived notions of what professional wrestling is. This is a LIFE thing. If what you're doing doesn't work, change it. What the WWE is doing is working, thus, they aren't changing it. What TNA is doing hasn't been working, and thus, they're in a period of drastic change- which I've been telling you has been coming for years, but every time you get caught up in the fact that I'm not saying TNA is teh greatest thing ever. I didn't see that because I'm some super smart perceptive genius (whether I am or not is besides the point), it's because there were very obvious facts sitting on the table for anyone to read who didn't want to shut their eyes and pretend they didn't exist.

But if all else fails, criticize someone because they look smart. That line worked for Eric Bischoff for three years before people started seeing through it; I don't think you'll be able to get that kind of run time out of it, but there are always a couple guppies lurking around here you could pick up.

 

[WrestlingFan97]

I feel the company should just worry about putting on a good, logical wrestling show instead of worrying about what WWE's doing every five minutes. They need to stay grounded instead of trying to be WWE-lite and competing with them because they will never upsurp WWE's postion for the forseeable future, especially with the path they've been travelling on for the past number of years. Yes, they have been getting a few things right recently, but a few things beeing good in a huge pile of crap isn't saying much, but it's a start.

If they just continue showcasing their younger and/or newer wrestlers such as Magnus, ECIII, E.G.O, etc. and sign good indy talents and guys WWE has overlooked or have not given a second chance, they'll succeed in my opinion. All it takes is the right vision and focus and they can create something worth watching instead of being the laughing stock of the wrestling world.

 

[kor420]

It's been a bit better without Aces and 8's dragging everything down, but it doesn't help when we've moved right into another power struggle story. MVP is a nice addition to the company and is certainly good at what he's doing, but at the end of the day he's involved in a story that just holds no interest for me or seemingly the majority of the fans.

The other problem is Dixie Carter. She's just so horribly bad in front of a camera that I don't so much want to see her get what's coming to her as much as I want her off camera forever. She comes off like she's buying into what she's saying which is good, but at the same time she's not someone people want to see out there, even as a villain.

Joe has been getting a renewed push, but here's the question: is he getting it on his merits, or because there's no one else to get the title shot?

The changes have been noticeable, but the problem for me is I have no faith in it lasting. TNA has made changes or fixes so many times now and every time they last for a few months before dropping the ball even more than they did previously and fall down into a Joseph Park. I like the changes while they last, but I'm not sure if anyone is going to be breaking the door down to see Magnus vs. MVP for the title.

I Think this power struggle is the end of the power struggles story lines. I feel like this is the story line that is going to leap-frog TNA into a new ERA. This story line seems to be a bit rushed for nothing to come from it. I Think Team MVP will win with AJ Styles being a surprise member of Team MVP, with AJ Picking up the pin and giving 'full control' of TNA to MVP and finally getting Dixie off TV screen!

 

[Cereal Killer]

they're focusing on providing an entertaining product to kids 12-18.

If the WWE is focused on teenagers, why do you see a lot of the older fans in attendance and speaking about it online? Whether it's on this site or Twitter, you'll always find a grown man talking about the product. I think their product is to most audiences. They do have that small edgy element, stars from the past make appearances and I find it hard to believe that The Shield and The Wyatt Family are catered towards children. That's the role of John Cena and Randy Orton. The superstars all have different gimmicks and attract different crowds. Look at Cena and look at Bray Wyatt. While Cena can entertain the older audiences, his main target is indeed the younger generation but I think guys like Bray attract the older fans. Bray however hasn't exactly shown to be a huge draw (yet), so the WWE's product in general could also be an attraction for those aged 18-30.

If you have John Cena, there's no reason to create a second John Cena while John Cena is still around. You don't create megastars because you're bored with TV. You create one when you know you'll lose the one you have.

I agree with you that the WWE's main goal is to make a profit and a lot of money, but if they wanted to do that, why don't they have more than one megastar? The WWE didn't make John Cena. If they made a star like that, that's what they would intend to do with the rest of their roster. You had The Rock and Steve Austin at the peak of their careers at the same time didn't you? Both of them are considered to be megastars and that would show that the WWE or any other wrestling promotion could have more than one at the same time.

Why are so called fans defending crap because it's "profitable" and a "great business model"?

Look at it this way: if a company is making a lot of money, it's because a lot of people are paying for the product. Why are people paying for the product? I don't know, maybe because it's good?

To be honest, neither company is exactly lighting the world on fire.

Are you trying to say they're unpopular? These would show otherwise:

Spoiler

WWE, a publicly traded company (NYSE: WWE), is an integrated media organization and recognized leader in global entertainment. The company consists of a portfolio of businesses that create and deliver original content 52 weeks a year to a global audience. WWE is committed to family friendly entertainment on its television programming, pay-per-view, digital media and publishing platforms. WWE programming is broadcast in more than 150 countries and 30 languages and reaches more than 650 million homes worldwide. The company is headquartered in Stamford, Conn., with offices in New York, Los Angeles, Miami, London, Mumbai, Shanghai, Singapore, Munich and Tokyo.

TNA manages every aspect of production internally to bring fans more than 500 hours of original content each year. TNA produces exclusive entertainment for more than 5 million viewers in 14 languages each week to more than 100 countries and counting.

IMPACT WRESTLING is TNA’s weekly televised show on Thursday evenings that airs on Spike TV. The show is watched by more than 1 million viewers per week. One of Spike TV’s most popular programs, IMPACT WRESTLING provides the easiest opportunity for any casual viewer to learn about the TNA product.

Thanks to our incredible fans, today the TNA Impact Wrestling YouTube channel has exceeded 500 million views, beating other popular YouTube channels such as UFC, NHL, MLB, NASCAR, MLS, WNBA, Marvel, CNN and Fox to the milestone.

Launched in 2006, TNA Impact Wrestling is now the top-ranked wrestling promotion and the fourth most viewed sports producer by video views on YouTube.* In addition, the channel ranks 39 in the YouTube top 100 most-subscribed sports channels, joining other notable brands such as NBA, UFC and ESPN.

In 2013, views of TNA Impact Wrestling on YouTube surpassed 120 million for the year with 48 million in the United States, and millions of additional views across the globe, including the United Kingdom, India, Australia and Japan.

The fact that both companies gain several views and are broadcast in over 100 countries show that they're known internationally. They may not be as big as Football or American Football, but they're still known by a lot of people. Ratings may be lower as opposed to the 5.0's in the 90's and the 15.0's in the 80's. You need to take into account that there are several streaming sites online, spoilers, DVR and a huge range of channels which affect the viewership of shows on TV. I mean, people are speculating that the WWE's ratings and PPV Buyrates are going to go really low but you need to remember it's because of the Network. While the ratings and buyrates may go low, the profit is going to remain high because of the amount of people paying for the Network.

Moving on to my opinion on the reboot, I can say that it's been a good run so far. They seem to be bringing back talents, focusing on the matches and creating mid-card storylines. While the heavyweight division is pretty good, there hasn't been a proper mid-card division in several years. If someone doesn't like the main story they have nothing else to watch. That's been the main issue and people want an alternative product. What put them on the map has been removed. The X-Division, the 6-sided ring and the aggressive style amongst other features have been abolished. Aside from the obvious, what they need to make sure isn't a common theme anymore is the power-control/stable wars story. That story has been present longer than it hasn't in TNA. It's bad enough that all the viewers have to watch is the upper-card but it's even worse if they're all involved in the same story.

I'm surprised it's taken them this long to figure out their problems but at least they're attempting to sort the product out. I'm hoping that the Dixieland story comes to an end at Lockdown and from that point onwards, they focus strongly on their rejuvenation and redevelopment.

 

[Rayne]

If the WWE is focused on teenagers, why do you see a lot of the older fans in attendance and speaking about it online? Whether it's on this site or Twitter, you'll always find a grown man talking about the product. I think their product is to most audiences. They do have that small edgy element, stars from the past make appearances and I find it hard to believe that The Shield and The Wyatt Family are catered towards children. That's the role of John Cena and Randy Orton. The superstars all have different gimmicks and attract different crowds. Look at Cena and look at Bray Wyatt. While Cena can entertain the older audiences, his main target is indeed the younger generation but I think guys like Bray attract the older fans. Bray however hasn't exactly shown to be a huge draw (yet), so the WWE's product in general could also be an attraction for those aged 18-30.

Exactly that, "also an attraction". You don't have to stop at one market and declare yourself done- see "Total Divas"- but there are some places you focus on more than others.

"Children", in this instance, runs the gamut up to 18, and there really isn't anything mature or conceptually difficult in either the Shield's gimmick or the Wyatt's.

I agree with you that the WWE's main goal is to make a profit and a lot of money, but if they wanted to do that, why don't they have more than one megastar? The WWE didn't make John Cena. If they made a star like that, that's what they would intend to do with the rest of their roster. You had The Rock and Steve Austin at the peak of their careers at the same time didn't you? Both of them are considered to be megastars and that would show that the WWE or any other wrestling promotion could have more than one at the same time.

Next to John Cena, is Randy Orton. The line descends from there.

And you don't think the WWE made John Cena? That's what they do; they make, and they break.

 

[lil steroid meat]

It's okay.

I've enjoyed MVP and although I definitely am still not fond of how weakly Magnus is booked, it's definitely better than when he was needing 12-15 dudes to win a match against a 50 year old Sting.

Even though the storyline is tired as hell, there is a lack of talent over 40 (really can only thing of Ray, Angle and MVP), which is a great thing. Joe, Magnus, EC3, Spud (annoying as shit but I guess he counts), Samuel Shaw, Austin Aries, The Bro Mans and Zema Ion (also annoying as shit), Chris Sabin, The Wolves, etc. are all some of the younger talent that have become the prime focus of the show.

I'm more interested in television after Lockdown. That will be the first true television in a while for TNA without Dixie/power struggles. Hopefully that will take the focus back to the talent.

Also will someone please get the word to change the color scheme to stop looking like diet Smackdown . . . also go back to the six sided ring. Petty things that could help them differentiate themselves from the WWE.

All in all, things are looking up for TNA, if they financially handle themselves correctly, stay away from power struggle storylines, keep relying on young talent, and IMO they need to visually separate themselves from the WWE. Much better outlook than a few months ago (or really just January, it feels like a lot farther in the year than two months).

 

[Cereal Killer]

"Children", in this instance, runs the gamut up to 18, and there really isn't anything mature or conceptually difficult in either the Shield's gimmick or the Wyatt's.

Are you saying Austin's character of a 'bad-ass' and Undertaker's 'deadman' character were easy to understand or mature? I don't think so, they seem pretty basic and a character which which is dark and creepy is very child-oriented. Every era has characters like that but they can still be aimed at adults.

Next to John Cena, is Randy Orton. The line descends from there.

Ok.

That's what they do; they make, and they break.

This still doesn't make sense. He's the only one that makes them a lot of money at the moment. You're saying they can make stars like that and only do so once a generation. If they can, why not make a star like that with all of the main-eventers? Their aim is to make money so why not try to make more? Also these "megastars" genuinely appear to be the better talents. Hogan, Austin, Rock and Cena can cut better promos than a lot of the people from their own generation, are more engaging towards the crowd and have/had some of the best matches. Is that what they do, make and break stars' general talent? It doesn't add up. I believe these stars created themselves.