IMPACT Wrestling LD for 08.04.11

If that were true then people would watch the show.

Not really. It's not promoted by WWE, like, at all. Plus, no big names means smaller ratings.

All of the people who stopped watching the show appeared to care. Losing 50% of your audience inside a single year and then getting canceled suggests that your show isn't very good.

People tuned out because WWE didn't feature the big names that they promise. Doesn't mean the quality isn't there. I would then refer you to my first point.

No, in terms of quality it doesn't even achieve D level. The quality of something is judged by how well it does what it was supposed to do. Superstars was supposed to attract a television audience. It failed to do this, making it a flop.

Like I said, people tuned out because the big names were not on it. It doesn't make it a bad wrestling show.

You might like it, but the rest of the world doesn't really give a shit. One person liking or disliking something doesn't make it good or bad.

A whole bunch of people liking it doesn't make it good or bad, either. Like any other art, wrestling is subjective. It's about what the individual likes. There's no real right or wrong.
 
Wow, who knew Shattered Dreams' one ridiculous, off base comment would lead to all this?

I love these things for that reason alone. Glad I got to throw in my one comment but I won't be here come Impact time. Have some plans that I'm pretty sure any of you would take over a wrestling show.
 
Not really. It's not promoted by WWE, like, at all. Plus, no big names means smaller ratings.

It was promoted quite heavily during the launch period, enough to get it a rating comparable to TNAs. Huge numbers of those people tuned out though. Now it might be that they all suffered magical memory loss and forgot that the show existed, but I think a more logical conclusion is that the 1,000,000+ people who abandoned the show in it's first year stopped watching because they did not like the product.

What your target audience does not like your show then it means that your show is bad.

People tuned out because WWE didn't feature the big names that they promise. Doesn't mean the quality isn't there. I would then refer you to my first point.

People tuned out because of an absence of big names. This suggests that people want to see big name wrestlers. Superstars was failing to deliver what the audience wanted. It may have delivered a number of watchable twenty minute contests between jobbers, but the audience didn't want to watch that.
I refer you to my earlier comment, that when your audience do not want to watch your show then your show is bad.

Like I said, people tuned out because the big names were not on it. It doesn't make it a bad wrestling show.

Of course it does. The entire purpose of a wrestling show is to attract viewers. That is literally the reason why the show is made. The WWE produced the show to make money, and the show makes money by attracting viewers. Superstars couldn't attract viewers because it was a bad show, which is why WGN axed it. If you produce television that nobody wants to watch then you are bad at producing television. This holds true for the wrestling industry as well.

A whole bunch of people liking it doesn't make it good or bad, either. Like any other art, wrestling is subjective. It's about what the individual likes. There's no real right or wrong.

Except art is produced for the sake of art, where as wrestling is produced for the sake of making money.

This is why you don't see Susan Philipsz hosting shareholder's conference calls talking about how she is going to increase her market share. It's why Banksy doesn't release his work on PPV. It's why Andrei Rublev circulated for half a decade before seeing the inside of a theater.

Art is produced with some other objective in mind beyond financial gain. WWE Superstars was not. It did not seek to inform or educate, to persuade or to express an idea. It simply seeks to entertain its audience, and through entertaining its audience to make money. It failed to entertain it's audience, and as such was a bad show.
 
Really? Talk about WWE's D-rate programming/"superstars" in the TNA LD? :rolleyes:

How about we get back on topic, yeah?

Yeah, I hate it when marks for one company come into the LD's trolling the fans of the other company who the LD is for. Just like that guy, whose name escapes me, was doing last Monday night ;)
 
Scott Hall?

No, I don't think it was Scott Hall, it was someone a little more real.

Still haven't decided if I'm tuning in tonight or not. With the loss of the ever charismatic Amazing Red, the show has taken a real hit. I mean, it's not like they have a Trent Barretta or someone waiting in the wings to fill this huge void.
 
Go ahead, compare Riley to either of those guys.

Remember when Riley was a worthless guy that could not do anything right personally or professionally? Yep I remember a couple months ago too. If Vince pushes it the marks will follow. I haven't watched much of the guy. I think I saw a little bit of him on NXT and thought the jock character worked personality-wise. Since I cannot remember anything Riley has ever done in the ring I'll give both guys the nod over him there although they are likely behind him on the mic I would guess.

I do not see why people whine for a long time for TNA to push guys that are not old and that they can call homemade. They also want the product to be fresh. Then they complain when TNA pushes fresh, young talent that are solely identified with TNA. Joe had his chance, get over it.
 
I'll be here but I'm in a very bad mood and am rather tired. Thankfully though I'll have more time to be in the LD tonight.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
174,846
Messages
3,300,824
Members
21,726
Latest member
chrisxenforo
Back
Top