[Official] Disco Nation

[Marty2Hotty]

I just wanted to post a great post from another poster on anotehr board when people bashed TNA, Russo, "emphasizing that buyrates are the most important thing in wrestling"

It's the same old discussion every week. Comparing WWE to TNA is grossly unfair. WWE has been around for decades building up a brand.

Raw drew a 2.6 rating this week. A 2.6. That is 1995-like levels and, more worryingly, without any competition. With the amount of money they pump into advertising, their budget and their years of exposure it's a VERY disturbing number. TNA's rating is stagnant/consistent or consistently stagnant, but they haven't LOST 2 million viewers in three years. Their first rating on Spike was 0.8. They have increased their viewership and have increased their exposure. The strides that TNA has made everywhere but the mooted PPV buyrates is huge.

Of course WWE makes more money than TNA, but TNA is profitable because of increased revenue streams. They increased these because of increased exposure. It's not rocket science. Anyone who suggests that ratings aren't that important is missing the point. Increased ratings = more eyeballs on your product, more potential buyers and the prospect of increased exposure on the network. So, if TNA manages to increase their ratings significantly, it ought to follow that they will be a more profitable company. They didn't become a profitable company BECAUSE of buyrates, obviously.

If anyone seriously thinks the Attitude era didn't save the WWE from extinction, they're either misinformed or being disingenuous. It started the WWE on the road to major profitability, with ratings and buyrates that obliterated those of today. That was down to a hot product and a style of programming that garnered mainstream attention. Like-for-like, WWE was FAR more successful ten years ago than they are now. It's just that the huge profits they achieved then allowed them to pursue other avenues. Not all of these were successful, though. I mean, the XFL and The Condemned show that McMahon makes his far share of mistakes too. Also, let's not forget that they've been running without serious competition for over seven years.

I just like to open people's eyes up to things. There is much delight on these forums about VR's "lack of success". Some believe that Cornette and/or Heyman would seriously push TNA in the right direction. While I do respect both of these guys for their achievements, they have both failed as wrestling businessmen. Ever heard of Smoky Mountain Wrestling? It went out of business. ECW? The same. For all their good ideas and genuinely good creations, neither guy has a clean record.

Hey, in all sincerity, I admire them both. Let's face it, though, they both have reported personality flaws (either ill-temper or dishonesty). If you doubt that, have a little chat with Santino Marella or half the ECW roster who wanted to inflict serious harm on Heyman when ECW folded.

Thinking outside the box here, could it be that Russo gets hired because he's said to be a team player and an amiable guy? I know, it's hard to imagine!

You can have all the traditional wrestling you want, but TNA should not be faulted for being ambitious. Why shouldn't they take some ideas from WWE? They already are enough of an alternative but, the fact is, the WWE is the most profitable wrestling company in America. They are the only company who have survived, so why should TNA borrow templates from companies that are either not financially successful (ROH) or failed because of overspending and bad management (WCW, ECW)?

I am simply explaining TNA's likely rationale for some of their booking choices, because it seems so inexplicable to many. I am NOT saying TNA are necessarily right, but I can certainly appreciate their logic.

You have to remember how TNA started. The progress has been immense. TNA are profitable, which is really difficult for any US-based wrestling company these days. They're obviously doing ok and, despite what many might say, a LOT better than ROH.

my reply:

Good post poppy, but some people are too stupid/naive to get it. Another great one. Some people are stupid enough to go "duh, their ratings and buys are sliced in half but due to other revenue streams, they're making more money now"

You're right

Heyman/Cornette never succeeded. Ru$so did succeed during the WWF attitude era... and is already helping TNA be profitable, although I'm sure he can make them even more profitable.

Zandrax then tried replying with the typical nonsence you'd expect to hear on the Internet saying something like I want the rating to be at 1.0 and 50,000 buys vs 1.2 and 35,000 buys. I one time said which is more realistic 1.0 and 35,000 buys/3.0 rating and 150,000 buys vs some other number he pitched. We had this argument about ratings/buyrates corresponding.. he kept saying there was none, even when the WWF attitude era came first

he then stated buyrates increased prior to ratings, which didn't make sense because that would mean, people would sample the product by buying a product they never saw before prior to watching the free TV show. Ratings are fucking important, and that's the bottom line. Get that through your head

Yeah, David Sahadi mentioned that WWF was six weeks close to dying and Russo was a huge part in the turnaround

poppy writes:

I want to be clear here. I like Cornette and Heyman. However, watch their interviews and one of Russo's. Cornette's are usually full of bitterness and recriminations. VR obviously has a high opinion of himself, but he comes across as a decent guy who can make a case. Of course, a lot of people online would have us believe he's an "idiot" or a "******" just because he writes in a way they don't like.

This applies to Zandrax and most people online. Simply becasue they don't like the way he writes, they say he's an idiot.. his success in the past is dismissed as a result of their personal opinion of his 'fantastic writing'

poppy writes

They can bring it on. If they want to tell me that a niche product with no TV and atrocious production values is more successful than TNA, I'd welcome that debate. The only way where they are more successful is in catering to the core fanbase. I do applaud them for that and ROH offers good wrestling, but their chances of growth will always be limited...

Poppy is pretty much the "not so cocky" Glenn gilbertti of the other board, where he does own people..and there really isn't a response that can fight back...

Just wanted to share this good stuff

Increased ratings = more eyeballs on your product, more potential buyers and the prospect of increased exposure on the network. So, if TNA manages to increase their ratings significantly, it ought to follow that they will be a more profitable company. They didn't become a profitable company BECAUSE of buyrates, obviously.

This is a great quote, and I dont understand why people like zandrax can't comprehend this. He talks exactly like all the typical traditionalists that get brainwashed by meltzer on the net. We dont even have the buyrate numbers.. for christ's sakes.. in addition, obviously we want more people interested in watching your show.. again i use the superbowl as an extreme example.

 

[Papa Shango]

Poor Marty. All that blustering and I can unravel it all in two seconds.

Raw drew a 2.6 rating this week. A 2.6. That is 1995-like levels and, more worryingly, without any competition

EXCEPT for Monday Night Football, which featured the Dallas Cowboys and the Philadelphia Eagles, and drew a 13.9 cable rating.

Hold on, let me post that again, in case you missed it.

EXCEPT for Monday Night Football, which featured the Dallas Cowboys and the Philadelphia Eagles, and drew a 13.9 cable rating.

I honestly don't even see the point in bringing up when WWE draws a poor number. It's still a number that TNA would murder for. There is no point in comparing WWE's numbers to TNA's numbers, because TNA and WWE aren't even in the same ballpark, the same league, they aren't even in the same fucking sport! (figuratively speaking, of course). If TNA had to go up against Monday Night Football every week, I guarantee that their ratings would also fluxuate each week. Actually, if Impact had to go up against MNF, they'd probably be cancelled.

 

[IKnowMoreThanDisco]

What do Mark Madden, Kevin Nash and Paul Guay have in common? They all back my point on Vince Russo, TNA and Paul Heyman. Mark Madden hits a home run again and he pretty much validated my math equation on my first post about Vince Russo. I suggest you read his latest column where he exposes Vince Russo. I would love to hear what Mr. Disco Ducky has to say about that. Kevin Nash recently did an interview with Slam! Sports out of Canada and he pulled no punches to say the least. Nash goes into what pretty much what Paul Heyman wrote in his UK Sun column about TNA branding their brand. Nash said this about TNA ""You have to spend money to make money. Eric Bischoff had a vision. He spent a lot of money to bring in talent, and he spent a lot of money on marketing." Nash said TNA needs more marketing and I couldn't agree more. Now onto Paul Guay and I'm sure you all are asking yourselves who is Paul Guay. What do the 1994 remake Little Rascals, Liar, Liar starring Jim Carey, and Heartbreakers starring a who's who of hollywood(Jennifer Love Hewitt, Gene Hackman, Jason Lee, Sigourney Weaver, Ray Liotta, etc) all have in common? They were written by Paul Guay who also did an interview recently with Slam! Sports. Paul was a WWE consultant for a cup of coffee and he had this to say about Paul Heyman: ""When I talked to Paul privately, I was more impressed by what he said than by anyone else I've ever met in the wrestling industry," he explains. "His ways to pitch stars, to make stars out of guys … I've never encountered anything like it. That's right, a successful Hollywood writer who's movies have grossed over half a billion dollars has backed up my statements about Paul Heyman. He praises more about Heyman which I will post the link to the interview below. Lets end today with a little math again shall we: Vince Russo+Kevin Nash=Disco Marking Out, Mark Madden+Jim Cornette=Vince Russo Exposed, Hollywood Writer Paul Guay+Anyone with half a brain=Paul Heyman a Genius.

Hollywood Writer Paul Guay Interview http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Wrestling/Movies/2008/07/18/6199331.html

 

[gg inferno]

What do Mark Madden, Kevin Nash and Paul Guay have in common? They all back my point on Vince Russo, TNA and Paul Heyman. Mark Madden hits a home run again and he pretty much validated my math equation on my first post about Vince Russo. I suggest you read his latest column where he exposes Vince Russo. I would love to hear what Mr. Disco Ducky has to say about that. Kevin Nash recently did an interview with Slam! Sports out of Canada and he pulled no punches to say the least. Nash goes into what pretty much what Paul Heyman wrote in his UK Sun column about TNA branding their brand. Nash said this about TNA ""You have to spend money to make money. Eric Bischoff had a vision. He spent a lot of money to bring in talent, and he spent a lot of money on marketing." Nash said TNA needs more marketing and I couldn't agree more. Now onto Paul Guay and I'm sure you all are asking yourselves who is Paul Guay. What do the 1994 remake Little Rascals, Liar, Liar starring Jim Carey, and Heartbreakers starring a who's who of hollywood(Jennifer Love Hewitt, Gene Hackman, Jason Lee, Sigourney Weaver, Ray Liotta, etc) all have in common? They were written by Paul Guay who also did an interview recently with Slam! Sports. Paul was a WWE consultant for a cup of coffee and he had this to say about Paul Heyman: ""When I talked to Paul privately, I was more impressed by what he said than by anyone else I've ever met in the wrestling industry," he explains. "His ways to pitch stars, to make stars out of guys … I've never encountered anything like it. That's right, a successful Hollywood writer who's movies have grossed over half a billion dollars has backed up my statements about Paul Heyman. He praises more about Heyman which I will post the link to the interview below. Lets end today with a little math again shall we: Vince Russo+Kevin Nash=Disco Marking Out, Mark Madden+Jim Cornette=Vince Russo Exposed, Hollywood Writer Paul Guay+Anyone with half a brain=Paul Heyman a Genius.

Hollywood Writer Paul Guay Interview http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Wrestling/Movies/2008/07/18/6199331.html

have you heard of matt stone and trey parker?

 

[Talon_DR]

I belive they are the writers of South Park, right? What about them?

 

[Papa Shango]

Perhaps Glenn is preparing to compare Vince Russo's bathroom humor that Mark Madden criticized at length in his new column, with the vulgar antics that have made South Park a household name for over a decade. Only two differences:

1) South Park manages to combine bathroom humor, with scathing satire that lampoons every gender, race, and religion, ultimately resulting in some surprisingly smart television. Vince Russo... does not.

2)In an ironic twist, South Park has made a much, much bigger impact on television than... Impact.

At least, that's all I could think of where he's going.

 

[Scar]

I just wanted to post a great post from another poster on anotehr board when people bashed TNA, Russo, "emphasizing that buyrates are the most important thing in wrestling"



my reply:

Good post poppy, but some people are too stupid/naive to get it. Another great one. Some people are stupid enough to go "duh, their ratings and buys are sliced in half but due to other revenue streams, they're making more money now"

You're right

Heyman/Cornette never succeeded. Ru$so did succeed during the WWF attitude era... and is already helping TNA be profitable, although I'm sure he can make them even more profitable.

Zandrax then tried replying with the typical nonsence you'd expect to hear on the Internet saying something like I want the rating to be at 1.0 and 50,000 buys vs 1.2 and 35,000 buys. I one time said which is more realistic 1.0 and 35,000 buys/3.0 rating and 150,000 buys vs some other number he pitched. We had this argument about ratings/buyrates corresponding.. he kept saying there was none, even when the WWF attitude era came first

he then stated buyrates increased prior to ratings, which didn't make sense because that would mean, people would sample the product by buying a product they never saw before prior to watching the free TV show. Ratings are fucking important, and that's the bottom line. Get that through your head

Yeah, David Sahadi mentioned that WWF was six weeks close to dying and Russo was a huge part in the turnaround

poppy writes:


This applies to Zandrax and most people online. Simply becasue they don't like the way he writes, they say he's an idiot.. his success in the past is dismissed as a result of their personal opinion of his 'fantastic writing'

poppy writes



Poppy is pretty much the "not so cocky" Glenn gilbertti of the other board, where he does own people..and there really isn't a response that can fight back...

Just wanted to share this good stuff



This is a great quote, and I dont understand why people like zandrax can't comprehend this. He talks exactly like all the typical traditionalists that get brainwashed by meltzer on the net. We dont even have the buyrate numbers.. for christ's sakes.. in addition, obviously we want more people interested in watching your show.. again i use the superbowl as an extreme example.

Actually, Marty, THIS is what Zandrax said:

The fact that TNA has turned the corner to profitability WITHOUT an increase in ratings shows that ratings are not essential to profitability.

Thank you for reinforcing this. Now we never have to discuss this again. Case closed. Game. Set. Match.

Just figured I'd straighten things out so all were on the up and up.

 

[dzonewrestle1]

Glen, a while back you said u knew where the Jeff/Sting/young old stuff was goin and that'd it eventually turn fans on Sting in the angle, and I think tonight after Impact, I understand what you said.

Great segment by Jeff. Jeff did a hell of a promo. Very real.
Mabye too much shoot and too much Dr. Phil interpersonal for casual fans who don't read about TNA's legit history. Also in the segment, if Jeff is the founder and current VP, then why did he give Sting a contract where he could work less, and make the most? And why if Jeff is revealed as the founder in this segment would he said to Angle, "shooting", that hiring him was a mistake? Jeff knows Angle has made him tons of money. So if this was "shoot" like Russo probably booked this to be perceived as, Jeff would be backing Angle because Angle makes him money.

I do get the basic fabric of the angle though. Those are just questions that some fans would probably ask about this however.

I do like how it's a complex story and not a simple heel vs. face story. I have a feeling thats what it's supposed to be, a complex build different from the original wrestling heel/face formula.

 

[IKnowMoreThanDisco]

Perhaps Glenn is preparing to compare Vince Russo's bathroom humor that Mark Madden criticized at length in his new column, with the vulgar antics that have made South Park a household name for over a decade. Only two differences:

1) South Park manages to combine bathroom humor, with scathing satire that lampoons every gender, race, and religion, ultimately resulting in some surprisingly smart television. Vince Russo... does not.

2)In an ironic twist, South Park has made a much, much bigger impact on television than... Impact.

At least, that's all I could think of where he's going.

Yes, I can almost guarantee that is where he is going.

 

[Marty2Hotty]

The fact that TNA has turned the corner to profitability WITHOUT an increase in ratings shows that ratings are not essential to profitability.

Thank you for reinforcing this. Now we never have to discuss this again. Case closed. Game. Set. Match.

Yeah, they were very profitable with no TV exposure vs now with 1.5 million viewers. Case closed.

 

[gg inferno]

Perhaps Glenn is preparing to compare Vince Russo's bathroom humor that Mark Madden criticized at length in his new column, with the vulgar antics that have made South Park a household name for over a decade. Only two differences:

1) South Park manages to combine bathroom humor, with scathing satire that lampoons every gender, race, and religion, ultimately resulting in some surprisingly smart television. Vince Russo... does not.

2)In an ironic twist, South Park has made a much, much bigger impact on television than... Impact.

At least, that's all I could think of where he's going.

if the guy wants to bring up a hollywood guy that wrote little rascals and heartbreakers, then i would rebut that matt stone and trey parker said in interviews that RAW was the best written show on tv back in the attitude era. i'll leave it up to the board to decide if they think that south park would fall within the wrestling demographic. as for madden, he doesn't watch impact, and he's bitter about not being employed in the business, which he should be. he and bruce mitchell share basically the same views. and as for a guy meeting all the people back in wwe and being impressed with paul heyman the most, that's extremely understandable, as i don't think the guy would've been too enamored with the brian gerwitz success story.

here's something you all should know. russo doessn't come up with the ideas for the gimmick matches, at least not 80% of them, but whenever there's a gimmick match on the shows, that's when the fire russo chants start.

 

[jimufctna24]

it doesnt matter who booked it when a bad gimmick match is booked and the fans dont like they dont like it just because they blaim the wrong person doesnt take away the fact that whoever booked is a stupid idea

 

[Talon_DR]

I have a quick question for Glen in light of all the contractual negotiations (rumored). What couple of guys/girls on the TNA roster are most loyal to TNA and in your opinion would never leave (discluding Jeff Jarrett). If you could say all the guys you think are in TNA for the very long term that would be great too, thanks Glen.

 

[MNF]

if the guy wants to bring up a hollywood guy that wrote little rascals and heartbreakers, then i would rebut that matt stone and trey parker said in interviews that RAW was the best written show on tv back in the attitude era. i'll leave it up to the board to decide if they think that south park would fall within the wrestling demographic. as for madden, he doesn't watch impact, and he's bitter about not being employed in the business, which he should be. he and bruce mitchell share basically the same views. and as for a guy meeting all the people back in wwe and being impressed with paul heyman the most, that's extremely understandable, as i don't think the guy would've been too enamored with the brian gerwitz success story.

here's something you all should know. russo doessn't come up with the ideas for the gimmick matches, at least not 80% of them, but whenever there's a gimmick match on the shows, that's when the fire russo chants start.

I can't wait for the column on this subject. I really dislike the Fire Russo chants as well. I ordered No Surrender last sunday, and before the chants even got out of hand, there was like two or three people that were chanting it, and got the whole crowd to do it. It was obvious the crowd didn't even know why they were chanting it, they just went along with those two/three guys.

The Jeff Jarrett promo last night was awesome. I think it would of been a little better if the "legends" brought in Mick Foley, and Jarrett brought back/out Christopher Daniels, as he was very instrumental in the success of TNA, IMO. But I can understand how he is using the Curreyman gimmick now. Great stuff last night, I hope it continues. I was really looking forward to a Kurt Angle vs Jeff Jarrett match.

 

[Captain Cold]

a couple of points about your continued attempts to argue poorly. one, you need to quit bringing up stuff like the one guy that watched global impact and now you're talking about two guys at work. that's just weak as weak can be when that's what you try to back your points up with. and two, as for your 732 swerves comment, you're so right, because that certainly doesn't work for shows like Lost and 24.

Hey, I hope you don't mind me bumping an old post. I know it's really annoying when someone stumbles in after a conversation has moved on, but this comment just really sparked my interest.

See, it's really intriguing you bring up shows like Lost and 24, because ultimately, TV dramas like this are just as much TNA's competition, if not moreso, than the oft-mentioned UFC. Because ultimately, TNA - and all televised pro wrestling, for that matter - is a TV drama. It has an ensemble, a cast of characters. There are plots (main event feuds) and subplots (midcard feuds), that all weave in and out with each other throughout an episode, and (if you're doing it right) develop and move forward with each passing week. But with wrestling, each "season" is a month of television, followed by a PPV. Like any season of Lost or 24, iMPACT should be building up character arcs and conflict, working towards everything coming to a head in the "season finale", IE, the PPV. And like any good season finale, a PPV should be simultaneously setting up intrigue and excitement for the next "season", while at the same time offering climactic and rewarding resolutions for its audience. In theory, it's a simple formula. But in practise, it's a lot harder to pull off, and TNA have seemed to have real difficulty at times in doing so.

Now, I'm not going to namedrop Russo and blame him. TNA has long had similar creative problems, going back to before Russo even came back onboard in 2006. TNA has a booking team, and so it is the booking team that must be credited/blamed for what goes on in TNA. But whoever is responsible, there have been I think a lot of problems with TNA's storytelling.

I'm not one of these guys who says we should have two gimmickless guys in black trunks grapple for 120 minutes. I think you'll find there are very few people who want that. TNA's PPVs have a longstanding reputation of delivering the goods with great wrestling, and if I tune into a PPV, yeah, that's what I'm expecting. But if I'm tuning into iMPACT, I'm expecting the same thing I'd be expecting tuning into an episode of Lost, or 24, or Dexter, or Heroes, or Prison Break, or any of the TV dramas out there. Solid characterisation, with my favourite characters being given something interesting to do. And a storyline that I find compelling, that makes that episode a rewarding viewing experience while at the same time giving me the incentive to watch next week.

But if I was watching Lost, and suddenly they cut to a scene with Sun in the toilet making fake farting noises, or if Hurley got put into a coma, then woke up impersonating Dr. House, I'd feel insulted. Because it's unfunny comedy that insults my intelligence. In a genre where "suspension of disbelief" is crucial to emotional investment in the drama, as a viewer, something like that takes me out of the moment. I'm not believing in the drama anymore, and I'm alienated as a viewer. The same applies for TNA iMPACT.

Or going back to the original "swerves" remark. A plot twist is one thing. When used in moderation, it can be effective. But when you do them all the time, the viewer becomes numb to them. When a twist is the norm, a twist taking place is no longer surprising. And so it is useless. In "Lost", John Locke being revealed on the wheelchair, or Michael killing Anna-Lucia were effective, because nobody saw them coming. If those "swerves" had been telegraphed for a month, they would be deemed as utterly ineffective in fulfilling their purpose to shock and surprise, and therefore failures. Shouldn't the "swerves" of TNA be held to the same standard?

Now, you seem to have demonstrated a kind of disdain for wrestling fans, the people who are already loyal to TNA. You've said TNA shouldn't be interested in them, but instead be interested in catching the "casual fans", the wider mainstream audience who don't watch wrestling. But I think this is a flawed argument. Let's look again at your TV drama examples. Take 24. It does well in the ratings. But it is totally destroyed by the juggernaught that is American Idol. Do you think the 24 writers get in a room, and say, "Hey, American Idol's getting huge ratings, so we should be more like them."? How would that go, if next season on 24, Jack Bauer started singing every week? And then the other cast join in. Then they bring in a panel of operatives from Division to judge them on their singing, but one of those Division guys is really nasty and makes fun of their singing. And then fans can vote in each week, so the worst singers in the 24 cast get killed off. Something tells me this idea would flop. Why? Because if people want to watch American Idol, they'll watch American Idol. 24 has its strengths, and the writers play to them. They don't try and reinvent the wheel. They just try and give their existing fans more of what they want.

Similarly, TNA isn't WWE. If it's ever going to grow into competition with WWE, it won't be through trying to imitate their practises. WWE does WWE better than anyone else possibly could. If people want to watch a WWE-style show, they'll watch WWE. No, TNA is going to get recognition by being something different, by playing to ITS strengths. Before it can reach out to a wider audience, surely they need to ensure its existing viewers are actually fans of the show? Give them what they want! Strong word-of-mouth can go a long way towards drawing in new viewers, and it wouldn't cost TNA a penny.

How do you give the existing fans what they want? The same way any TV show does. If a character is popular, put some focus on them, give them interesting things to do. Take Samoa Joe. As champion, Joe is your star, your leading man. Samoa Joe is Jack Bauer. Audiences know what they want to see from Jack Bauer. They want a grim, grizzled badass who kills people left and right with Chuck Norris like precision. Don't you think they'd be displeased if Jack spent weeks whining to Bill Buchanan about how he's not a good friend? Or if he constantly got made to look like Chloe's lackey? If Jack stopped acting like Jack, people would start to turn on him. You need to let Jack be Jack. And you need to let Joe be Joe.

I'm aware this has been a lengthy post, so I'll try and bring it home. I know it seems like I'm being very negative, but my final message is positive. I LOVED this week's iMPACT. Joe went out there, and he was like the old Joe. No indecisiveness or petulance. Just a straight-to-business badass with an attitude. Him and Sting both did great interviews. And already Bound For Glory is sold for me. They don't need any beaten wives or kidnapped sons or anything ridiculous or insulting. It's two guys with clashing philosophies, and they're headed for a collision course on PPV. I want to see that fight. Simple, direct, compelling storytelling. And the closing segment was brilliant, because Jarrett and Angle both were absolutely believable. I was utterly drawn into the drama. THIS is the kind of show TNA should be doing more often. Because in terms of characterisation and drama, it stands alongside the likes of Lost and 24, rather than seeming like some simplified, derivative cousin of "real" drama.

 

[IKnowMoreThanDisco]

if the guy wants to bring up a hollywood guy that wrote little rascals and heartbreakers, then i would rebut that matt stone and trey parker said in interviews that RAW was the best written show on tv back in the attitude era. i'll leave it up to the board to decide if they think that south park would fall within the wrestling demographic. as for madden, he doesn't watch impact, and he's bitter about not being employed in the business, which he should be. he and bruce mitchell share basically the same views. and as for a guy meeting all the people back in wwe and being impressed with paul heyman the most, that's extremely understandable, as i don't think the guy would've been too enamored with the brian gerwitz success story.

here's something you all should know. russo doessn't come up with the ideas for the gimmick matches, at least not 80% of them, but whenever there's a gimmick match on the shows, that's when the fire russo chants start.

Mark Madden should be employed in the wrestling business. Fact of the matter is TNA has the two hottest free agents out there as far as creative goes and that's Mark Madden + Paul Heyman= Revolutionizing TNA

 

[Captain Cold]

Mark Madden should be employed in the wrestling business. Fact of the matter is TNA has the two hottest free agents out there as far as creative goes and that's Mark Madden + Paul Heyman= Revolutionizing TNA

Meh...I disagree with Mr. Gilberti on a lot of points, but even I would say Mark Madden is a hack.

 

[Marty2Hotty]

I'd like to hear Glenn's opinion on Mark Madden's latest column on Vince Russo. It's shocking to me because Madden's commentator role was all about entertainment, humour, breaking kayfabe, and typical of a Russo role. How he can bash Russo like that blows my mind. ODB's segment, I knew, would get some heat on the net. it suited her character, it was funny, and if people who watch the show see something like that and find it humourous for many characters, they'll tune in to see what happens the next week.

It worked during teh attitude era - yeah, that was a while back, but no characters have really gotten that good since. and i think it's due to wrestling afraid to take the risks.. and you know, letting russo write.. Madden may be just bitter that he isn't employed, but he did a good job of ruining his chances of gettinga heel commentator role on TNA - a role which I think he would have ruled at - if he is just as hilarious as he was back then. but considering how much i have disagreed with him on recent columns, i think his opinions on the "biz" may have changed... or all his columns are just a parody of what the online fans typically talk like - i would like to think that, but somehow it probaably isn't the case

Glenn's new column from 9/18/2008:

http://www.wrestlezone.com/column.php?articleid=223778547

PWInsider talk: I can't load the site because my IE blocks all their ads.. and they want ads to be visible on their site, haha. i just read recaps from other newz sites if i need to

glenn didn't make the no surrender ppv... whatever.. no big deal

Fantasy Draft: Disco Inferno AJ STyles might be entertaining. I'd like to see Glenn "coach AJ" on how to be entertaining, sorta like what Nash did for the X guys back in the day. I miss comedic AJ. AJ/Christian segment this week = one of the best parts on the show - AJ speaking for christian; christian tells him not to speak for him "whose side are we on"; christian said he took AJ to the spotlight; creates mysteries. maybe there WILL be factions.. i hate that this story is going slow, i'm used to russo's new blood stories where things advance, but russo isn't the sole writer. so i understand

- Matt Morgan should be Glacier

"Fire Russo" Nathan Jones is not a bad idea

 

[th5972]

go disco go!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[gg inferno]

Hey, I hope you don't mind me bumping an old post. I know it's really annoying when someone stumbles in after a conversation has moved on, but this comment just really sparked my interest.

See, it's really intriguing you bring up shows like Lost and 24, because ultimately, TV dramas like this are just as much TNA's competition, if not moreso, than the oft-mentioned UFC. Because ultimately, TNA - and all televised pro wrestling, for that matter - is a TV drama. It has an ensemble, a cast of characters. There are plots (main event feuds) and subplots (midcard feuds), that all weave in and out with each other throughout an episode, and (if you're doing it right) develop and move forward with each passing week. But with wrestling, each "season" is a month of television, followed by a PPV. Like any season of Lost or 24, iMPACT should be building up character arcs and conflict, working towards everything coming to a head in the "season finale", IE, the PPV. And like any good season finale, a PPV should be simultaneously setting up intrigue and excitement for the next "season", while at the same time offering climactic and rewarding resolutions for its audience. In theory, it's a simple formula. But in practise, it's a lot harder to pull off, and TNA have seemed to have real difficulty at times in doing so.

Now, I'm not going to namedrop Russo and blame him. TNA has long had similar creative problems, going back to before Russo even came back onboard in 2006. TNA has a booking team, and so it is the booking team that must be credited/blamed for what goes on in TNA. But whoever is responsible, there have been I think a lot of problems with TNA's storytelling.

I'm not one of these guys who says we should have two gimmickless guys in black trunks grapple for 120 minutes. I think you'll find there are very few people who want that. TNA's PPVs have a longstanding reputation of delivering the goods with great wrestling, and if I tune into a PPV, yeah, that's what I'm expecting. But if I'm tuning into iMPACT, I'm expecting the same thing I'd be expecting tuning into an episode of Lost, or 24, or Dexter, or Heroes, or Prison Break, or any of the TV dramas out there. Solid characterisation, with my favourite characters being given something interesting to do. And a storyline that I find compelling, that makes that episode a rewarding viewing experience while at the same time giving me the incentive to watch next week.

But if I was watching Lost, and suddenly they cut to a scene with Sun in the toilet making fake farting noises, or if Hurley got put into a coma, then woke up impersonating Dr. House, I'd feel insulted. Because it's unfunny comedy that insults my intelligence. In a genre where "suspension of disbelief" is crucial to emotional investment in the drama, as a viewer, something like that takes me out of the moment. I'm not believing in the drama anymore, and I'm alienated as a viewer. The same applies for TNA iMPACT.

Or going back to the original "swerves" remark. A plot twist is one thing. When used in moderation, it can be effective. But when you do them all the time, the viewer becomes numb to them. When a twist is the norm, a twist taking place is no longer surprising. And so it is useless. In "Lost", John Locke being revealed on the wheelchair, or Michael killing Anna-Lucia were effective, because nobody saw them coming. If those "swerves" had been telegraphed for a month, they would be deemed as utterly ineffective in fulfilling their purpose to shock and surprise, and therefore failures. Shouldn't the "swerves" of TNA be held to the same standard?

Now, you seem to have demonstrated a kind of disdain for wrestling fans, the people who are already loyal to TNA. You've said TNA shouldn't be interested in them, but instead be interested in catching the "casual fans", the wider mainstream audience who don't watch wrestling. But I think this is a flawed argument. Let's look again at your TV drama examples. Take 24. It does well in the ratings. But it is totally destroyed by the juggernaught that is American Idol. Do you think the 24 writers get in a room, and say, "Hey, American Idol's getting huge ratings, so we should be more like them."? How would that go, if next season on 24, Jack Bauer started singing every week? And then the other cast join in. Then they bring in a panel of operatives from Division to judge them on their singing, but one of those Division guys is really nasty and makes fun of their singing. And then fans can vote in each week, so the worst singers in the 24 cast get killed off. Something tells me this idea would flop. Why? Because if people want to watch American Idol, they'll watch American Idol. 24 has its strengths, and the writers play to them. They don't try and reinvent the wheel. They just try and give their existing fans more of what they want.

Similarly, TNA isn't WWE. If it's ever going to grow into competition with WWE, it won't be through trying to imitate their practises. WWE does WWE better than anyone else possibly could. If people want to watch a WWE-style show, they'll watch WWE. No, TNA is going to get recognition by being something different, by playing to ITS strengths. Before it can reach out to a wider audience, surely they need to ensure its existing viewers are actually fans of the show? Give them what they want! Strong word-of-mouth can go a long way towards drawing in new viewers, and it wouldn't cost TNA a penny.

How do you give the existing fans what they want? The same way any TV show does. If a character is popular, put some focus on them, give them interesting things to do. Take Samoa Joe. As champion, Joe is your star, your leading man. Samoa Joe is Jack Bauer. Audiences know what they want to see from Jack Bauer. They want a grim, grizzled badass who kills people left and right with Chuck Norris like precision. Don't you think they'd be displeased if Jack spent weeks whining to Bill Buchanan about how he's not a good friend? Or if he constantly got made to look like Chloe's lackey? If Jack stopped acting like Jack, people would start to turn on him. You need to let Jack be Jack. And you need to let Joe be Joe.

I'm aware this has been a lengthy post, so I'll try and bring it home. I know it seems like I'm being very negative, but my final message is positive. I LOVED this week's iMPACT. Joe went out there, and he was like the old Joe. No indecisiveness or petulance. Just a straight-to-business badass with an attitude. Him and Sting both did great interviews. And already Bound For Glory is sold for me. They don't need any beaten wives or kidnapped sons or anything ridiculous or insulting. It's two guys with clashing philosophies, and they're headed for a collision course on PPV. I want to see that fight. Simple, direct, compelling storytelling. And the closing segment was brilliant, because Jarrett and Angle both were absolutely believable. I was utterly drawn into the drama. THIS is the kind of show TNA should be doing more often. Because in terms of characterisation and drama, it stands alongside the likes of Lost and 24, rather than seeming like some simplified, derivative cousin of "real" drama.

shows like this past thursday are good, because when guys cut promos, and as a fan you BELIEVE they can back up what they're saying, it makes great tv. the best part of this angle is that when guys are given mic time, they need to deliver, and it becomes compelling tv. that's why shawn and jericho's stuff has been so good. the main thing about angles like these, is that it shows you why certain guys are at the top of the card, and others aren't.

 

[mozenwrath]

What I'd like to know is where's BG James? We haven't seen him in a while. Btw am I the only one here who thinks Taylor Wilde should get a new theme song because the one she has now sucks?

 

[dzonewrestle1]

it doesnt matter who booked it when a bad gimmick match is booked and the fans dont like they dont like it just because they blaim the wrong person doesnt take away the fact that whoever booked is a stupid idea

Thank you...this has been true for many years in TNA. Seems to me that wrestling fans don't hate gimmick matches in TNA and no one thinks there should be all straight wrestling, but when theres a bimbo brawl and a ladder match every week on Impact, then they try to sell you a street fight, a last man standing match then a cage match with weapons on the PPV 3 days later, it's called OVERKILL & DILUTED! 3 days before Hard Justice, I saw tons of weapons usage so why would I care to buy more weapon usage 3 days later on PPV?

I like TNA's King of the Mountain match, the Terrordome is cool, Lockdown has proven successfull. I just think why have a bloody brawl with gimmicks every week on Impact and do gimmick matches every single month on PPV? Spread em' out and make em' all more important.

 

[Captain Cold]

shows like this past thursday are good, because when guys cut promos, and as a fan you BELIEVE they can back up what they're saying, it makes great tv. the best part of this angle is that when guys are given mic time, they need to deliver, and it becomes compelling tv. that's why shawn and jericho's stuff has been so good. the main thing about angles like these, is that it shows you why certain guys are at the top of the card, and others aren't.

We're totally agreed here on this point. I think something that really added to the drama was that it felt like there was a grain of truth in what each wrestler was saying. What these guys are saying to each other is tapping right into the conversations the fanbase have been having for a while, IE, who is it that really makes TNA great? Like the best storylines, it has its finger on the pulse, and is engaged with what the fans want to see. Sting, Samoa Joe, Jeff Jarrett and Kurt Angle all did great work, and justified their respective top spots going into Bound For Glory with how they sold these matches.

 

[IKnowMoreThanDisco]

10 things TNA needs to do

1. Out with Russo, Mantel and In comes Paul Heyman as head booker.

2. Out with Tenay, West and In comes Mark Madden for color commentary and bring in Scott Hudson or Kevin Kelly for play by play.

3. Fire whoever does the wrestler's theme music.

4. Move Disco from road agent to a jobber in the knockout's division.

5. Make Dixie Carter an on screen heel character.

6. Bring in some new voice over actors so we can get a break from the James Earl Jones wannabe voice over guy as he's used all the time.

7. Create a TV title

8. Make Slick Johnson wear regular referee pants

9. Hire Buff Bagwell

10. Come up with better PPV names as a lot of them sound like a bad porno title.

 

[anonymous]

10 things TNA needs to do

1. Out with Russo, Mantel and In comes Paul Heyman as head booker.

2. Out with Tenay, West and In comes Mark Madden for color commentary and bring in Scott Hudson or Kevin Kelly for play by play.

3. Fire whoever does the wrestler's theme music.

4. Move Disco from road agent to a jobber in the knockout's division.

5. Make Dixie Carter an on screen heel character.

6. Bring in some new voice over actors so we can get a break from the James Earl Jones wannabe voice over guy as he's used all the time.

7. Create a TV title

8. Make Slick Johnson wear regular referee pants

9. Hire Buff Bagwell

10. Come up with better PPV names as a lot of them sound like a bad porno title.

I hope that you are joking or being sarcastic because this post proves why "YouDon'tKnowMoreThanDisco."