This is why you have NO credibility in my eyes and your opinions always make me chuckle. Spiderman 3 was the worst of all three Spiderman movies, the second one was by far better in all aspects. But when it comes to the Dark Knight, that movie blows away Spiderman 3. The Dark Knight is great on so many levels, from the story, to the acting, to the depth of its themes. Lest we not forget that its on its way up in the list of top 10 biggest grossing movies of ALL TIME.
The Russo fans on the other board say the same thing and I posted a long statement as to why spider-man 3 IN MY EYES dominated Dark Knight. If you want me to post that info, i'll do it. I don't think I need to.
Quote:
There was nothing memorable about dark knight... except two face - he looked like two face.. joker did an okay performance. bruce wayne/batman has no personality - maybe it was intended that way. i just didn't care for it...
What were you watching? It couldn't have been the Dark Knight.
It was... It was okay.. nothing spectacular... EXTREMELY overrated
Quote:
as for you saying the ratings would go up.. you better find where you said that... i read your columns, and some of your posts and kinda skimmed the vow.
I don't think Glenn Gilberti has to find where he said anything for someone on the internet.. if you can't find it then you'll either have to take his word for it or simply not believe him.
I dont think he said it... but i can be proved wrong.. I have stated many times in my arguments that TNA's ratings would increase slowly to 1.5 in over half a year if TNA stays this direction..
I say it all the time and hope the "IWC" isn't stupid enough to make them stop a direction that is OBVIOUSLY working
wrestling rulebook article. 5 weeks ago. i can tell from reading the shows on paper whether they'll do well in the ratings, and i think we've gone up every week since then
It depends on what you're reading though. Russo writes shows different than "wrestler a pins wrestler b" and most of the spoilers on paper don't go into detail all the pretapes that are funny.
I know a Russo show draws to the masses. a lot of the iwc says he "killed wcw" which is stupid.. If Russo writes, the ratings will go up in time. when you were arguing with i think cash and someone, you said that people like schultz shouldn't bitch at a show that's drawing ratings because TNA may read it and believe it and revert back to boring wrestling matches and never grow. I marked out to that because that is what i have always been saying..
I dont think any other wrestler or someone in the business has the views that glenn has. I know Russo used to do a shitload of interviews and I'd mark out to a lot of what this guy said but he's kinda stayed away from the interviews for the past few years...
I have a question for Glenn, though: What wrestler in TNA do you believe has the most potential to draw better ratings in the main event and bring the top tier of the roster doing better numbers then the Knockouts? I'm always shocked that none of the "main eventers" can boost ratings even to the equal numbers the Knockouts get.
i'm not sure the boys can draw higher than the girls. it's good to know the girls can do so well, because we'd get some pretty good numbers once the guys start outdrawing them, i would eventually hope.
My opinion is the "boys" can. I am not too concerned with what wrestlers draw in the main event. If your shows are exciting/well booked, the ratings are going to be high in time throughout the show and down the line and it wouldn't matter too much who's "headlining" the main event, IMO.
There have been times where TNA put women on the show (boringly) and expected the rating to go up. It did .9. It's how you use them. They were booked in an exciting match with a fun finish/aftermath this week, and everything else on the show (russo-style) clicked
MisterRob, it's not just "i'm going to put women in the main event and the ratings will go up" - it's how you book the show from top to bottom.. just see the ratings during the attitude era and you'll see what i mean
I hate it when keller/meltzer reads into the quarterlys and a 1 min segment by a say MMG can have them put the blame on MMG killing the show's rating.. What annoys me more if the fans online reading that BS believes it and regurgitates what they say
bottom line: Attitude era had an edgey product in 97 (still holds up over anything today) - more eyes were with WCW. WWF pushed it further and further and had a HUGE buzz with Tyson. The peopel that sampled the product due to the hype DONE WELL (shoving austin, joining hbk in DX) stayed and enjoyed the show
WWE today does all these stunts with Trump, holyfield, but their product sucks so bad that anyone who samples the show leaves as soon as the celebs leave.. because the shows are not good/compelling enough to keep the viewers who sampel the product
TNA has Russo booking.. and he writes a show that keeps you intrigued at what's gonna happen in future shows, and entertaining/characters. One huge publicity stunt in allignment with Russo's writing will propel TNA to the next level (im gonna bold this)
So, we can expect at least three arguments now:
1) People are only watching because it's a trainwreck. They can't possibly be watching because they like it!
2) Ratings don't get TNA any money, so they don't matter!
3) The buyrates suck, dammit!
I agree paulsoprano. Bullshit.. I hated Chris Cash for saying that 1) argument. That's the stupidest thing I have ever read in my entire life.. 2) is absolutely bullshit as well.. If you double your TV audience, you're going to grow the rest of your other revenue streams as more poeple are willing to invest in yoru show. Why else do poeple want to advertise during superbowl - more people = more potential for money. the same applies for your wrestling show hyping ppvs. 3) buys grow in time.. russo tripled the audeince in WWF - the buyrates exponentially increased as well - this was a pure entertainment/edgy direction and intriguing shows on a week to week basis for 2 1/2 years.. He needs a long run booking for this to happen for TNA
This news come at a time when Meltzer himself just announced that TNA"is doing very well financially to the point they are now paying Panda Energy back on the tens of millions they put into the company the first few years before it started breaking even."
fantastic news
http://www.wrestlezone.com/column.php?articleid=216084634
As for Glenn saying that he said the ratings would go up in his column above, i'm only able to find:
"The shows for the next three weeks of Impact I've seen look strong on paper. I'll make a bold statement that they'll do good, ratings wise."
Nothing really saying that they will do a visible increase or anyting. "do good ratings-wise" can mean keeping a 'strong' .9-1.0. as for looking "strong" on paper.. aren't you there to see the shows live? you should be able to know what the show is going to be like based on being there and seeing what happens.
i have a question for glenn.. if you are allowed to answer.. what do you do for TNA? Do you produce any segments or have any input on say the prince justice of brother hood segments when you help produce them? are you speaking with vince russo about finishes, how the action is choreographed in the ring, etc?
So what the hell's your point? TNA isn't drawing either of those demographics therefore they're failing to earn the money from them, or the long term audience from them.