What makes TNA good?

Discuss the latest happenings in Impact Wrestling. Share your thoughts, opinions, etc...
User avatar
daniela
Rookie
Posts: 732
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 8:04 am

Re: What makes TNA good?

Post by daniela » Sun Nov 14, 2010 6:44 am

EaglePride wrote:I'll give DD credit at least he has the nuts in here to speak his mind in favor of TNA, in such a pro WWE website.
we tend to be pro-quality, the big E gets its fair share of abuse whenever it produces piles of shite. It just happens TNA produces masses more of that.
Don't cry like my kid sister if that is not up your aley.
Image

User avatar
Malice
Mid Carder
Posts: 1763
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2010 5:41 pm
Location: Tucson, Arizona

Re: What makes TNA good?

Post by Malice » Sun Nov 14, 2010 1:11 pm

DD SMASH!
LORDmalice.
The IWC marks out for me.
Image

User avatar
endless
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 5042
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 10:41 pm
Contact:

Re: What makes TNA good?

Post by endless » Sun Nov 14, 2010 1:49 pm

You aren't supposed to think so much about wrestling.
Why? If you read books you are expected to think. If you watch movies(most movies anyways) you are expected to think. If you read comics you are expected to think. If something happens it makes sense in that world, and it suppose to further the story. And yet "It's pro wrestling. It's OK if the stories make no sense and are completly pointless." I understand that I'm suppose to suspend my disbelieve, but that's not suppose to apply to everything. Suspension of disbelieve only applies to the basic rules of a world:
-Irish whips are possible.
-Wrestlers follow a code of honor. Which means that they settle all their differences in the ring.
-Wrestlers try to hurt each other, but they don't try to kill each other.
-All decisions are final no matter how controversial they are.
-Babyfaces are honorable.
-Heels are pricks.
-Babyfaces are better wrestlers than heels.
-Unless it's an interview, the camera in backstage segments doesn't exist.
-Wrestlers can challenge each other to matches, even though an autority figure can undue a challenge.

Anything that breaks the basic rules of a world should be unacceptable. Anything that breaks real world rules, and is not addressed by a basic rule should be unacceptable. Anything that goes against previous events without a proper reason should be unacceptable. That's the way that all other forms of fiction work. Why is pro wrestling held to a lesser standard?

Let's go through these:
Storyline wise, they didn't have the power they wanted. They had to share with dixie carter. Simple example would be bischoff wanting to make bound for glory main event a three way and dixie over ruling him and making angle hardy match on impact. Storyline wise, bischoff had to do something to get hardy back in the title match at bfg. I forget what he did, but whatever it was pissed dixie off
Here is the problem: when they stole the company from dixie they didn't gain any extra power. They could book matches before, and they can book matches now. They couldn't fire people before, and now they can't fire people. They are in the exact same spot that they were in 4 months ago. The only difference is that now they are heels. It's not the most horrible part of this storyline, but it shows that it was pointless.

I understand that Dixie, Eric, and Hogan were having problems running the company together. In the real world when that happens people have meetings to address these issues. They try to work out their problems. And yet they didn't.

With 5 seconds of though this is how I(probably anyone else) would have done this:
-Eric and Hogan meet with Dixie to discuss their conflicting decitions. The meeting goes no where because Dixie doesn't want to listen.
-Eric(showing some slight heel signs) tells Hogan they can not continue like this. TNA needs clear leadership, and they must do a hostile take over. Hogan says that he'll think about it.
-Eric gets in contact with various shareholders.(TNA has "shares", they must have share holders). He convinces them to sell their shares to a group of Eric's friends.
-Hogan talks to Dixie. Dixie blows him off again.
-Eric gives Hogan one last chance to do a hostile takeover. Hogan decides that it wouldn't be fair to Dixie. Hogan decides to confront Dixie one last time.
-Hogan and Dixie come to an understanding. Dixie agrees to step aside, and let Hogan and Eric run the show. But Eric reveals his plan. He and his friends now control most of the company's shares. They now control the company. He removes Dixie from her spot(Is she suppose to be the CEO or CFO?). Now Eric(heel) controls the company, Dixie is gone, and Hogan(face) has to make a choice: Either work for evil Eric, or stand against him.
-From there RVD can say that he doesn't like what went down between Eric Hogan and Dixie. In a show of power Eric can recruit Jeff Hardy, and he can screw RVD out of the title.

It's realistic, and it accomplishes the exact same thing as the actual turn.
Thats just thinking too much. I'm an intelligent guy. I'm about to finish college and move on to university. I thought the way the plot played out was dumb, but I didn't give it a second thought untill I read your post.
You really didn't question the way that Dixie signed away the company? Last time I checked you can't literally sign off a company with a single signature. Not to mention that it was clearly fraud, and according to storyline it happened in front of all the viewers. That's not the way a hostile take over works. Under what legal system would Dixie not have control of the company(a public company no less) in less than 24 hours?
So should most of the heels in wrestling history. Not just the heels. Steve Austin once blew up a dx coach. Thats borderline terrorism
Yes, that was stupid too. But at least DX wasn't inside the DX coach at the time. Plus in WWE land at the time the cameras aren't around(one of the basic rules), and TNA all of Abyss's acts of kidnapping, torture, and attempted murder have been witnessed by everyone. Not to mention that some of his acts have been against fans. Wouldn't the fans sue TNA? Hell the way the legal system works in the TNA universe, shouldn't a fan be in charge of the company?(I would actually like to see that).
Yes they did. Dumb booking which was probably used just for the means for nash and sting to leave the company, but the entire time they were talking about hogan and bischoff.
My point was that they said it in the most obscure and confusing way possible. It was impossible to know what they were talking about. And they have no reason to not clear things up. Tajiri and Kazarnie could have explained it better.
He already said he hated dixie carter and kurt angle. Storyline, he's back in full control of his company.
Ok, I forgot about Kurt. I can see why Jarret hates Kurt in storyline. He has to reason to hate Dixie, but I guess his hate for Kurt is enough to turn him. TNA has done a poor job of explaining this.
Aren't fortune part of immortal? Isn't Ric Flair taking part in "booking" matches with hogan and bischoff? Fortune are doing all the dirty work. Abyss and hardy are doing their own things
Fortune and Immortal are on the same side, but they are separate groups. They have different locker rooms, seperate entrances, and different feuds. Immortal is only suppose to be Hogan, Eric, Hardy, Abyss, and Jarrett.

Flair booking is actually a plot hole. Hogan and Eric never gave him any power. He is just making matches. I guess any of their buddies can book matches too, but in theory wouldn't that weaken Eric's power?

*******
I give up. This is just too stupid to analyze. Pro wrestling is held to a pretty low standard, which I don't like. But if that low standard is too high for TNA, and it's fans then fine. You guys can enjoy it if you like.
Image

Hotoro
Developmental Talent
Posts: 88
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 12:08 pm

Re: What makes TNA good?

Post by Hotoro » Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:18 pm

The problem isn't thinking. The problem is OVER-thinking. When The Rock threw Steve Austin off a bridge, despite your 'wrestlers don't try to kill one another' 'logic', its not logical to go 'Well why isn't The Rock in jail for attempted murder?' anymore than its logical to ask such a question anytime wrestler A hits wrestler B with a weapon that, in the real world, would be lethal.
And as far as your argument that the camera doesn't exist at the time, in many such instances they make reference to the fact that they're outside [Name] Arena, or wherever, filming the event in question.

As far as the hostile takeover thing- why did it happen the way it happened? Simple. Because having several months worth of episodes revolving around the inevitable legal disputes and business issues that would revolve around a hostile takeover would be incredibly boring. In the world of pro wrestling, we're expected to, as others have said, suspend disbelief when it comes to this. Look back all the way to the NWO; arguably the most popular storyline of all time. As far as the fans were told for MONTHS, we were meant to believe that these were wrestlers affiliated with WWE coming in to take over the company by force. Then it became its own, independent outside source (post-Hogan turn) still trying to take over by force. In the real world, Kevin Nash and Scott Hall would've been placed in jail with a laundry list of charges. But this isn't the real world. Much like we need to accept that Daniel Radcliffe can't really do magic or that the people on Lost aren't really stuck on an island when the camera stops rolling, we have to accept that in the world of wrestling, many real world rules simply don't apply.

The Jeff Jarrett thing- If you think they did a poor job explaining this, then you missed Jeff's interview segment with Kurt the day after the turn. He laid it out in detail then and there.

Fortune/Immortal/Flair's Booking- Just accept it as Flair testing the waters. He's booking because he thinks that Eric and company are going to back up his decision making. At any moment they could easily run an angle where Eric reverses a decision and/or chews him out for it to sew dissension in the group. Its not all that hard to follow, really.

Sting/Nash/Etc- I can agree with you on anyone here that isn't Sting. But Sting made his distrust of Hogan and company clear from very early on. There's history of distrust there dating back to the WCW days and even back then, what did Sting do? He got all aloof and, to an extent, allowed the WCW guys to suffer for their ignorance while picking his spots when it came to attacking Hogan and company. Now don't get me wrong, this was poorly booked when it came to just about everyone else. But in the very least Sting's actions followed a semi-'believable' pattern of behavior (As much as it was believable for him to turn into The Crow in WCW and whatnot).


That all said, you're right about a couple things. Some aspects of the angle don't make sense. Some of its poor booking. Some of its just stupid. However, you're also right that there's no point in analyzing it. Not because its 'too stupid to analyze', but for the same reason it would be illogical to analyze whether or not Godzilla could actually defeat Mothra if the fight were 'real'. If wrestling's standards in terms of believability are too low for you, go find some entertainment that's more up your alley. Different shows require different levels of suspension of disbelief. I'm much more likely, for example, to find the events in an episode of Law & Order 'believable' than I am an episode of X-Files. But in the end its all the same: Its TV. Its fiction. We're meant to know its fiction going in, and the soap opera-esque style that wrestling follows should be a big enough clue that occasionally you're just going to have to shrug off some things as part of the strangeness that is the world of pro wrestling ( REFERENCE ). Its got nothing to do with it just being TNA, TNA fans, etc. The Nexus takeover where a bunch of guys who 'weren't under contract' as wrestlers came in and vandalized the ring/set, assaulted multiple employees and didn't get arrested for their actions is just as unbelievable. But it was one of the biggest steps in, arguably, WWE's most interesting storyline these days.

Don't sit there and go 'well that wouldn't happen!' 'that's fake!' etc. Don't be that guy. That guys pretty damn annoying whether they're being vocal in a crowded movie theater, or on the internet. If you think a storyline is a little less logical than others, whatever. Just think back to when Perry Saturn was in love with a mop, when Shawn Micheals tag teamed with God or anytime The Undertaker uses his magic powers, and get over it.

tommy83
Curtain Jerker
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:35 pm

Re: What makes TNA good?

Post by tommy83 » Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:59 pm

Endless,

No offense meant but I'm not sure how you are able to enjoy wrestling. As stated above, the takeover thing that you described would just be boring, and not to mention it would A) be even less believable if Bischoff was on the air talking of a takeover with Hogan and buying shares, Dixie would get wind of this and put a stop to it, not to mention it would take away the swerve as everyone would see this coming as they would be out in the open about it. The contract signing itself, perhaps it might not work this way in the real world, but hey if the contract said certain things and she signed and agreed to it then who is to say that it couldn't work like that? Regardless though, this is no different than Ric Flair ending up with 50% ownership of the WWE years ago by buying shares in the company. You're just thinking too much about things, wrestling just works this way. Take the Nexus angle for instance, they keep attacking people with numbers, why wouldn't the entire locker room just come out and beat the crap out of them each time they come out? That would be more realistic but would make for a pretty boring show if things worked this way. The same could be said for the NWO back in the day, the entire locker room could have just kept coming out and beat the hell out of those guys. You can't have storylines if everything is suppose to make 100% perfect sense like it would in real life.

We could all think of a million examples of wrestling not making sense or being realistic but that's why it's just entertainment. Maybe not every bit of this storyline was done perfectly but I think they at least explained each part of it pretty well. Sting and Nash are about the only parts that don't to me as they certainly could have done a better job of telling someone but they did at least somewhat explain this as having had either Bischoff, Hogan, or Jarrett interupt them everytime they tried to say something, and by also making Sting and Nash to look like the bad guys so that nobody would listen to them anyways. It also doesn't make sense storyline wise as to why Sting and Nash would keep talking of standing up to them the entire time, even having a match against Jarrett at the PPV only to walk and quit the next night when it becomes revealed. I mean, I know the real life reason is contracts but having Bischoff fire them may have made more sense, but it's really not a big deal.

User avatar
Red_And_Yellow
VIP Member
Posts: 7807
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: What makes TNA good?

Post by Red_And_Yellow » Sun Nov 14, 2010 4:08 pm

Here is what I don't understand about the people who refuse to say anything bad about TNA, you jump on every opportunity the WWE makes a bad storyline. Every time the WWE makes a mistake like putting the US Title on R-Truth, TNA fans call out Vince for making horrible decisions. Then, when WWE fans say anything bad about TNA, all the TNA fans jump up and then either do one of two things:

1. They continue to bash the WWE without actually acknowledging the argument/opinions being put in front of them. Imagine trying to start an intellectual, or strong debate with someone who refused to stay on topic and then just started to bash something you enjoy. This continues until the person arguing against the logic of TNA gets annoyed, and just stops. Leaving all the Cheeto munchers to high five and saying that the WWE was just PWNED~! by him.

2. The TNA fan will just defend the TNA product, and the story lines, and the logic behind the product, no matter what is said. Which really doesn't make sense in retrospect if you think about it. I am a fan of Entourage, I love the show, and enjoy almost all the directions of the characters. I was not a huge fan of Season 7, so if someone would say, yea I didn't like Season 7 of Entourage, I'm not going to jump up on my couch like Tom Cruise and just start shouting that he's wrong, and here are the facts why they should believe me.

There is room in the wrestling world for TNA and WWE fans to get along. Someone brings up a topic like "What makes TNA good?" and half of it is filled with people bashing the product. Then the other half are defending the half that is being bashed, without really talking about any strong points in the product. The topic is What makes TNA good? Not what makes TNA stink, or "Let's bash TNA altogether now!"

DISCLAIMER: I am not a TNA fan, and I think the product is one of the most inefficiently ran businesses in the USA right now. There aren't really any strong points to the show, although I think Jeff Hardy going heel could be a good decision long term (he's still figuring out how to work as a heel). I'm not sticking up for TNA fans, and I'm not sticking up for WWE fans. I am a wrestling fan, if I enjoy the product, I will watch it. TNA does not have a good enough product right now, and they have some good young talent. Until TNA shows the consistent ability to book up and coming young talent, to go along with credible baby faces, I will watch inconsistently.
Image

BAZED SASHA. CRY IZZY.

Hotoro
Developmental Talent
Posts: 88
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 12:08 pm

Re: What makes TNA good?

Post by Hotoro » Sun Nov 14, 2010 4:58 pm

^ Agreed 100%. And, to be clear, I'm not exactly a TNA fan either. I watch in the hopes that they'll eventually improve but being a viewer I acknowledge that their product is low quality. Their writing is terrible. They're using a lot of crap talent rather than pushing their guys that are actually solid. Their storylines are mostly rehashed stuff that either didn't work in WCW or that worked back then, but is stale now. WWE produces a superior product, IMHO, and I don't forsee that changing anytime soon.

However, there's an inherent ridiculousness in bashing a wrestling promotion for their unbelievable storylines (especially when a believable version would've been even less entertaining). Poorly written, sure. Stupid, yes. But 'the angle isn't believable' doesn't hold a whole lot of weight in a world that contains characters like The Undertaker, where people have been known to throw their opposition off bridges, bury them alive, or set them on fire without facing consequences after the fact. Not to mention a world where guys 'not under contract' can invade a promotion, vandalize the place, beat up their workers, etc. and not end up spending a few months in jail. Then we can come on Wrestleview and read how one of those guys who's 'not a WWE employee' was fired for doing something too graphic... but we can't suspend disbelief?

I'm not here to say 'TNA totally rocks!' and to ignore the arguments that prove otherwise. But I'm more than willing to call out a weak argument for just what it is. Iif you're going to bash it, bash it because the product could be better written by twelve-year-olds, or because half of the guys in their main storyline should be in nursing homes, jail and/or working in any business other than pro wrestling.
But saying their issue is they don't produce a believable storyline is akin to saying you watch wrestling expecting (or hoping for) a believable storyline... and in a world where they hire former soap opera writers to write their storylines, that's just not going to happen 100% of the time.

User avatar
Grash
Posts: 347
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 11:11 pm

Re: What makes TNA good?

Post by Grash » Sun Nov 14, 2010 5:59 pm

Hotoro wrote:The problem isn't thinking. The problem is OVER-thinking.
The rest of your post was unnecessary.
Image

Hotoro
Developmental Talent
Posts: 88
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 12:08 pm

Re: What makes TNA good?

Post by Hotoro » Sun Nov 14, 2010 6:10 pm

Grash wrote:
Hotoro wrote:The problem isn't thinking. The problem is OVER-thinking.
The rest of your post was unnecessary.
A point that had already been made, simply, here. It was then followed up by counterpoints made in Endless's next post. Clearly simply pointing out that it was overthinking was insufficient.

Also, aren't we against people just saying this sort of thing and not backing up their argument? As far as I'm concerned that's no different from saying that TNA totally rocks/sucks without giving any actual reasons why.

User avatar
Red_And_Yellow
VIP Member
Posts: 7807
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: What makes TNA good?

Post by Red_And_Yellow » Sun Nov 14, 2010 6:56 pm

Hotoro wrote: However, there's an inherent ridiculousness in bashing a wrestling promotion for their unbelievable storylines (especially when a believable version would've been even less entertaining). Poorly written, sure. Stupid, yes. But 'the angle isn't believable' doesn't hold a whole lot of weight in a world that contains characters like The Undertaker, where people have been known to throw their opposition off bridges, bury them alive, or set them on fire without facing consequences after the fact. Not to mention a world where guys 'not under contract' can invade a promotion, vandalize the place, beat up their workers, etc. and not end up spending a few months in jail. Then we can come on Wrestleview and read how one of those guys who's 'not a WWE employee' was fired for doing something too graphic... but we can't suspend disbelief?
This isn't how life works?!?!?!?!? I THOUGHT TAKER WUZ REAL!!!!!!!
Image

BAZED SASHA. CRY IZZY.

Hotoro
Developmental Talent
Posts: 88
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 12:08 pm

Re: What makes TNA good?

Post by Hotoro » Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:11 pm

Red_And_Yellow wrote:This isn't how life works?!?!?!?!? I THOUGHT TAKER WUZ REAL!!!!!!!
Sorry to burst your bubble. :P

User avatar
Red_And_Yellow
VIP Member
Posts: 7807
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: What makes TNA good?

Post by Red_And_Yellow » Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:23 pm

Hotoro wrote:
Red_And_Yellow wrote:This isn't how life works?!?!?!?!? I THOUGHT TAKER WUZ REAL!!!!!!!
Sorry to burst your bubble. :P
Image

BAZED SASHA. CRY IZZY.

sarcy

Re: What makes TNA good?

Post by sarcy » Mon Nov 15, 2010 12:15 pm

I appreciate how TNA fans have to explain the main storyline because the people in the storyline don't. =)

ElixIsRaw
Mid Carder
Posts: 1656
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: Brooklyn NY

Re: What makes TNA good?

Post by ElixIsRaw » Mon Nov 15, 2010 1:01 pm

This thread lost me when Crow said he respects DD's balls

User avatar
Malice
Mid Carder
Posts: 1763
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2010 5:41 pm
Location: Tucson, Arizona

Re: What makes TNA good?

Post by Malice » Mon Nov 15, 2010 2:30 pm

Image

"And I quote:"
Crow wrote:While I respect DD, and his balls, I do not respect his ignorance.
LORDmalice.
The IWC marks out for me.
Image

tommy83
Curtain Jerker
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:35 pm

Re: What makes TNA good?

Post by tommy83 » Mon Nov 15, 2010 2:37 pm

Sarcy,

I think the storyline made sense to most people, and they even fully explained it after the fact to fill in any holes that might have been there, I'm not getting what parts may not have made sense? I'm a WWE guy first but take the Nexus for instance, which btw I enjoy for the most part but weren't they going on and on early about how they had some sort of reason for doing what they were doing? Didn't they keep talking of how people would understand that the entire reason for Nexus was far above Cena, and that their major goal was far above him? They stopped mentioning this even, what happened to that?

ElixIsRaw
Mid Carder
Posts: 1656
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: Brooklyn NY

Re: What makes TNA good?

Post by ElixIsRaw » Mon Nov 15, 2010 2:53 pm

The fact that they perform to an audience that doesn't pay to see them, tapes a months worth of episodes in one week, and at this point, seven years in their existence, cannot afford to take their shows on the road, takes away any argument on how good they are

What they are doing is the same as driving on square tires.

sarcy

Re: What makes TNA good?

Post by sarcy » Mon Nov 15, 2010 5:03 pm

tommy83 wrote:Sarcy,

I think the storyline made sense to most people, and they even fully explained it after the fact to fill in any holes that might have been there, I'm not getting what parts may not have made sense? I'm a WWE guy first but take the Nexus for instance, which btw I enjoy for the most part but weren't they going on and on early about how they had some sort of reason for doing what they were doing? Didn't they keep talking of how people would understand that the entire reason for Nexus was far above Cena, and that their major goal was far above him? They stopped mentioning this even, what happened to that?

I can understand a bunch of whiny pencil-necks attacking people they are pissy a whole lot more than a bunch of guys who run the company whining about how they don't have even power. That's like complaining about driving a Porsche.. Well, this is TNA. Maybe I am really reaching to think they are classy enough for a Porsche.

sarcy

Re: What makes TNA good?

Post by sarcy » Mon Nov 15, 2010 5:03 pm

tommy83 wrote:Sarcy,

I think the storyline made sense to most people, and they even fully explained it after the fact to fill in any holes that might have been there, I'm not getting what parts may not have made sense? I'm a WWE guy first but take the Nexus for instance, which btw I enjoy for the most part but weren't they going on and on early about how they had some sort of reason for doing what they were doing? Didn't they keep talking of how people would understand that the entire reason for Nexus was far above Cena, and that their major goal was far above him? They stopped mentioning this even, what happened to that?

I can understand a bunch of whiny pencil-necks attacking people they are pissy with a whole lot more than a bunch of guys who run the company whining about how they don't have even power. That's like complaining about driving a Porsche.. Well, this is TNA. Maybe I am really reaching to think they are classy enough for a Porsche.

User avatar
Doug_Lackey
Posts: 591
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 9:45 pm
Location: Charlotte, NC
Contact:

Re: What makes TNA good?

Post by Doug_Lackey » Mon Nov 15, 2010 5:27 pm

After going to Daytona in October for Bound for Glory, witnessing Hogan hobble down the ramp on crutches after surgery #23, and wincing in pain as he tried to bend over through the ropes to pull off a swerve that could have easily been done via satellite or videotape from a hospital bed.... I will never see anything good about TNA...
Image
ImageImageImage
*********EMOTING: SKILL OF THE SAVIOR... YOU'RE WELCOME*********

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests