|
CORNER CUBE FRIDAY 3/28: TNA Impact - Mixed bag of really unreal real segments
Mar 28, 2008 - 11:31:45 AM |
Updated daily from the corner cubicle, Torch columnist James Caldwell's weekday blog focuses on hot topic current events and other items of interest from around wrestling.
Updated Friday, March 28, 2008
Live TNA Impact reaction. TNA's first endeavor into live television on Spike TV was a mixed bag. The first hour of this show was TNA at its worst with frantic pacing, production errors, and a "let's draw attention to ourselves" VIP audience that distracted from the show. Seriously, jumping up and down throwing water on each other? Please just stop.
The second hour was TNA at its best, with good signs of improvement. The matches went a good length of time to tell a complete story. The backstage skits were cut out. The action was intense. There was a cliffhanger at the end following a "feel good" moment. Overall, there was a sense of importance to the final hour after TNA worked out a lot of issues in the first hour.
The scores and reaction I've seen from Torch readers is all over the place, with many positive and negative things to say about the show. The problem I had with this show - and it's the same story every single week - is that half of the show is presented as complete b.s. (Curry, Shark, Lethal, etc.) The other part is presented as "real", but it comes across like complete b.s. (Karen Angle's interview.)
And now this issue is being magnified with the Angle vs. Joe match. OK, so this one is "real", but the other stuff is just the standard fare of silly pro wrestling? Don't get me wrong - the show made a huge turn for the better starting with the video on Joe's training, but there is an over-riding issue to be concerned with.
Setting aside the theatrics and characters inherent in TV pro wrestling, the story of a pro wrestling match is two men competing to win a match. Why do Joe and Angle need "specialized training" to prepare for their match, when the goal of defeating the other opponent is the same? Isn't every pro wrestling match a fight that tests the various skills of the opponent?
Oh, that's right. Don't think too hard about this. It's pro wrestling.
That's an excuse for lazy writing to distinguish segments that tell a different story. Pro wrestling works when the realism is present in all matches and all angles. Not just the matches or segments that are supposed to be more real than the other content on the show.
One of the elements of the NWA Showcase shows that largely goes unnoticed is how the matches are presented as sporting events. Even if Sexy Chino is in the ring, one match isn't more of a "real competition" than the other. The goal is always the same: defeat the opponent.
TNA has a Rough Cut segment that's supposed to be "more real" than the backstage skits. Then, there's Karen Angle being scripted for a "shoot promo" about moving her family out of the house and not being able to address make-believe rumors. Then, there's Val and Lethal doing their thing, which is supposed to be real because it's presented as a "documentary" with the shaky handheld camera.
The amateurish mix of real and "pro wrestling" limits TNA's ability to suck in viewers to dive into the product. Why are viewers supposed to care about this segment - because it's more real than the other stuff? TNA insults the intelligence of the audience by saying this is more real or that's more real. Viewers with just a limited amount of wrestling knowledge know that Angle sparring with Tomko and Styles is just another pro wrestling angle dressed up as something real.
OK, Caldwell, just turn your brain off and watch the show. You got your training video, we toned down Joe to cut a more effective promo, we gave you a quality Women's match. Just shut up and enjoy the non-stop action.
Again, that's an easy excuse. The goal of wrestling is to make money, just like any other business. Currently, TNA's mix of real and "pro wrestling" isn't translating into PPV buys. When 98 percent of the viewing audience turns their brains back on, they step back and look at this mix of "real" and "pro wrestling" and decide to keep their $30 once-a-month on Sunday nights.
The audience is buying tickets for house shows, though. Touching and feeling the live product is a strong hook. But, TNA also presents each match as a unique sporting event, with TNA's top-flight athletes competing in a uniform, similarly-worked pro wrestling match in an intense atmosphere.
Theatrics, character development, and storyline progress are essential for keeping viewers tuned in for 120 minutes, but TNA strays so far away from the very basic elements of TV storytelling that the inconsistent mix often times detracts from what could be a very strong show each week.
Why doesn't Kurt Angle use his amateur wrestling techniques to win every match, not just the ones that are "real"? The inconsistency is an example of what turns away potential fans who want to watch wrestling, and who want to get wrapped up in storylines and characters, but don't want to be insulted.
TNA has to determine a consistent theme for this show, and how each segment should fit the specific vision for the product. There's a difference between a variety show and trying to present 18 different styles of "pro wrestling storytelling". TNA has to find the balance. There were positive signs of change last night, but only when TNA adheres to a consistent vision for the product will the TV show become a viable, money-making vehicle for the company.
***
Updated Thursday, March 27, 2008
There's a live show from TNA Impact tonight to kick off WrestleMania weekend in Orlando. I have a few questions I'll be looking for answers to on this week's episode.
(1) What kind of shape is Sting in? Sting returns to TNA tonight to presumably join Christian Cage's team for the Lethal Lockdown PPV match. We probably won't be able to tell much about Sting's current physical condition tonight; he may simply linger in the rafters or make an in-ring appearance with the bulky black jacket.
When Lockdown rolls around, it will be interesting to see whether Sting is in the same physical condition he was in when he made his previous TNA return in 2006 and drew the "you still got it" chants in his first match back.
(2) How is the show going to open? TNA made its Thursday night debut in April 2006 by joining Samoa Joe vs. Christopher Daniels mid-match in a very physical confrontation that sucked in viewers right away. This was, of course, followed by the infamous Team Canada opening segment the following week that was about as counter-productive as WWE inserting Kevin Thorn on ECW's pre-WrestleMania show.
For the live Impact tonight, TNA has an Ultimate Xscape qualifying match booked between Johnny Devine and Alex Shelley to start the show. It may not be the first segment, though, as Impact usually starts with a backstage segment or Jeremy Borash filling us in on the latest from the Angles. How the show starts won't make or break the show, but it will be telling on what TNA is going to emphasize tonight - wrestling or character segments?
(3) What is Angle vs. Tomko & Styles all about? We still don't know what Mayweather vs. Big Show is going to be on Sunday, and it's even foggier on what Angle vs. Tomko & Styles is going to be tonight. All we know is there will be four rounds with one-minute rounds. I imagine there will be some shenanigans involving Styles, but with that split personality of being a goofball outside of the ring and somewhat-serious in the ring, this could break down any number of ways.
TNA bringing in Frank Trigg to presumably comment on the Angle match and build-up for Lockdown is far better a proposition than TNA bringing in the NASCAR guys to further cement TNA as a regional promotion. Hopefully Trigg can bring a legitimate feel to the program, much like Tito Ortiz did when he was special referee for the TNA Hard Justice PPV in May 2005.
(4) So, Joe, what are you up to these days? Samoa Joe will be on the program from California, where he's training for the match against Angle. Coupled with Angle's match against Tomko & Styles, we're going to find out how much the hardcore fans in town for WrestleMania really care about an "MMA-style fight" on their wrestling program.
With wrestlers doing flips and dives in virtually every match these days, pro wrestling has moved away from the idea of two guys having a legit fight in the ring. The old line is that you don't go for a huracanrana in a bar fight. So, TNA building up a wrestling match as a "real fight" will be an interesting case-study on whether TNA's wrestling fans will buy into TNA that hype with the standard "sports entertainment" elements toned down.
(5) Who wins TNA's version of American Idol? TNA will be asking fans to vote for their favorite knockout to face Awesome Kong tonight for the Knockouts Title. This could be a case of Gail and ODB canceling each other out, giving someone like Christy Hemme a chance to sneak into the top slot to face Kong. Regardless, we already know the title match will be one of the highest-rated segments of the show. It's like the sun rising and setting every day - you don't even think about; you just know it's going to happen.
***
Updated Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Why did the rating for last night's Raw drop? Well, there are several possibilities ranging from specific elements of the product to the effect of spring break. I've never seen an actual report breaking down how many schools across the U.S. go on spring break in each of the spring weeks, but anytime people get out of the regular routine - work, dinner, and Raw or school, homework, dinner, and Raw - they'll often forget that last step.
Suddenly, it's five minutes past the second hour of Raw and people realize they've been playing Guitar Hero for five hours non-stop. So, one possibility is that WWE caught a bad week with a significant number of regular viewers out of their regular routine.
The other reason is the product. Did last night's Raw feel like an epic show leading to WrestleMania? I believe so. Were there memorable segments featuring the top feuds on Raw? Yes - Flair and Michaels. Was there a mega-match or segment featuring all of the key players interacting with each other? Yes - the opening segment and main event.
So, what happened? Barring a very significant change in viewership caused by spring breakers missing the show, there must be an explanation why one of the most important shows of the year saw a considerable drop from last week and past shows before Mania.
As I wrote in my Roundtable review, I thought WWE tried too hard last night. They wanted to reinforce everything to make each match stand out on the card, but that may have turned off some viewers who wanted to feel like there was that one epic, must-see match at Mania. Is it Flair vs. Michaels? Is the Raw triple threat? Is it Show vs. Mayweather?
WWE spent the previous five weeks building and building and building the Big Three feuds. Instead of going for the cherry on top, it seemed like WWE was trying to fix certain parts of the cake when they had already built the foundation weeks ago.
The cake lost a little form. Fans might have said, "Well, I already know what the cake looks like; I already know that I'm going to buy a slice of the cake, so I don't want to see anymore changes to the cake when I already had a good picture in mind." That's the optimistic view that fans were already convinced to order the PPV and WWE will still do major business on Sunday night.
It's possible that after watching the great Flair vs. Michaels promo exchange, viewers decided that was all they needed to see. End of story. Nothing else is going to top that on the show. It will be interesting to see how the quarter-hours come in to see if that was the case or whether it was simply an across-the-board drop in each quarter hour due to WWE trying too hard to make Mania seem like kind of a big deal.
Updated Monday, March 24, 2008
Excuse the following pun, but WWE isn't kidding around with its marketing toward kids anymore. They were wishy-washy about it during the Attitude era when there was enough swearing, alcohol consumption, titillation, and misogyny to fill several R-rated movies. All of those elements have been toned down the last ten years in an effort to engage a full-scale marketing blitz toward kids.
WWE Kids magazine hits newsstands in April. (Shane McMahon is over-seeing operations, so you know this isn't a step-child project like Industry News.) The article from Variety today also indicates WWE is launching original programming on its website and looking for a TV timeslot for a kids-themed show. Do I hear a resurgence in the Saturday morning cartoon genre?
All of this begs the question of how WWE is justifying the marketing blitz toward kids. They're launching a separate website for kids, but the original website programming for kids will be right there on WWE's homepage next to the photos of divas in bikinis.
WWE is in this odd position where they're popular enough to set financial revenue records, but not popular enough to catch the eye of third-party watchdogs, as was the case during the Attitude era. And forget about the government taking a peek at WWE pushing its brand of over-muscled athletes and scantily-clad women to little six-year-old Johnny.
There have been no indications of follow-up by the committee that met with MLB, NFL, and NBA officials when Vince "flipped the finger" to the government. Just because we haven't heard anything doesn't mean there haven't been conversations, but I'm still seeing unprotected chair shots to the head, larger-than-life athletes, and Playboy-themed skits on TV these days.
Certainly a "Saturday morning cartoon" featuring the likes of Rey Mysterio and Hornswoggle (I'm picturing "Mucha Lucha") wouldn't feature the programming content you'll find on the average edition of Raw. But, the kids programming will be a vehicle to a) convince parents on the safeness of WWE's product and b) hook kids for the other WWE programming that features the aforementioned content suitable for a more mature viewing audience.
WWE's VP of marketing, Geof Rochester, told Variety just that: "A large percentage of children in America get introduced to our brand from 6 to 10 years old. We said, 'We have a strong kids audience; let's embrace that.' We want to have a lifelong relationship with these kids."
The key is parents getting involved in watching what their kids are interacting with and watching. To WWE’s credit, there is a page on their corporate website for parents. Their message reads: "If parents make the decision to allow their children to watch our programming, we encourage those parents to watch with their children. We urge parents who allow younger children to watch our programming to explain that what our Superstars do on television should not be emulated or attempted in real life."
As with most things in life, there is a balance WWE has to find. On the one hand is an amazing revenue opportunity with kids showing up at house shows in droves, and parents spending money on WWE's product for their kids. On the other hand is WWE - a publicly-traded company subject to government oversight - potentially drawing curious eyes from regulators concerned about content aimed toward kids.
Sesame Street, TMNT, Hannah Montana, Blue's Clues, and...WWE? Although advertisers are told to stay away from wrestling, the line-up of "acceptable programming" for kids could include WWE very soon. WWE's product has been toned down considerably from ten years ago, but there are still plenty of elements not suitable for kids.
WWE will try to separate the marketing toward the kids from the adults, but there will inevitably be cross-over, just as there is now. Whether anyone bats an eye remains to be seen.
I want to hear from you. Do you have a problem with WWE amping up its marketing toward kids, or is that simply a smart business move when kids are snapping up the product? Drop me a line in the Corner Cube inbox for future posting.
Send feedback on this article to pwtorch@gmail.com and we'll regularly publish reader feedback in the "Torch Feedback" category on the Main Listing.
For more BREAKING NEWS on WWE, TNA...
VISIT OUR AFFILIATE -
PROWRESTLING.NET
For UFC & MMA NEWS & BLOGS:
VISIT OUR SISTER SITE - MMATORCH.COM
Upgrade to PWTorch VIP:
DETAILS & SIGN-UP INFO (rates now as low as $2.99/month)
| More Recent CALDWELL'S TAKE Articles |
 CALDWELL'S BOOK REVIEW: One of the best wrestling storytellers delivers highly entertaining history & insight in "The World According to Dutch" |
| CALDWELL'S WEEKLY CHAT w/GREG PARKS - Raw, Impact, NXT, and Smackdown discussed in-depth |
| CALDWELL: The biggest question going into March 8 - What is TNA? |
| CALDWELL'S WEEKLY CHAT w/GREG PARKS - Raw, NXT, and Smackdown discussed in-depth |
| CALDWELL'S BLOG: NXT Day-After thoughts, TNA out of the Impact Zone, Kid brings cereal laced with pot to school |
| CALDWELL: Instant Analysis on NXT Week 2 - This isn't what I had in mind |
| CALDWELL: Instant analysis on tonight's Raw - Cheech & Chong deliver Feast & Famine |
| CALDWELL'S WEEKLY CHAT w/GREG PARKS - NXT analyzed from top to bottom, WM26 build-up on Raw & SD, HBK-Taker storyline analysis |
| CALDWELL: Instant Analysis on Raw - WWE nails the initial build-up to WrestleMania 26 |
| CALDWELL'S MONDAY BLOG: Some Mondays are hotter than others, Bret Hart follow-up theory, McMahon using Wash. Post story, Flair assault story |
| CALDWELL'S BLOG: More observations on The Undertaker catching on fire, Washington Post fails in their reporting on Linda McMahon and WWE |
| CALDWELL's BLOG: Instant analysis on the Elimination Chamber PPV |
| CALDWELL: A top-to-bottom review of the wholesale WWE PPV changes |
| TORCH EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: Eric Bischoff talks first six weeks in TNA, making one new star every month |
| CALDWELL'S BLOG: The Miz-Bryan Danielson complaints, NXT format, Goldberg on WWE's site, Chamber PPV hype |
| CALDWELL'S WEEKLY CHAT w/GREG PARKS - Who ran over Bret Hart, Legacy split tease #583, Smackdown's intriguing main event scene, Chamber PPV picks |
| CALDWELL: Vince McMahon sheds more light on the new NXT show, but plenty of questions remain |
| CALDWELL: Reaction to Against All Odds PPV, TNA moving to Monday nights |
| CALDWELL: The real story on Eugene (Nick Dinsmore) is not questionable TV content, but Dinsmore himself |
| CALDWELL: Linda McMahon dodges the tough questions again on MSNBC this morning (w/VIDEO of her appearance) |
(c) 1999-2010 TDH Communications Inc. - All rights reserved. |
