- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 47,754
- Reaction score
- 14,050
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 33
They've been hit or miss since then, much more miss last I was watching. Creative? Yea, TNA does a lot of stuff I would consider creative, but again, very hit or miss.
Do you think TNA is written better than WWE?
- Thread starter LetMeTelYaSumthinMeanGene
- Start date
-
Welcome to "The New" Wrestling Smarks Forum!
I see that you are not currently registered on our forum. It only takes a second, and you can even login with your Facebook! If you would like to register now, pease click here: Register
Once registered please introduce yourself in our introduction thread which can be found here: Introduction Board
What time frame are we talking about here?
Recently? Within the Last 2,3,4..5 years? Since the start of both companies.
It's tough to say, I mean currently I would say it's a bit better to be honest but not by much; there's still some issues with it.
The 'E has less Hit & Miss stories that come out of it but I believe the ones that hit with TNA are written better than ones with the 'E.
Recently? Within the Last 2,3,4..5 years? Since the start of both companies.
It's tough to say, I mean currently I would say it's a bit better to be honest but not by much; there's still some issues with it.
The 'E has less Hit & Miss stories that come out of it but I believe the ones that hit with TNA are written better than ones with the 'E.
As someone who just started watching TNA bar the ending to Lockdown recently in my opinion there has been nothing wrong with the writing. Obvs the EY situation smacks of copying WWE but its not the worst stuff I have ever seen. Really quite enjoy it and see it as must watch weekly viewing now.
Eric Young has been in TNA since 04, DB in WWE since 2010..
EY has never held the WHC, DB has held the WHC and then the WWE/WHC multiple times now.
I'm pretty sure EY just straight deserved the title and the whole idea about them copying the idea of a vanilla midget beating a longtime standing champ for the WHC belts is simply a matter of interpretation.
EY has never held the WHC, DB has held the WHC and then the WWE/WHC multiple times now.
I'm pretty sure EY just straight deserved the title and the whole idea about them copying the idea of a vanilla midget beating a longtime standing champ for the WHC belts is simply a matter of interpretation.
I do, but it's all a matter of personal preference.
I always see TNA as the company who'll give you more good things on a more consistent basis than WWE, but you have to ignore a lot of flaws. WWE is better at making the "big moments" big and creating larger-than-life stars. Hence why Impact is usually between a 4-8 out of 10, while Raw can be anywhere from a 0-10.
For instance, lets compare the card structure (which is part of writing). WWE has a clearly defined main-event scene, a midcard, a tag division, and an undercard, while with TNA there's a very fluid title picture that doesn't feel that much more special than the rest of the show. While WWE's way makes the main event scene more important and helps with the creation of stars, TNA's way makes the midcard actually feel important and gives you a better TV show with less recognizable stars. I prefer it that way, most people don't.
Then there's the promo writing, WWE has fully scripted promos so it's easier for them to control what's on TV, while Impact has bullet point promos. So with TNA, you get more personality out of the wrestlers. That can be magical with guys like Aries, Roode, Bad Influence if they would friggin resign... but it also leads to botched Hogan promos and whatever the hell Willow is doing. This is also why there's a more diverse group of characters like EC3 and the *gulp* Bromans. More people focus on the bad, though.
There's the "Russoness" and outside-the-box thinking. While I'm not a fan of this Sam Shaw storyline, I can at least respect it from being different than anything I've ever seen before. WWE's overly formulaicness can be a problem except when things organically work.
The backstage segments are the best part, though. Almost every match on Impact feels like it has some meaning to it, something you sure as hell don't get on Raw. Just off the top of my head, from the post-Lockdown ep they spent 15 seconds having Rockstar Spud go crazy and yell at MVP, for MVP to put him in a match with Willow later. So that match had some meaning
If there's anything other specifics, feel free to ask.
The one complaint is that there's always one horrific storyline that's usually the main event (except in 2012, when we had Claire Lynch on our TV) that overshadows a lot of the good TNA does to most fans.
I always see TNA as the company who'll give you more good things on a more consistent basis than WWE, but you have to ignore a lot of flaws. WWE is better at making the "big moments" big and creating larger-than-life stars. Hence why Impact is usually between a 4-8 out of 10, while Raw can be anywhere from a 0-10.
For instance, lets compare the card structure (which is part of writing). WWE has a clearly defined main-event scene, a midcard, a tag division, and an undercard, while with TNA there's a very fluid title picture that doesn't feel that much more special than the rest of the show. While WWE's way makes the main event scene more important and helps with the creation of stars, TNA's way makes the midcard actually feel important and gives you a better TV show with less recognizable stars. I prefer it that way, most people don't.
Then there's the promo writing, WWE has fully scripted promos so it's easier for them to control what's on TV, while Impact has bullet point promos. So with TNA, you get more personality out of the wrestlers. That can be magical with guys like Aries, Roode, Bad Influence if they would friggin resign... but it also leads to botched Hogan promos and whatever the hell Willow is doing. This is also why there's a more diverse group of characters like EC3 and the *gulp* Bromans. More people focus on the bad, though.
There's the "Russoness" and outside-the-box thinking. While I'm not a fan of this Sam Shaw storyline, I can at least respect it from being different than anything I've ever seen before. WWE's overly formulaicness can be a problem except when things organically work.
The backstage segments are the best part, though. Almost every match on Impact feels like it has some meaning to it, something you sure as hell don't get on Raw. Just off the top of my head, from the post-Lockdown ep they spent 15 seconds having Rockstar Spud go crazy and yell at MVP, for MVP to put him in a match with Willow later. So that match had some meaning
If there's anything other specifics, feel free to ask.
The one complaint is that there's always one horrific storyline that's usually the main event (except in 2012, when we had Claire Lynch on our TV) that overshadows a lot of the good TNA does to most fans.
My best example of the way WWE outclasses TNA in terms of writing alone (that's the theme of the thread, correct?)
Hulk Hogan and Bret Hart debut on January 4, 2010 and each company got behind promoting their respective legendary superstar
Hogan is the bigger superstar with the biggest potential long-term pay off, but TNA never bothered to write a storyline other than to invite all his has been buddies along for a joy ride
On the other hand, Bret had a storyline: a beginning (HBK/Vince/Bret showdown), A Middle (involving Cena and Bret's foot injury), and an End (WrestleMania 26 victory and Hart family celebrating triumph over Vince)
After that Hogan was used better in moments (particularly with the Brooke/Bully storyline)
Bret has been used effectively since by winning the U.S title (meh) and was also used in a heated promo with Punk and with Orton at the Slammies.
TNA has more seasoned workers by far. However, in terms of execution of storylines, WWE seems to see their storylines through the process
On any given night, I like TNA. WWE, on the other hand, gives you more bang for your buck because they will an angle through from beginning until it ends
Hulk Hogan and Bret Hart debut on January 4, 2010 and each company got behind promoting their respective legendary superstar
Hogan is the bigger superstar with the biggest potential long-term pay off, but TNA never bothered to write a storyline other than to invite all his has been buddies along for a joy ride
On the other hand, Bret had a storyline: a beginning (HBK/Vince/Bret showdown), A Middle (involving Cena and Bret's foot injury), and an End (WrestleMania 26 victory and Hart family celebrating triumph over Vince)
After that Hogan was used better in moments (particularly with the Brooke/Bully storyline)
Bret has been used effectively since by winning the U.S title (meh) and was also used in a heated promo with Punk and with Orton at the Slammies.
TNA has more seasoned workers by far. However, in terms of execution of storylines, WWE seems to see their storylines through the process
On any given night, I like TNA. WWE, on the other hand, gives you more bang for your buck because they will an angle through from beginning until it ends
I like and agree with a lot of what @Snowman said in his post.
I actually think it would do TNA better to focus their main event a little more and simplify those storylines that aren't as important. The problem with TNA often is that the stories become so convoluted because there's not a solid sense of what are the main storylines and what are the minor storylines, so the crowd isn't sure what's important and what's not. That's bad writing.
WWE has the corporate mindset, which is both good and bad. It's good in that they do the research/focus-group-type-deals/etc. to know what people "should" cheer for (no research is going to tell people what they're going to do, but they hit way more often than they miss). It's bad in that they do work in a formula for the most part, but that formula generally makes sense. It's particularly bad for the IWC, because we tend to root for guys that aren't what the focus groups/research say we should root for. So, when Bryan was just an "internet darling", we hated what the WWE was doing with him. Now, we hate what the WWE are doing with Ziggler, Sandow, etc., because research says more people like Cena, Orton, and Batista.
TNA doesn't have the corporate mindset, which is both good and bad. It's good because it makes their product more unpredictable. It's bad because that unpredictability doesn't always give us good, or even coherent, stories. There's a much greater sense of "flying by the seat of your pants" because, in effect, TNA is often "throwing shit against the wall and seeing what sticks", which leads to awesome and terrible. But TNA is great for the IWC because they'll push guys who aren't the norm, but they're guys who have the personalities that we love. I doubt James Storm could get over in 2014 WWE (in 1997 WWE, sure...I mean, he's basically SCSA, just from Tennessee). Bobby Roode is a slightly higher probability of success, but there's no way Gunner is a big star in modern WWE if he doesn't get some cred from somewhere else, a la CM Punk or Chris Jericho. Austin Aries was turned down by WWE to appear on Tough Enough because they didn't see a real possibility for his success in WWE. If he were to get over there, it would take a journey similar to that traveled by guys like Daniel Bryan.
That's also why most TNA fans are more "hardcore wrestling" fans than the average WWE fan.
wk
I actually think it would do TNA better to focus their main event a little more and simplify those storylines that aren't as important. The problem with TNA often is that the stories become so convoluted because there's not a solid sense of what are the main storylines and what are the minor storylines, so the crowd isn't sure what's important and what's not. That's bad writing.
WWE has the corporate mindset, which is both good and bad. It's good in that they do the research/focus-group-type-deals/etc. to know what people "should" cheer for (no research is going to tell people what they're going to do, but they hit way more often than they miss). It's bad in that they do work in a formula for the most part, but that formula generally makes sense. It's particularly bad for the IWC, because we tend to root for guys that aren't what the focus groups/research say we should root for. So, when Bryan was just an "internet darling", we hated what the WWE was doing with him. Now, we hate what the WWE are doing with Ziggler, Sandow, etc., because research says more people like Cena, Orton, and Batista.
TNA doesn't have the corporate mindset, which is both good and bad. It's good because it makes their product more unpredictable. It's bad because that unpredictability doesn't always give us good, or even coherent, stories. There's a much greater sense of "flying by the seat of your pants" because, in effect, TNA is often "throwing shit against the wall and seeing what sticks", which leads to awesome and terrible. But TNA is great for the IWC because they'll push guys who aren't the norm, but they're guys who have the personalities that we love. I doubt James Storm could get over in 2014 WWE (in 1997 WWE, sure...I mean, he's basically SCSA, just from Tennessee). Bobby Roode is a slightly higher probability of success, but there's no way Gunner is a big star in modern WWE if he doesn't get some cred from somewhere else, a la CM Punk or Chris Jericho. Austin Aries was turned down by WWE to appear on Tough Enough because they didn't see a real possibility for his success in WWE. If he were to get over there, it would take a journey similar to that traveled by guys like Daniel Bryan.
That's also why most TNA fans are more "hardcore wrestling" fans than the average WWE fan.
wk
"Hey guys it's been 4 months again without watching the majority of the WWE product, but i'd like to know if Smackdown is still dogshit or not"
TNA's problem is that they give the wrong people the mic when they shouldnt. Bobby Roode wouldnt be the best heel in WWE, he would be nothing. Aries wouldnt be the greatest man who ever lived in WWE, he would job to the 619 for 3 months before getting booted because it wouldnt be so obvious Rey was bouncing off the 2nd fucking rope.
TNA has it's flaws, the biggest one is easily commentary. Some of the build's are horrible, some are amazing, and honestly there are very few in comparion inbetween. The real issue is the fact that over the last 2 years we saw feuds with wasted talent pushed by horrible people who never really added shit to WWE or TNA, and mostly stole from it to stroke their ego's.
TNA would be a thousand times if not more better if the Carters fucked right off. Unforutantely they haven't and so all we can do is enjoy the ride, love the meltdown, and hope a consumer product with proven talent who dedicate their lives to a product rather then themselves being lifed up as "The life of said project" and that is only what will change.
@Lockard 23 i'm sure would jump on board that Vinny was lucky for the heel run (and a genius for it) but he was at his best on commentary. WWE had an okay product, sold it well, but the team running it didnt sound like me after 12 jamison on the rocks talking about how well I can piss into the toilet i'm aiming at.
Pro's and cons for both, but BI, Roode, Aries, and a shitload more wouldnt have been a fucking thing in WWE.
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2011
- Messages
- 63,815
- Reaction score
- 6,080
- Points
- 1
- Location
- United Kingdom of Ambrose
- Website
- wweforums.net
Why did you randomly bring up my hatred for SmackDown? I think everyone knows I don't consider SmackDown part of the WWE product.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2012
- Messages
- 15,948
- Reaction score
- 3,135
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Nashville, TN
- Website
- i.imgur.com
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2011
- Messages
- 63,815
- Reaction score
- 6,080
- Points
- 1
- Location
- United Kingdom of Ambrose
- Website
- wweforums.net
Crayo doesn't consider Smackdown part of the WWE product since all the storyline buildup happens on Raw.
End of story, case closed, back on topic plz
End of story, case closed, back on topic plz