#2 Posted on 27.6.02 0319.32 Reposted on: 27.6.09 0329.04
C'mon, it should be common knowledge by now that whether or not the final match is good has more bearing on the overall rating of the ENTIRE card than any other factor. This shouldn't be a surprise to you...
Since last post: 4734 days Last activity: 3154 days
#4 Posted on 28.6.02 1238.53 Reposted on: 28.6.09 1241.34
I didn't watch NWA:TNA at all, so can't comment on that, but I could comment on reviews of PPV.
Ya for rightly or wrongly it's probably the case that the main event influences a lot of the feel of the entire PPV. How many WCW PPV's with a decent undercard but with an awful mainevent the PPV is considered bad. And it probably should, the focus point of the PPV needs to step up. I'd think it would be like school and your final exam is 30% of your entire mark
I do like how boards like this and some reviewers really take it step by step and give a focus on all matches. On times 2 or 3 stand out matches and a bunch of good midcards could save a bad main. Which didn't happen in KOTR, Y2J/RVD stepped up, the women were good, some average stuff but not enough to make it a Good Show.
Another interesting aspect that could go into a review is the expectation going into a PPV. PPV-A could have high expectations going in and if it doesn't meet your expectations you could look down on it, While PPV-B could have a card that looks awful but if a couple of matches surprise you, you might look favorably on it. The could have both have the same quality level but one pleasently surprised you, it will probabley be given a more positive review, again rightly or wrongly. Which again says a lot about KOTR when going in people were fearing the worse.
Since last post: 1450 days Last activity: 1138 days
#5 Posted on 28.6.02 1400.26 Reposted on: 28.6.09 1405.24
A bad ending makes ANYTHING turn to shit. A.I. sucked because of the ending. Good hockey games turn to shit because of bad refereeing leading to crap goals in overtime. And, yes, good cards turn to shit because of Hogan or the Undertaker, or both.
Since last post: 3132 days Last activity: 3066 days
#6 Posted on 29.6.02 0349.56 Reposted on: 29.6.09 0351.44
"C'mon, it should be common knowledge by now that whether or not the final match is good has more bearing on the overall rating of the ENTIRE card than any other factor. This shouldn't be a surprise to you..."
Of course, completely true. And with anybody else who consistently gave good ratings for poor shows with good endings, then I wouldn't say a word. But the WWF does often put out mediocre shows with good main events, eg. the Eddie/van Dam ladder match, which were panned by Torch columnists and readers alike. That's my beef.
Since: 2.1.02 From: The City of Subdued Excitement
Since last post: 712 days Last activity: 14 hours
#7 Posted on 30.6.02 0606.30 Reposted on: 30.6.09 0614.19
Two quick points:
1) The "one match" on the NWA PPV was, after all, 1/4 of the total running time.
2) It was also the one match that people had high hopes for, had heard was good, and / or bought the whole PPV in order to see. Since it met expectations and didn't disappoint, it made people feel good about catching it.
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE