TNA/ WWE rehash

Over the last few years, anytime TNA rip off anything that has been done in WWE before, the IWC goes crazy and condemns them. Any ex WWE star is a has been until they return to the WWE of course.

In fact, everything that TNA does is always viewed as awful, whereas the WWE, despite being poorly booked at times, evades criticism.

Now don't get me wrong - most of what TNA does is awful but what really annoys me is that the IWC slate TNA for things that the WWE are just as guilty of.

At the moment, WWE are using the beautiful people storyline with Cody Rhodes - paper bags on head people? And yet Cody is being heralded the next big star. If it had been the other way around, TNA would be condemned for rehashing the idea.

Robbie E has been really over following his debut with the whole Jersey Shore thing - what does WWE do? They get Snookey from the show for Wrestlemania (although no one liked it!). They also have Zach Ryder playing the Robbie E role to a tee. Now I have no problem with any of this - hell every idea is a repeat to some extent but what I want to know is why the IWC isnt going crazy about it?

The WWE evades criticism? In what forum does that happen? The WWE is constantly criticised and almost every article is transformed into 'how I would like to see it done'

It doesnt evade criticism but I feel it does evade the criticism of reusing TNA ideas - something that TNA gets berated for, if you see what I mean.

The point I am making is that TNA get lambasted (rightly so) for their product. They also get critisised for using old storylines. Its this bit I feel that the WWE gets away with.

If TNA started to use an arrogant mexican millionaire as a gimmick, then they would get slated. I just think that its very shortsighted.

I'd also say that Robbie Eabsolutely sucks and hasn't got a quarter of the talent Ryder does but thats just my opinion

I really dont know much about Zachs talent, but I thought that Robbie Es feud with Lethal was very entertaining.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that people don't criticise WWE?!

The Christian title reign...Cena's stale act...Lack of committment to pushing new stars...A poor Wrestlemania...Criticism of the Hall of Fame...The commentary team...these are recent things that I can think of off the top of my head. I can think of numerous other criticisms I personally have, many of which I have shared on here.

Cody Rhodes is getting praise for playing his part very well and coming along as a performer. The Beautiful People received the same praise when they used the paper bag gimmick, from what I can remember.

There is no rule that you can't have the same gimmick in two different promotions at once, and there is no rule that you can't rehash old storylines, especially if they worked and if you understand the context and why they worked. Which brings me nicely to TNA!....

You're clearly a TNA apologist. I'd say that, if TNA has come in for criticism because they rip off old storylines, it's because they usually execute them so poorly, because they think that they can just superficially copy something that was successful without putting any thought into why it was successful and how it relates to their current product. They recycle storylines not realising why they only worked at a particular time in a particular place (you can't re-enact the ECW comeback once it's been done and you will never re-create the NWO). Sometimes they will even bring back a storyline that failed the first time round!

The main problem with TNA's booking isn't whether they copy something from someone else, but that there appears to be nobody paying attention to the details required to make something a success. Take for example the new "Wrestling Matters" campaign. It sounds great, but where is the new-found emphasis on wrestling?! The matches still mean very little, and the show still revolves around non-wrestlers. TNA is exactly the same as it was before wrestling mattered!

The whole company seems to have Attention Deficit Disorder. They have lots of ideas, but no idea on how to follow them through and make them a success.

Take for example the new "Wrestling Matters" campaign. It sounds great, but where is the new-found emphasis on wrestling?! The matches still mean very little, and the show still revolves around non-wrestlers. TNA is exactly the same as it was before wrestling mattered!

The last episode of Impact where 'Wrestling Matters' had a grand total of 20 minutes and 59 seconds worth of wrestling in it.
I'd ask how much does this wrestling matter to them?

Hobo maybe you're right, I just don't share the view, I like both companies even though both of them are beyond stupid at times, I think TNA's biggest criticism at times is not so much re-hashing storylines but its using the same guys as main players as they did the first timd around

The whole "Wrestling Matters" thing is so clearly a cheap shot at WWE, it's embarrasing. It wouldn't even be as half as pathetic if they actually then and tried to re-invent their product with more wrestling, but nothing changed.

I think that Davies has got it right, they execute the 're-hashes' so poorly and that's why people get annoyed with them. At least when WWE does re-use storylines, something I think is inevitable when you're broadcasting all year, every year for 20 years, they try and give it a slightly different twist or use it in a different context.

The re-hash is OK anyway as long as you use the 7 year rule

the-gaffer wrote:The re-hash is OK anyway as long as you use the 7 year rule

Is that like the 7 second rule about dropping food on the floor?

Thats never ok man, neither is saying "God kissed it devil missed it" the 7 year rule is a Jim Cornette belief

Here's the definition:

Seven Year Rule
A gimmick or storyline may be reused freely and safely after seven years of dormancy.

Coined by Professional Wrestling promoter, writer, on-air personality, and general jack-of-all-trades Jim Cornette, the Seven Year Rule is the unwritten pro wrestling rule that, after seven years, there has been enough turnover in the fanbase that a writer can re-use the same gimmicks and storylines with impunity.

As the theory goes, any wait shorter than seven years may result in fans noticing the rehashing, and calling the promotion on the re-use. After that, a few diehard longtime fans may notice and become upset, but almost everybody will accept the product as new.

This is because of a relatively Fleeting Demographic. The average wrestling federation tends to get heavy turnover in its fanbase — new fans discover the product, and old fans get fed up or move on. That makes this possible.

The general principle applies to any work that is enough of a Long Runner to outlast most of its initial fanbase.

During the Silver Age of comics, the writers assumed that there would be enough turnover in their readership over a number of years that they could reuse plots and storylines indefinitely. This is particularly noticeable in the old Superman family books; Jimmy Olsen, for instance, became a wolfman several times. The turnover often took significantly less then seven years, and sometimes as little as one year, because the editors and publishers believed that their demographic was kids ages 9-11 — which would make a two-year turnover safe — and that their demographic rarely read comics frequently enough to notice the repetition. They also believed that even if they did read them often, they wouldn't notice. This has been turned away from in recent times because comics are now written by people Running The Asylum, people who love continuity; if they make events repeat, then they'll eventually come up with a metaplot to explain it.

The seven-year rule also happen in long-running TV shows, especially Soap Operas (see Recycled Script). Since Professional Wrestling is a soap opera with steel chairs, it shouldn't surprise you.

Great, that means we're only a couple of months away from the Kane-Lita-Snitsky storyline rehash.

Davieswasacrippledtart wrote:Great, that means we're only a couple of months away from the Kane-Lita-Snitsky storyline rehash.

Played expertly by Runjin Singh, Alicia Fox and Hornswoggle...

Oddly enough I completely agree with Hobo on this - because when I saw Zack Ryder on Superstars this week, I thought exactly the same thing.

After reading what Hero posted, I now have the feeling that Kharma isn't pregnant but is instead going to give birth to a deformed foot with 19 toes.

It has to be better looking than what she could have

great article Hobo

For one Zack Ryder had the Jersey Shore gimmick even before there was a Jersey Shore. He got that gimmick in mid 2009.

The reason people complain more about what TNA does all the time is because TNA delivers garbage so awful and so obvious not even trying to hide the fact that they're ripping off an idea. They literally rip it off, not just do their own versions or rehash something in their own form, they rip it off.

Examples of obvious rip off's that TNA has done:
Jay Lethal as Macho Man
Sharkboy as Stone Cold
The Orlando screwjob
3/3/11
Amazing Red as Sin Cara
King Booker
ECW One Night Stand
Trying to make their own Nexus
Abyss/ Kane, Mankind
Eric Young/ Eugene
I could go on and on and on

Every idea has been done on TV before. WWE has even started redoing a lot of stuff from their past as well. But TNA just proudly and quickly take it to a different level of just ripping off. Whenever WWE does a certain thing, TNA will go and do it's own version of that in a month. If something is hot in WWE, TNA will make their own version of it and mock WWE for it on public TV (like Fourtune did with Nexus and The ECW Originals). They do not try to hide the fact that they're ripping off ideas and they're not smart about booking it. They even rub it in the internets face that yes they know what they're doing is uter rudey poo but there is nothing we can do about it because we're irrelevant (eric bischoff) They even shoot on themselves every week on TV. That is why TNA gets so much rudey poo.

At least when WWE rehashes something they turn it into a slightly different version and tweek it a little bit so it's not so recognizable and it makes you think more like "Hey, haven't I seen this before?" Whereas TNA it's more like "Didn't WWE do this exact same thing last night?"That is why TNA gets more rudey poo than WWE does for rehashing ideas.