Just a quick note on Matt Hardy's video from his hotel, his comment on some "punk stooge" dogging him out was apparently a reference to CM Punk, who he does not get along with. CM Punk is currently dating Lita, I believe.
Figure Four Newsletter wrote:The latest WWE Films release, Legendary, starring Patricia Clarkson, Danny Glover and John Cena, did $135,000 over the weekend, or $764 per theatre, in 177 locations around the country. A bomb of legendary proportions. The film got decent reviews early, but then in the last few days and following its release the reviews went south in a hurry. It's currently got an 18% ranking at Rotten Tomatoes.
I really don't know why the WWE bother...And Hogan has now completely lost the plot on Twitter. He's posted another video
(to accompany his one the other day of him in the hospital lavs taking a gooseberry fool) where he's 'hiding' behind some weeds, & wearing what appears to be a shower cap & surgical gloves.
On his head.
http://www.twitvid.com/65TZ2F4Wonline.com have conducted a survey examining PPV buying habits for UFC, WWE, TNA et al. The results aren't particularly shocking, but make interesting reading nonetheless.
If you pick and choose events, what helps determine which events you will purchase?
For UFC, the answer was always a show that felt important or a hot main event between superstars. Many people said if they cared about at least three fights, they'd order. For the record, the name mentioned more than any other as a person people would buy a PPV to see, and it wasn't even close, was Brock Lesnar. Not a single wrestling name was mentioned. UFC stars who were mentioned here and there included GSP (second place), Quinton Jackson, Rashad Evans, Randy Couture, and even Tito Ortiz. For wrestling, again, most people said that they felt the vast majority of PPVs were not worth the money. They mentioned how the results never mattered the next day, how main events were often rematched for free on Raw or iMPACT! the following week, how it didn't matter at all who the champion was because the title changed hands so often and was traded between the same top guys, how the main events were often main events they'd seen a million times both on TV and PPV, and how it never felt like anything they'd seen was newsworthy. Incentives to buy wrestling shows included first-time matches (Miz vs. Danielson and Nexus vs. WWE were both mentioned a few times) and matches that would be legendary (HBK vs. Undertaker, Flair retiring, etc.) (so in other words, WrestleMania). Also mentioned repeatedly was how people did not care about seeing the usual repetitive matches with the only difference being different wacky stipulations. WWE, of course, has been banking on stipulation matches selling PPVs, and TNA, of course, is all about the stipulations.
Long story short, based on literally hundreds of responses, UFC is doing fine, WWE is not going to be happy at all with the results, and TNA is pretty much hopeless. We've got a full analysis of all fifteen questions and a look at what each company can do to try to either maintain (UFC) or improve their numbers (everyone else).
The full article can be read in the latest Figure Four Newsletter at
http://www.f4wonline.com