|
It's really hard for me to watch Wrestling with Shadows and not think huge parts of the Bret/Vince story was a work, but blah.
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 22:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 12:43 |
|
|
Burrito posted:Are you saying we should also buy a shirt from one if the previous Lion's Cup holders, Chuck Taylor? Well, now you mention it, these amazingly designed shirts are still available at http://chuckiet.com/?page_id=9 
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 22:49
|
|
|
Spikeguy posted:Add this, why the hell did Vince allow the doc to be filmed? Did they just happen to be making the film and all this crazy poo poo happened? Talk about luck. I think that - in a similar fashion to Beyond the Mat - Vince (or WWE Corporate, I guess) were under the impression they would be able to control what did and didn't appear in the documentary, and they could essentially spin it into an advertisement for how great they are. When the documentary makers displayed a disturbing desire to have creative control of their own projects and produce a warts and all story, WWE was shocked and appalled, how could this happen!?!
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 22:53
|
|
|
apsouthern posted:Well, now you mention it, these amazingly designed shirts are still available at http://chuckiet.com/?page_id=9 It's a work of art is what it is! I'll take two dozen!
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 23:04
|
|
|
Spikeguy posted:Add this, why the hell did Vince allow the doc to be filmed? Did they just happen to be making the film and all this crazy poo poo happened? Talk about luck. The documentary was originally to wrap filming at Summerslam 97. It was just supposed to look at Bret's career behind the scenes. Vince was losing the wrestling war when he agreed to it, and probably figured any publicity is good publicity. Then after SS 97, Vince tells Bret he has to let him go. Bret calls up the producers and tells them they can keep filming since this will be a huge story. The second original plan is then to film his last months in the WWF and first month in WCW. But what ended up happening in Montreal was such a good story that adding in the WCW stuff would be pointless.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 23:15
|
|
|
Muhammad Hassan was one of the most uncomfortable angles ever due mostly in part to the crowd's insistence to derisively chant "USA" at a guy FROM America. It was also the WWE's third attempt to capitalize on post-9/11 hyper-patriotism, following both the UnAmericans and La Resistance. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1yWmo2Or4E King: "There are racists and idiots all over the world." Crowd: YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!!!
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 23:19
|
|
|
Spikeguy posted:Watching Wrestling with Shadows, and Bret says he suspects Vince of sabotaging his career. It's in reference to Bret going from biggest baby face to biggest heel, and then Bret says Vince made Stone Cold the biggest face and HBK the biggest heel. Do ya'll think this is a case of Bret taking poo poo too seriously or do you think Vince was this evil? Also it was really weird to see Shawn playing with Bret's kid. Still, it's easy to see it this way when you don't have an emotional investment in it the way both Bret and Vince did, I think they both just hurt eachothers feelings and they both dealt with this in a silly way. Bret and Vince are the only people who really know the full story.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 00:26
|
|
|
Sue Denim posted:I think it's Bret being a baby, but that's just my opinion. I think Bret not wanting to drop the title lead to Vince acting really childish, so in a way they both acted in a very unbecoming way and both came off not looking very good as a result. Bret said a lot of things in the documentary to "build up a story" so to speak. Such as saying Stu taught him the Sharpshooter instead of telling the Konnan story. He said a lot of off the cuff things in the heat of passion that sound ridiculous today and Bret has certainly calmed down on. It's a lot like how Bret went from blaming Goldberg for the concussion to blaming the WCW Power Plant and saying Goldberg wasn't to blame at all and he felt bad he was the one who did it. What's interesting is that at first, Bret never blamed Goldberg. Then his stroke happened and he blamed Goldberg. Then he finally settled on blaming Power Plant. People tend to forget that Bret is human and I think that's why certain people don't enjoy his book. He's far too human in it. He's a guy who tends to get obsessed with himself and blame people for things he ends up doing himself. Bret played a perfect wrestler and as a person isn't perfect at all. I think some people are almost vindictive about him because of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 00:46
|
|
|
Lone Rogue posted:People tend to forget that Bret is human and I think that's why certain people don't enjoy his book. He's far too human in it. He's a guy who tends to get obsessed with himself and blame people for things he ends up doing himself. Bret played a perfect wrestler and as a person isn't perfect at all. I think some people are almost vindictive about him because of it. I really did enjoy Bret's book, but yeah, by the end of it, nobody comes off worse than Bret Hart.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 03:37
|
|
|
Lone Rogue posted:Bret said a lot of things in the documentary to "build up a story" so to speak. Such as saying Stu taught him the Sharpshooter instead of telling the Konnan story. He said a lot of off the cuff things in the heat of passion that sound ridiculous today and Bret has certainly calmed down on. It's a lot like how Bret went from blaming Goldberg for the concussion to blaming the WCW Power Plant and saying Goldberg wasn't to blame at all and he felt bad he was the one who did it. What's interesting is that at first, Bret never blamed Goldberg. Then his stroke happened and he blamed Goldberg. Then he finally settled on blaming Power Plant. I'm sure everyone has had times when they've flipped out and acted irrationally because of strong feelings, it just so happened these guys had a camera crew documenting it. While I said Bret was acting like a baby it was probably a little harsh, I can definitely see why he felt the way he did, especially when it's dealing with something he dedicated a significant portion of his life to. I should watch this again, I haven't seen this documentry in about ten years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 12:59
|
|
|
My wife says it best when she talked about how in this documentary it's all biased towards Bret while in other's we've seen (possibly the Shawn Michaels one) it was very against Bret. So the answer is probably in the middle. All I know though, is that I haven't ever heard Vince or Shawn say poo poo like how they're heroes or that doing this was like getting raped or blowing their brains out. Bret says a lot of over the top poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 13:40
|
|
|
Spikeguy posted:Add this, why the hell did Vince allow the doc to be filmed? Did they just happen to be making the film and all this crazy poo poo happened? Talk about luck. Since it was a puff piece and Vince was OK with it Bret was able to add a requirement to his contract that the documentary crew got access. It just turned out that the crew wasn't going to get the film they expected. Vince was pissed afterwards but he'd already given the crew permission.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 14:55
|
|
|
So as far as WWE locker room (with varying degrees of emphasis) documentaries go, we've got: - Wrestling With Shadows - Beyond The Mat - That thing they did during WrestleMania 19 anything else?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 15:33
|
|
|
Spikeguy posted:My wife says it best when she talked about how in this documentary it's all biased towards Bret while in other's we've seen (possibly the Shawn Michaels one) it was very against Bret. So the answer is probably in the middle. Yeah victims usually feel sadder than aggressors.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 16:09
|
|
|
Minidust posted:So as far as WWE locker room (with varying degrees of emphasis) documentaries go, we've got: Perhaps a bit in the John Cena Experience?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 16:53
|
|
SAVE_US.CHR
|
ChampRamp posted:Perhaps a bit in the John Cena Experience? Which gave us him wandering backstage singing Smoke and Mirrors...
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 16:55
|
|
|
ChampRamp posted:Perhaps a bit in the John Cena Experience? It followed him to all kinds of places, but only showed him backstage for a bit. Though him singing "WHOOOA! YOU'RE ONLY SMOKE AND MIRRORS!" in multiple times on the dvd was pretty good. Edit: gently caress. Oh, it also showed him acting like a happy kid at a car auction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 16:56
|
|
|
How much booking goes into the Royal Rumble match? Obviously the winner and I'm assuming who's the final participants, and there's usually a number of big elimination spots; but is the order of eliminations and who eliminates who all fully planned out?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 17:03
|
|
|
nationalista posted:How much booking goes into the Royal Rumble match? Obviously the winner and I'm assuming who's the final participants, and there's usually a number of big elimination spots; but is the order of eliminations and who eliminates who all fully planned out? From one of Paul Londons shoots I get the impression that "X eliminates Y" are sandwhiched around the major spots and major eliminations. In some of the rumbles you completly miss someone getting eliminated. If it was highly planned out the camera would be right there first time. But thats just my 2 cents.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 17:34
|
|
|
Sugar Blaster posted:Muhammad Hassan was one of the most uncomfortable angles ever due mostly in part to the crowd's insistence to derisively chant "USA" at a guy FROM America. It was also the WWE's third attempt to capitalize on post-9/11 hyper-patriotism, following both the UnAmericans and La Resistance. I'm not sure what part I enjoy(sarcasm) more; Them obviously fanning the flames at the beginning, or the back-peddling at the end where both sides are trying to convince the red-hot crowd that most Arabs are A-Okay after realizing what they've unleashed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 18:38
|
|
|
The Foley/Daivari English/Arabic promo was pretty cool.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 19:12
|
|
|
Spikeguy posted:My wife says it best when she talked about how in this documentary it's all biased towards Bret while in other's we've seen (possibly the Shawn Michaels one) it was very against Bret. So the answer is probably in the middle. The truth is, Bret was a hero in Canada. As a pre-teen growing up during all of this, yeah, Bret Hart was a name and a hero. TSN would show him leaving airports after winning the World Title. I'd say top three over Canada at that time was Lemieux (coming back after cancer), Donovan Bailey (the 96 Gold and then beating Johnson in Skydome) and then Bret Hart. So while it may sound ridiculous that a wrestler proclaims himself as a hero during a dark time in the business for the WWF, fact was he wasn't stretching it. People pick stupid choices as heroes (meaning athletes) and Bret was one of them. Also, Vince wasn't saying stupid poo poo but he was doing stupid poo poo. The screwjob occurred completely out of rampant paranoia. Vince also went from signing a guy to a huge long term contract in 1996 to one year later dumping him. He also forced people to take paycheck cuts and dumped Bret only to pay Mike Tyson an unbelievable sum of money. Let's also not forget that Vince was batshit paranoid but instead of having Bret drop the title the moment he decided he was going to let him go, he decides to prolong it until Survivor Series and then out of desperation screws him out. As for Shawn? Shawn was hosed up on somas.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 19:15
|
|
|
Was there any specific reason they didn't just put the belt on Undertaker once they knew Bret was leaving? It wouldn't have been too much of a stretch since they had been feuding recently. Then Bret and Shawn could just brawl to a double DQ at Survivor Series, and Shawn could win the belt from Taker (via Kane interference)shortly afterward, and booking could resume as normal. I know it's easy to say these things in hindsight, but they've jumped through similar hoops when wrestler X didn't feel like putting over wrestler Y. It was like they voluntarily backed themselves into a corner for no good reason. It seems like an emergency house show title change could have solved everything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 20:02
|
|
|
Minidust posted:Was there any specific reason they didn't just put the belt on Undertaker once they knew Bret was leaving? It wouldn't have been too much of a stretch since they had been feuding recently. Then Bret and Shawn could just brawl to a double DQ at Survivor Series, and Shawn could win the belt from Taker (via Kane interference)shortly afterward, and booking could resume as normal. Vince was extremely adamant on how his Wrestlemania plans had to go, it seems. He wanted Taker to drop to Bret, Bret to drop to Shawn and Shawn to drop to Austin. Nothing else would work for him. Of course, Taker could have stayed Champ and drop to Shawn in January at HIAC, but that wasn't Vince's vision. It was said in the Meltzer write-up that Bret and Vince at one point agreed, and so did Eric Bischoff (Bischoff said Bret had unlimited time to wrap up his work with the WWF) for Bret to keep the belt all the way until Wrestlemania where he drops it to Austin. Which would have been the perfect ending to the Bret/Austin feud and the perfect way for Bret to leave. Of course, Tyson doesn't fit into that. Shawn does fit with Tyson. So you can see why Vince's mind was made up for Shawn to be facing Austin. There would have never been a screwjob had Vince, the moment he decided Bret was going to be gone, taken the belt off of Bret. The big issue ended up being Shawn saying he wouldn't lay down for Bret and Vince being adamant that the next Champion should be Shawn. Like you said, if Shawn had superkicked Bret instead of Taker, Taker could have continued to be World Champion all of the way up until the HIAC match, while Bret and Shawn feud for a bit and maybe Bret ends his career by giving Austin his big win against him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 20:43
|
|
|
Lone Rogue posted:Vince was extremely adamant on how his Wrestlemania plans had to go, it seems. He wanted Taker to drop to Bret, Bret to drop to Shawn and Shawn to drop to Austin. Nothing else would work for him. Of course, Taker could have stayed Champ and drop to Shawn in January at HIAC, but that wasn't Vince's vision. Where did Meltzer say this? It sure wasn't in the two Montreal mega issues he published at the time of the incident or anything I've read from him anytime in the past few years. He has written that Bret was supposed to keep the belt 2 weeks past Montreal and drop the belt in a 4 way. Austin was one of the options he was willing to drop it to, but he was never supposed to do it at Wrestlemania. I have never seen him write what you claim he did. The time frame they agreed to was a month, not unlimited. Edit: The scenario for Hart to lose the title at Wrestlemania was Vince's offer to Bret to get him to stay with the WWF. He wanted Bret to lose the title, regain it at the Rumble and then lose it to Austin at Wrestlemania. He would not be going to WCW if he took this offer. MassRafTer fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Jan 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 20:58
|
|
|
MassRayPer posted:Where did Meltzer say this? It sure wasn't in the two Montreal mega issues he published at the time of the incident or anything I've read from him anytime in the past few years. He has written that Bret was supposed to keep the belt 2 weeks past Montreal and drop the belt in a 4 way. Austin was one of the options he was willing to drop it to, but he was never supposed to do it at Wrestlemania. I have never seen him write what you claim he did. The time frame they agreed to was a month, not unlimited. And then I guess it HAD to go from Bret to Shawn for whatever reason? Vince is an odd fellow.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 21:10
|
|
|
MassRayPer posted:Where did Meltzer say this? It sure wasn't in the two Montreal mega issues he published at the time of the incident or anything I've read from him anytime in the past few years. He has written that Bret was supposed to keep the belt 2 weeks past Montreal and drop the belt in a 4 way. Austin was one of the options he was willing to drop it to, but he was never supposed to do it at Wrestlemania. I have never seen him write what you claim he did. The time frame they agreed to was a month, not unlimited. Ah, my bad. I confuse all of the scenarios and everything. I haven't read up on it in years. The unlimited time thing was a quote between Bret and Bischoff. I remember in Bisch's book him saying that he agreed to keep quiet about Bret to WCW because he was under huge pressure not to do anything that could lead to a lawsuit and only mentioned Bret to WCW after the WWF did. Minidust posted:And then I guess it HAD to go from Bret to Shawn for whatever reason? Vince is an odd fellow. One might argue that Shawn was the only acceptable guy to give it to, but go look up the events between November and December and you'll notice that Undertaker did a big load of gently caress all in those months. He could have easily feuded with Bret. Triple Threats were not too popular back then but it still was an option, especially at Survivor Series. Afterall, the SummerSlam main event involved Taker, Bret and Shawn. Throw Taker in the match with Bret and Shawn and have Shawn pin Taker or Taker pin Bret/Shawn. Then you either keep the belt on Shawn or have Shawn beat Taker for the belt at HIAC. Paper Jam Dipper fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Jan 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 21:45
|
|
|
Wasn't this all when Shawn had a gently caress ton of influence backstage, though? I imagine a lot of the concept of getting the belt on him was simply Shawn whispering in Vince's ear the whole time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 21:51
|
|
|
Lone Rogue posted:Ah, my bad. I confuse all of the scenarios and everything. I haven't read up on it in years. The unlimited time thing was a quote between Bret and Bischoff. I remember in Bisch's book him saying that he agreed to keep quiet about Bret to WCW because he was under huge pressure not to do anything that could lead to a lawsuit and only mentioned Bret to WCW after the WWF did. Taker's very first feud with Kane was getting started up during this time. Also HIAC happened before Survivor Series. Also the way things turned out was pretty perfect for everyone but Bret so why do we need an alternate solution?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 22:02
|
|
|
Living Vicariously posted:Wasn't this all when Shawn had a gently caress ton of influence backstage, though? I imagine a lot of the concept of getting the belt on him was simply Shawn whispering in Vince's ear the whole time. Probably part that and the fact i don't think vince at the time wanted HBK to then walk out a couple of months later. Ignoring hindsight I can see why vince would be more intrested in keeping shawn happy at that point than bret.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 22:03
|
|
|
Maybe I was imagining this but didn't Shamrock's name get thrown around in the list of people Bret was willing to drop the belt to? Even if I'm wrong, there could be far worse options than a 1-day or even 1-hour Shamrock reign. Dude was pretty over back then. A No Mercy '07 type of double switch on an episode of Raw could have made for some exciting television.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 22:06
|
|
|
Minidust posted:Maybe I was imagining this but didn't Shamrock's name get thrown around in the list of people Bret was willing to drop the belt to? That's in Foley's first book, and honestly, he throws out so many names that it's just silly. My wife has Have a Nice Day right now, but I'm pretty sure the quote goes, "If Bret had gotten his way, Shamrock or Undertaker or Austin or I would have gotten the drat belt, and none of this would have happened." But Bret's M.O. for the last several years has been to say that he would have dropped the belt to the guy interviewing him on the radio, as long as it wasn't Shawn, so who knows. I have a really hard time believing that Bret felt Shamrock, who was loving around with the British Bulldog, or Foley, who was in no-heat hell, was a legitimate contender to carry the belt.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 23:57
|
|
|
Timby posted:I have a really hard time believing that Bret felt Shamrock, who was loving around with the British Bulldog, or Foley, who was in no-heat hell, was a legitimate contender to carry the belt. Bret was very high on Shamrock and thought he was the real deal and could bring back the "Champions are people who can kick your rear end for real" mentality back into pro wrestling. Ken was also very humble around Bret always looking for tips. It's good to recognize that none of what I said mentions that Bret thought Ken Shamrock would equal ratings. (And HIAC was prior to Survivor Series? gently caress is my memory warped. Okay, Casket match then.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2011 01:08
|
|
|
Sugar Blaster posted:Muhammad Hassan was one of the most uncomfortable angles ever due mostly in part to the crowd's insistence to derisively chant "USA" at a guy FROM America. It was also the WWE's third attempt to capitalize on post-9/11 hyper-patriotism, following both the UnAmericans and La Resistance.  Go home Muhammad Hassan! Go back to that savage wasteland you call Amerika! USA! USA! USA! It seems WWE is pretty ridiculous when it comes to this type of stuff. Remember Tiger Ali Singh? Wikipedia posted:The next month, Singh filed a $7 million lawsuit against the World Wrestling Federation. Among his claims were that his career-ending injury was the result of being forced to wrestle in the rain while in Puerto Rico. He also accused other WWF wrestlers of frequently calling him "taxi driver", and that he was the victim of a stunt in 1999 where his turban was stuffed with garbage. WWE attorney Jerry McDevitt countered by noting that the company was not responsible for any injuries occurring in a different organization, and that Singh's contract could legally be ended if he suffered an injury. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2011 01:26
|
|
|
His contract could be legally ended if he suffered an injury? Christ, workers get screwed over so bad
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2011 13:39
|
|
|
Living Vicariously posted:Wasn't this all when Shawn had a gently caress ton of influence backstage, though? I imagine a lot of the concept of getting the belt on him was simply Shawn whispering in Vince's ear the whole time. Apparently, at one point, in front of the whole locker room, Shawn told Vince he wasn't going to job to anyone anymore, especially Bret.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2011 14:16
|
|
|
The Cosby Mysteries posted:It seems WWE is pretty ridiculous when it comes to this type of stuff. Remember Tiger Ali Singh? Wait, was McDevitt referring to WWF as a different company than WWE?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2011 14:39
|
|
|
Pneub posted:Wait, was McDevitt referring to WWF as a different company than WWE? I thought that was odd too, but Wikipedia says; Wiki posted:Singh was later sent to Puerto Rico to work on his in-ring skills. He returned in late 2000 as the manager of Lo Down (D'Lo Brown and Chaz Warrington). Lo Down and Singh were eventually sent to International Wrestling Association in Puerto Rico, removing them from WWF programming as The Invasion of 2001 started. Down in IWA, Singh became a two-time tag team champion. He eventually suffered a career-ending injury and was sent home to Toronto to recover. He was later released from his contract in July 2002. So I guess McDevitt is arguing that WWE arent responsible for any injuries Singh sustained while wrestling for IWA. Considering that WWE sent him to IWA, hes on shaky ground there I feel (morally if not legally, I am not a lawyer. Not that "Morally wrong" means much in the wrestling business. Or to lawyers now I think about it.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2011 14:50
|
|
|
I've been watching a lot of old school DVD's and they really make the 80's look good. Like in the Bobby doc. they have all the talk shows and cool specials they did. But if smarks were anything like we are today they probably didn't appreciate it as much as we do now because they dissected everything on a show by show basis. So if they were able to do that with that era, they will most likely do stuff like that for the current era. What do you guys think will be the moments, matches or specials that we will look back at fondly (or maybe future smarks) or will be part of those era pieces that say "this was the best moment of the 00's".
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2011 15:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 12:43 |
|
|
Spikeguy posted:I've been watching a lot of old school DVD's and they really make the 80's look good. Like in the Bobby doc. they have all the talk shows and cool specials they did. But if smarks were anything like we are today they probably didn't appreciate it as much as we do now because they dissected everything on a show by show basis. So if they were able to do that with that era, they will most likely do stuff like that for the current era. What do you guys think will be the moments, matches or specials that we will look back at fondly (or maybe future smarks) or will be part of those era pieces that say "this was the best moment of the 00's". Edge cashing in on Cena and RVD winning the title are big ones. Flair/Michaels and UT/HBK I and II will be the matches that people remember as well
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2011 15:34
|
|