WWE Network... It's Here

[AirJordanFan93]

Moving on from Montreal I attempted to watch the Top 50 Superstars of All Time documentary aside from the poorly constructed list which I would assume has taken quite the licking on these forums many a time. I honestly though William Regal was great as one of the talking heads they interviewed the guy is always great in these DVDs and he pretty much makes the Top 50 Finishing Moves one toerable as well. Another thing I learned was The Miz was insufferable on this or at least he was in 2010. Seriously I couldn't take anything he said seriously at all. He says at one point he watches old Bockwinkel stuff and I just don't but that at all. Cena was also pretty good and came off as you would expect Cena to come off in such a manner.

[SteveJRogers]

You have to wonder if these dudes will wake up one day and realize how absurd the whole situation was and wonder why they took such a silly thing so seriously

Or agrue over points as if the Orwell-esque official narrative has been changed because they don't care for whom is telling or crafting the narrative. That pretty much is the point of discussion right now!

[SteveJRogers]

Moving on from Montreal I attempted to watch the Top 50 Superstars of All Time documentary aside from the poorly constructed list which I would assume has taken quite the licking on these forums many a time. I honestly though William Regal was great as one of the talking heads they interviewed the guy is always great in these DVDs and he pretty much makes the Top 50 Finishing Moves one toerable as well. Another thing I learned was The Miz was insufferable on this or at least he was in 2010. Seriously I couldn't take anything he said seriously at all. He says at one point he watches old Bockwinkel stuff and I just don't but that at all. Cena was also pretty good and came off as you would expect Cena to come off in such a manner.

Him and Striker were the worst when it comes to trying too hard at a time when they were trying to over emphasize the "fans that are now Superstars" mindset. While they were legit fans, their style is of the trying too hard to sound like a smark.

 

Striker marking out for Diesel at the Rumble is the "best" example of why fans (not homers per se) make bad broadcasters!

[AirJordanFan93]

 

Moving on from Montreal I attempted to watch the Top 50 Superstars of All Time documentary aside from the poorly constructed list which I would assume has taken quite the licking on these forums many a time. I honestly though William Regal was great as one of the talking heads they interviewed the guy is always great in these DVDs and he pretty much makes the Top 50 Finishing Moves one toerable as well. Another thing I learned was The Miz was insufferable on this or at least he was in 2010. Seriously I couldn't take anything he said seriously at all. He says at one point he watches old Bockwinkel stuff and I just don't but that at all. Cena was also pretty good and came off as you would expect Cena to come off in such a manner.

Him and Striker were the worst when it comes to trying too hard at a time when they were trying to over emphasize the "fans that are now Superstars" mindset. While they were legit fans, their style is of the trying too hard to sound like a smark.

 

Striker marking out for Diesel at the Rumble is the "best" example of why fans (not homers per se) make bad broadcasters!

 

Yeah 2010/2011 was pretty bad for that whole sort of thing.

[stro]

2010-2011 was bad for everything. Some dark fucking times.

[goc]

Moving on from Montreal I attempted to watch the Top 50 Superstars of All Time documentary aside from the poorly constructed list which I would assume has taken quite the licking on these forums many a time. I honestly though William Regal was great as one of the talking heads they interviewed the guy is always great in these DVDs and he pretty much makes the Top 50 Finishing Moves one toerable as well. Another thing I learned was The Miz was insufferable on this or at least he was in 2010. Seriously I couldn't take anything he said seriously at all. He says at one point he watches old Bockwinkel stuff and I just don't but that at all. Cena was also pretty good and came off as you would expect Cena to come off in such a manner.

I don't know why wouldn't buy it. Miz made it known going all the way back to his MTV days on Real World that he is a huge wrestling fan and the WWE guys can ask for DVDs (and I guess probably now digital copies of stuff) in the Vault to watch on their own. I'd especially believe that he's watched old Bockwinkel promos because he has probably put more work into improving that aspect of his game than just about anyone else in WWE.

[The Thread Killer]

Holy shit people think Vince was right or that Montreal was a work in 2016? This has been debunked over and over again. Bret had reasonable creative control (reasonable being agreed upon by Bret/Vince) and a month left on his contract.

 

I hate when this happens, but I agree with

. I don't think anybody was really "right" in this situation. It was a "heel angle."

[Grimmas]

 

Holy shit people think Vince was right or that Montreal was a work in 2016? This has been debunked over and over again. Bret had reasonable creative control (reasonable being agreed upon by Bret/Vince) and a month left on his contract.

 

I hate when this happens, but I agree with

. I don't think anybody was really "right" in this situation. It was a "heel angle."

 

Bret had a contract, Vince asked him to break it and leave. In that contract there is a clause that both parties have to agree with all booking if the contract is ending.

 

Case closed, it's really not that complicated.

[The Thread Killer]

Except for it obviously was complicated. It was pretty much the dictionary definition of complicated, actually. A situation consisting of many interconnecting parts or elements. If it wasn't complicated, then the Montreal Screwjob would never have happened.

 

The fact that you clearly favor the viewpoint of one of the "interconnecting parts" rather than have the ability to look at entire situation and acknowledge it's complexity does not actually make the situation any less complex.

[stro]

Montreal was and still is the dumbest shit where grown ass men had no perspective of the silly shit they engaged in for a living and couldn't step back to see how ridiculous both sides were. Y'all were dressing up in tights and play fighting for people. On the same show as you, there was a masked horror movie monster who could shoot fire, and his brother was an undead guy who could control lights and sometimes lightning. Shit ain't that serious.

[cpst]

Bret had a contract, Vince asked him to break it and leave. In that contract there is a clause that both parties have to agree with all booking if the contract is ending.

 

Case closed, it's really not that complicated.

Has Bret's contract ever actually been published in any lawsuit? The most common formulation I see quoted is that Bret had "reasonable creative control" over his character for the last 30 days prior to any early termination of his contract, which certainly wouldn't give him veto power over anything. If that's the case, there's a pretty obvious counterargument. He refused to lose in Canada, but the only PPV during the last 30 days of his contract was in Canada, so he was effectively refusing to lose on PPV. Given the way title changes happened in the WWF at that time, it's easy to see that as an unreasonable request.

[sek69]

He was offering several alternatives, all were being vetoed by HHH who got in Shawn's ear. I know that sounds to some folks like "OMG HHH CONSPIRACY" type shit, but it was reported at the time that Vince, Bret, and Shawn all agreed to do a DQ or some other non finish at Survivor Series and Bret would drop it at the next PPV or some Raw in the meantime. Hunter got Shawn all riled up about not beating a guy on the way out and all bets were off and we got what we got.

[Fando]

He was offering several alternatives, all were being vetoed by HHH who got in Shawn's ear. I know that sounds to some folks like "OMG HHH CONSPIRACY" type shit, but it was reported at the time that Vince, Bret, and Shawn all agreed to do a DQ or some other non finish at Survivor Series and Bret would drop it at the next PPV or some Raw in the meantime. Hunter got Shawn all riled up about not beating a guy on the way out and all bets were off and we got what we got.

 

Haven't seen it, but when the company put out their Montreal doc a few years back, Meltzer wrote that Shawn confirmed this in an RF shoot some time ago.

[sek69]

Not to pull a Dave On Twitter and be all "reading is your friend", but the back issues of the WON from this time are fascinating reading.

[The Thread Killer]

He was offering several alternatives, all were being vetoed by HHH who got in Shawn's ear. I know that sounds to some folks like "OMG HHH CONSPIRACY" type shit, but it was reported at the time that Vince, Bret, and Shawn all agreed to do a DQ or some other non finish at Survivor Series and Bret would drop it at the next PPV or some Raw in the meantime. Hunter got Shawn all riled up about not beating a guy on the way out and all bets were off and we got what we got.

 

Shawn openly admits that in the (really well done) WWE Rivalries special they did on Shawn vs. Bret, where the two of them are sitting there side by side, being interviewed by JR. Which is a must see, if for nothing else than to see how much Shawn has since moved on, and how much Bret really still hasn't.

[Grimmas]

 

Bret had a contract, Vince asked him to break it and leave. In that contract there is a clause that both parties have to agree with all booking if the contract is ending.

 

Case closed, it's really not that complicated.

Has Bret's contract ever actually been published in any lawsuit? The most common formulation I see quoted is that Bret had "reasonable creative control" over his character for the last 30 days prior to any early termination of his contract, which certainly wouldn't give him veto power over anything. If that's the case, there's a pretty obvious counterargument. He refused to lose in Canada, but the only PPV during the last 30 days of his contract was in Canada, so he was effectively refusing to lose on PPV. Given the way title changes happened in the WWF at that time, it's easy to see that as an unreasonable request.

 

Reasonable was defined as Bret and Vince agree.

[WingedEagle]

 

 

Bret had a contract, Vince asked him to break it and leave. In that contract there is a clause that both parties have to agree with all booking if the contract is ending.

 

Case closed, it's really not that complicated.

Has Bret's contract ever actually been published in any lawsuit? The most common formulation I see quoted is that Bret had "reasonable creative control" over his character for the last 30 days prior to any early termination of his contract, which certainly wouldn't give him veto power over anything. If that's the case, there's a pretty obvious counterargument. He refused to lose in Canada, but the only PPV during the last 30 days of his contract was in Canada, so he was effectively refusing to lose on PPV. Given the way title changes happened in the WWF at that time, it's easy to see that as an unreasonable request.

 

Reasonable was defined as Bret and Vince agree.

 

 

This has always been the accepted definition of reasonable creative control -- mutual agreement as to creative and finishes. All talent will politic and may balk at their creative direction, but this truly requires the performer's consent and thus permits someone to balk at booking without being in breach.

[cpst]

 

 

Has Bret's contract ever actually been published in any lawsuit? The most common formulation I see quoted is that Bret had "reasonable creative control" over his character for the last 30 days prior to any early termination of his contract, which certainly wouldn't give him veto power over anything. If that's the case, there's a pretty obvious counterargument. He refused to lose in Canada, but the only PPV during the last 30 days of his contract was in Canada, so he was effectively refusing to lose on PPV. Given the way title changes happened in the WWF at that time, it's easy to see that as an unreasonable request.

Reasonable was defined as Bret and Vince agree.

 

This has always been the accepted definition of reasonable creative control -- mutual agreement as to creative and finishes. All talent will politic and may balk at their creative direction, but this truly requires the performer's consent and thus permits someone to balk at booking without being in breach.

 

Accepted by whom? Has such a clause ever been tested in court?

[sek69]

WWE goes out of their way to avoid having their contract clauses tested in court since that tends to end badly for them.

[cpst]

WWE goes out of their way to avoid having their contract clauses tested in court since that tends to end badly for them.

Did Bret ever say himself why he didn't sue, even just to extract a token settlement? The somewhat obvious reason everyone always mentions is that Bret attacked Vince afterwards, so he was afraid of the countersuit.

[Grimmas]

 

WWE goes out of their way to avoid having their contract clauses tested in court since that tends to end badly for them.

Did Bret ever say himself why he didn't sue, even just to extract a token settlement? The somewhat obvious reason everyone always mentions is that Bret attacked Vince afterwards, so he was afraid of the countersuit.

 

Why sue? He was leaving anyways and punched him out for revenge.

[cpst]

Why sue? He was leaving anyways and punched him out for revenge.

If he agreed with the definition of "reasonable creative control" proposed here, he could have sued for breach of contract. I'm not sure what damages he would have been able to collect if the unseen contract had no penalty for a breach.

[sek69]

 

WWE goes out of their way to avoid having their contract clauses tested in court since that tends to end badly for them.

Did Bret ever say himself why he didn't sue, even just to extract a token settlement? The somewhat obvious reason everyone always mentions is that Bret attacked Vince afterwards, so he was afraid of the countersuit.

 

 

Because he trashed the monitors and other equipment after the match and damaged WWF property and Vince could have counter-sued for that. It would have just led to everything being tied up in court forever.

[AirJordanFan93]

2010-2011 was bad for everything. Some dark fucking times.

Yeah 2010 was pretty awful. I don't think it was as bad as 2009 that was just a dreadful year mainly only for RAW though. But 2011 I don't mind all that much.

 

 

Moving on from Montreal I attempted to watch the Top 50 Superstars of All Time documentary aside from the poorly constructed list which I would assume has taken quite the licking on these forums many a time. I honestly though William Regal was great as one of the talking heads they interviewed the guy is always great in these DVDs and he pretty much makes the Top 50 Finishing Moves one toerable as well. Another thing I learned was The Miz was insufferable on this or at least he was in 2010. Seriously I couldn't take anything he said seriously at all. He says at one point he watches old Bockwinkel stuff and I just don't but that at all. Cena was also pretty good and came off as you would expect Cena to come off in such a manner.

I don't know why wouldn't buy it. Miz made it known going all the way back to his MTV days on Real World that he is a huge wrestling fan and the WWE guys can ask for DVDs (and I guess probably now digital copies of stuff) in the Vault to watch on their own. I'd especially believe that he's watched old Bockwinkel promos because he has probably put more work into improving that aspect of his game than just about anyone else in WWE.

 

Im not doubting he did any of that stuff. I can just never believe him when he says anything along these lines. Just comes off as phony and that he is reading a script that has been written for him. Maybe its just me.

[Ricky Jackson]

2009-2010 are as dark as the darkest days of the mid 90s IMO. Just pure trash