WWE Network... It's Here

[El-P]

Funny how some people don't seem to get the subtlety of bending an old narrative into a slightly new one. Of course the Madusa incident was refered to for years when Montreal was brought up.

 

The difference now is that : *Madusa fired the first shot in the Monday Night Wars* and basically is the reason why "Montreal happened". How isn't this completely ridiculous ? Like it's been said, Flair fucking showed up on WWF TV with the WCW Big Gold Belt in 1991.

 

Between December 1995 and November 1997, you have two years of petty shit and lawsuits between the two companies, you really think it would have changed anything when Bret didn't want to put over Shawn, Vince's golden boy, if just the Madusa incident had not happened two years before ?

[DMJ]

I always felt like the issue wasn't whether Hart would literally trash the title like Madusa did, but that, even if screwy, you don't want your unbeaten Champion showing up on the other guys show. Yeah, him having the actual belt and bringing it on Nitro would've been a big deal (as it was when Flair brought his to WWE 5 years earlier), but in 97, things were slightly different and a larger portion of the audience was already "smarter" (I know my 13 year old self was thanks to RSPW) and having the actual belt wasn't as big as having your recognized mega-star World Champion show up having never lost the title.

 

Had Madusa shown up without the physical belt, no one would've thought, "Hey, that's the WWE Women's Champion" because that title was hardly promoted or defended, especially by the end of her WWE run. Bischoff knew that and that's why they needed her to bring the belt. They needed the tangible object to make the symbolism work.

 

But Bret Hart was a mega star holding the company's most prestigious title and had been in a multi-year feud Shawn Michaels. The physical belt was certainly a symbol, but it wasn't as necessary a prop. His Championship legitimacy was well established with or without the actual belt.

 

Having him drop it to Shamrock would've been a cop out and Vince knew it and wanted finality so Bret needed to be beaten not because he was going to bring the physical belt to Nitro (he probably owned a replica one anyway that he could've brought out), but because you can't have your World Champion jump ship without suffering a loss to his top rival and the guy so clearly positioned to take the title from him. Austin and Taker wouldn't suffice in November 97 for a number of reasons and they're really the only other legit options.

 

I've always felt like that was understood by everyone involved.

[stro]

I'm of the opinion that Montreal was a work. And have been for a long time. It just makes more sense than anything else. For it to be a work, only 5 or 6 people would need to be in on it. If it were a shoot, why would there have been a documentary film crew there? Two wrestling documentaries came out in a 3 year span that made Vince McMahon look like the sleaziest human being alive. And both had full access to the WWF. That wasn't an accident. Both Wrestling With Shadows and the WWF and many segments in Beyond the Mat are complete works IMO. If it were a shoot, wouldn't it make more sense to put Ken Shamrock in there? Then have Shamrock drop the belt to Michaels the next PPV. Michaels doesn't seem like the kind of guy who would do well if things went south in a shoot. Also if it were a shoot, how did Owen Hart stay for the next two years? Davey Boy and Neidhart left, but Owen stayed. Also WWF came out of Montreal way ahead than if Bret had simply dropped the title. There was nuclear level heat, white heat, fan jump a gaurd rail and stab somebody heat on Michaels, Vince McMahon, and the company in general. No ordinary title change could have created that. Plus the way they have been talking about it for the past 20 years non stop is so self congradulitory. To me, it has to be a work.

 

The thing that always stood out to me about it is for the whole show, but especially at the start, JR is basically screaming in your face that it's going to happen. This is a technique he frequently used to more or less spoil big angles at the end of shows (See WM 17, SS 98, the Raw where ECW and WCW joined up, the Vince is dead angle, and probably 100 other examples), which has always led me to to believe that there was more planned and agreed to than what anyone has admitted, or that JR was in on it.

[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.

[SteveJRogers]

 

That also assumes WWF knew how bad the locker room was getting in WCW, and signing Bret in the middle of the hottest angle in YEARS would contribute to the comany's downfall.

 

Like they were banking on them dicking around with Bret in non-sensical mid-card crap, turning to be a lap dog, etc. Banking on WCW's creative pissing away the white hot Sting vs the nWo angle, as well as badly mishandling Goldberg's entire reign as champion (never mind Goldberg had just debuted in the fall of 1997, the WWF somehow knew WCW would piss all over something that organic) and the end of said reign.

 

1998 WCW doesn't happen, to quote The Rock, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE WWF WAS DOING!

 

Yeah Austin was hot, but somehow, WCW was still leading the War. See THAT's where the revisionism comes in. Yeah, Austin v McMahon on Raw did end the ratings streak, but it wasn't until the wheels were going off WCW by the end of 1998 that the WWF would never be topped again. That is too long of a gambit to play in November of 1997, especially with all the negativity and gloom that the company was under in weeks following.

 

It doesn't assume all of that. It assumes that Bret was leaving and they were willing to let him leave rather than match the WCW offer. It also assumes that they needed some really big angle to make up for him leaving.

 

 

The only reason you think that is because WCW would be a worthless entity by 2001, so worthless no one would air the product so they were bought on the cheap by the WWF!

 

Had things stayed the course that they were on after Montreal, if the inmates didn't take over the asylum and creative didn't screw everything up in late 1998 through 1999-2000 (especially giving Russo free reign) we could quite possibly be talking about the reverse happening. With WCW getting a better TV deal elsewhere (Tardis wouldn't have lost any sleep over not renewing a deal or even wanting to do a new one with WCW) and who knows, maybe Vince would have been taken over by whomever gained control of WCW by 2001.

 

And yes, you are assuming that Vince was willing to commit business suicide because that is what they very nearly did with the aftermath of the Screwjob. Would you do that and NOT let everyone in the company in on it for their own good, and their own morale? You think Vince would allow for one of the darkest periods in company history to happen because he worked everyone in his own company, no matter how great of a heel character he'd make his on screen persona?

[SteveJRogers]

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 don't think anyone is saying Vince was right, its more arguing over if Vince was so paranoid and desperate that he thought Bischoff was that brazen to give a big fuck you to legal and the WWF by having Bret walk onto Nitro with the WWF title in hand.

[stro]

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

[AirJordanFan93]

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

Seeing as its just about been 20 years I am not counting on that to happen anytime soon if ever.

[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.