S.L.L. Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 Well, it's pro wrestling. I don't expect people to be honest, but consistency is nice. Although what does it tell you about how dense Chapman is that he's become the go-to wrestling historian for World Wrestling Entertainment and he doesn't start to question whether or not he's been doing something wrong? When you're essentially told that you are telling people the version of wrestling history that Vince McMahon wants people to believe by his own organization, I'd think maybe you'd start going over your notes, trying to find where you fucked up. Not that Vince has a whole lot invested in Gotch or Caddock, but that still seems like it should set off some warning signals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 Documentaries in general tend not to lend themselves to the full truth. It becomes homogenized into something that is easy for the viewer to digest quickly. In this case does WWE even have a dog in the historical fight? Easy enough to get quotes from a historian and get to Flair as quickly as possible. Chapman also interviewed for the AWA dvd. Did they even get new footage or did they just recycle those interviews? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 Chapman also interviewed for the AWA dvd. Did they even get new footage or did they just recycle those interviews? The setting for these interviews was quite different than the AWA ones, so I'd say new interviews. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Posted January 7, 2010 Report Share Posted January 7, 2010 Watching this myself now. The early part of the documentary is complimentary towards Gotch, Thesz, Lewis, etc. That's probably the most important part of a fluff documentary like this one. Interesting choice of narrator whose name I don't recall offhand, but I know he's done work for Ric Burns' documentaries in the past. Kiniski's interview is fun but in fairness to him, it's an old interview and he certainly wouldn't know it would appear on a dvd documentary 15 years in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wahoos Leg Posted January 18, 2010 Report Share Posted January 18, 2010 I think the clip job on the old Florida matches is one of the great disappointments of the set. I also found it amusing that the montage of "dubious champions" during the WCW era included Sid. Good thing no other major promotion was ever foolish enough to give him a title run. Hey, wait... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted January 18, 2010 Report Share Posted January 18, 2010 That's how the Florida matches exist. They're 16mm film and clipping was done live. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty Posted January 18, 2010 Report Share Posted January 18, 2010 That's how the Florida matches exist. They're 16mm film and clipping was done live. Except for TV matches, right? I ask because that Families Of Wrestling set they released has Bob Orton Sr. & Jr. tag match (basically an extended squash) from '76 on there that's shown in full, with Gordon Solie and Bob Roop on commentary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted January 18, 2010 Report Share Posted January 18, 2010 Right, just that era's house show matches are film, but there's a lot more house show film than studio matches from that era because, well, you can't tape over film. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrisZ Posted January 18, 2010 Report Share Posted January 18, 2010 And house show film is better because the matches aren't squashes like most studios of that era. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.