A note on WWE's official view on "The Wrestler"

[Fiddleford H. McGucket]

The following is quoted from Angrymarks.com and I do not hold any copyright, nor do I pretend to.

"As if it wasn't already clear that WWE hates "The Wrestler," the following is their OFFICIAL view regarding the film


While 'The Wrestler' is a very engaging movie, it portrays how wrestling was conducted in some independent wrestling circuits, unlike WWE, which is a global brand with millions of fans"

Now for my take on this....


This was posted at 1AM 12/31 on one of my favortie sites. When I first read it I simply chalked it up to Vinnie Mac's own oddball thinking about the industry.

Then as the days passed I couldn't stop thinking abut the quote and then it hit me as to why.

It's proof that Vince doesn't "get it". On the one hand I would assume that Vince is just trying preemptive damage control because from everything I've gleaned from various sources "The Wrestler" does not paint the kindest of Pictures of the "Sports-Entertainment" industry. This combined with the tragedies of Benoit and many others before him it is easy to see Vince's sometimes apt feeling of paranoia.

With that out of the way I'm now on to my main complaint with the quote. Namely what is said and implied. It is implied that WWE is a company free of any drug use, painkiller abuse, or other unsavory activities. It also implies that any alternative must be rife with them.

Maybe if the industry's long-standing policy of working its "independant contractors" to the brink of injury and milking every last drop of anything then when its main eventers get too old simply putting them out to pasture is the issue. If the only way the older or more injury prone can get work is through the indies then of course the indies will have a higher incidence of drug and alcohol abuse.

It wasn't until very recently WWE even acknowleged (somewhat) the problem of drugs within the industry and began to offer rehabilitation, or at the very least began to advertise that fact; but even then the Wellness policy is murky at best to the outside observer. The carnival/kayfabe mentality is all fine well and good on the stage but this isn't the territories anymore, tranparencty is the key to good media coverage.

The bottom line is this, will "The Wrestler" bring negative publicity to WWE? Probably, but only because they are the largest target. Do they deserve some of it? Possibly, mostly for sweeping some of the issues under the rug for am long as they have, but passing the buck to "The Indies" isn't going to defer that acussatory spotlight.

[Red Impact]

Assuming this is all correct info, I'm missing what I should be outraged about.

Of course Vince is going to try to downplay the image presented by the movie, he's running a major corporation. What do you expect? Him to come out and say "Oh Darren, you got me!"

No, he's going to downplay it like every energy company spokesman does when ever something negative about that industry comes out. He's going to do it for his stockholders and for his own corporate image. If the person who wrote this is any bit surprised by it, it just shows how they don't get business. Of course, far be it for me to question the original commentator's credentials, he apparently knows exactly what PR firms are paid millions a year to do.

[Fiddleford H. McGucket]

My issue is not that Vince is trying to downplay the issue.

Its more along the lines that the drug/alcohol/painkiller/steroid problem is one widespread within the industry and while Vince is doing what he can and at time should do as a businessman, that much is understandable.

The idea that he can say, or at least pay people to say that the problem has been eradicated within his company is laughable at best, and libellous/slanderous at worst toward the indipendant promotions out there.

I personally believe, as I stated in my OP, that the issue is more one that the problems have always been there, in every promotion in some way shape or form and more needs to be done industry-wide to fix it.

[bretclark]

Any smart businessman would know that publicity can bring both good and bad fortunes. With WWE, they, like with a good majority of the world, know that wrestling is associated with their name (Being the 2nd "W" in the logo.) in a HUGE WAY. Obviously, and if the official statement is true, are trying to curtail the view of the fans and stockholders and advertisers and so forth that the movie doesn't depict what WWE, although I'll be the first to admit that it can strike home very hard to some people associated with the business.

- bretclark

[Loki]

1) Who forwarded to AngryMarks.com that "official" position?

2) I haven't watched the movie yet, but I can totally guess why WWE could be less than enthusiastic about the movie. Wrestling has been a very "mafia-like" business, where a lot of things happen but aren't talked about in public.
So if the movie kinda give some "secret informations" away, WWE are definitely not pleased.

Anyway, I still don't buy into that "official position", especially coming from a website called AngryMarks...

[wrestlecrapcrap]

Vince doesn't 'get it'?

I think all that quote is saying is that the WWE don't treat their wrestlers like crap, they get paid a decent salary and have more than comfortable lives as a result. They can't employ every single wrestler, so obviously some will have to work on the indies, where the general standards won't be as good. That's not WWE's fault, although they are more than within their rights to point out that the life of Ram is not the life of their typical superstar.

If the WWE does not then have a use for the older guys, and the older guys haven't got any kind of decent education to fall back on, they are within their rights to release them still. They are a business, and want to make money. As long as they see to their contractual agreements then there is nothing wrong with it though. Considering they pay for any former employee to get councelling, it's a bit rich to paint the WWE as a place that works guys until they can't move anymore and then callously casts them to the indies without a thankyou.

What do you want Vince and the company to do? Employ every wrestler they've ever had for ever and ever? The guys know the nature of the business when they enter it, and are constantly reminded that it's best to get an education under their belts first so they have something to fall back on. If they don't, and the WWE also no longer has a use for them, it's not the WWE's fault. They can't employ every guy for ever. They can, and do, pay for councelling. Other than that though, it's Vince's business and Vince's money, and he's entitled to do what's best for his business.

[azz0r]

You know what. Within 5 minutes in I HATED the film to.

Why would Vince and the WWE like a film that shows a washed up has been sleeping in his car, being in constant pain, taking steroids, having a heart attack and generally being a loser because of wrestling be in there positive line of sight?

The film does nothing good for the wrestling business.

[sloride]

Vince's position on The Wrestler seems to me like damage control. Whilst I have not seen the film it obviously does not paint the wrestling industry in a positive light, mixed in with the extra publicity of Aronofsky sounding off about how wrestlers should have benefits, proper health insurance and become members of the SAG. A well publicised film about a real life event or business will probe further research into said event. Hence people will probe further into the WWE and the way that their wrestlers are treated. Vince is trying to quell some of this negative probing into his company now by coming out and saying that Randy 'The Ram' Robinson does not represent a typical WWE superstar.

[Citizen Snips]

Funny how WWE decided to release their official view on AngryMarks.com and not, say, their OWN website, which contains nothing resembling that statement.

[Dr. Bunsen Honeydew]

Jan 2, 2009 7:42:26 GMT -5 Citizen Snips said:

Funny how WWE decided to release their official view on AngryMarks.com and not, say, their OWN website, which contains nothing resembling that statement.

Its also funny that there is no other legit site that has this quote either. THe only one from WWE who has a quote on it is Jim Ross in his blog, and he was generally positive about it.

[Kae]

I don't blame Vince for reacting the way he has. Do you expect him to say "Well, yes, the movie accurately depicts the life of superstars in the WWE. They are all on steroids and other drugs, which we tolerate; they end up broke and broken-down; they spend the twilight years of the career in small-time feds"? That isn't how the WWE typically does business, and it isn't hypocritical of them to say so.

[Deleted]

Jan 2, 2009 6:24:50 GMT -5 wrestlecrapcrap said:

Vince doesn't 'get it'?

I think all that quote is saying is that the WWE don't treat their wrestlers like crap, they get paid a decent salary and have more than comfortable lives as a result. They can't employ every single wrestler, so obviously some will have to work on the indies, where the general standards won't be as good. That's not WWE's fault, although they are more than within their rights to point out that the life of Ram is not the life of their typical superstar.

If the WWE does not then have a use for the older guys, and the older guys haven't got any kind of decent education to fall back on, they are within their rights to release them still. They are a business, and want to make money. As long as they see to their contractual agreements then there is nothing wrong with it though. Considering they pay for any former employee to get councelling, it's a bit rich to paint the WWE as a place that works guys until they can't move anymore and then callously casts them to the indies without a thankyou.

What do you want Vince and the company to do? Employ every wrestler they've ever had for ever and ever? The guys know the nature of the business when they enter it, and are constantly reminded that it's best to get an education under their belts first so they have something to fall back on. If they don't, and the WWE also no longer has a use for them, it's not the WWE's fault. They can't employ every guy for ever. They can, and do, pay for councelling. Other than that though, it's Vince's business and Vince's money, and he's entitled to do what's best for his business.

Pretty much. People tend to forget that wrestlers are adults. Like any adult it's their responsibility to put themselves into a position where they can make money and sustain their lives. Sometimes that means having to take a job at a deli. Your employer is not your daddy.

[George Harrison]

Isn't the current HBK storyline based, albeit loosely, on Mickey Rourkes character?


with all the WWE hate directed toward it, it seems a bit bizarre?

[Dave at the Movies]

Jan 2, 2009 7:16:24 GMT -5 azz0r said:

You know what. Within 5 minutes in I HATED the film to.

Why would Vince and the WWE like a film that shows a washed up has been sleeping in his car, being in constant pain, taking steroids, having a heart attack and generally being a loser because of wrestling be in there positive line of sight?

The film does nothing good for the wrestling business.

Without guys who made huge sacrifices like that in the 80s and 90s there would be no business so try again.

I agree with the OP on this one. WWE has no right to say that this is how indy promotions are. sure alot of people on the indy level take drugs but not near as many as when WWF was at it's highest during the 80s. A lot of the problems in wrestling today directly come from WWF and it's influence on the industry.

Why else would the movie be based off one of their biggest stars?

[Red Impact]

Jan 2, 2009 0:48:45 GMT -5 Fiddleford H. McGucket said:

My issue is not that Vince is trying to downplay the issue.

Its more along the lines that the drug/alcohol/painkiller/steroid problem is one widespread within the industry and while Vince is doing what he can and at time should do as a businessman, that much is understandable.

The idea that he can say, or at least pay people to say that the problem has been eradicated within his company is laughable at best, and libellous/slanderous at worst toward the indipendant promotions out there.

I personally believe, as I stated in my OP, that the issue is more one that the problems have always been there, in every promotion in some way shape or form and more needs to be done industry-wide to fix it.

The statement didn't say that, it said that the exact image presented in the movie isn't how the WWE operates. It doesn't say it eradicated all problems of the industry.

And slanderous? Not by a long shot. No promotion is even remotely close to being identified and if a statement is true (in that there are some promotions that are as is depicted), there's not claim of libel or slander.

Are there former WWE performers that end up like it? Absofreakinlutely, but if the company is going to comment that it's not how they treat their performers, it's not a sign that they don't get it, it's a sign that they know how to run a business.

Jan 2, 2009 9:45:34 GMT -5 George Harrison said:

Isn't the current HBK storyline based, albeit loosely, on Mickey Rourkes character?

with all the WWE hate directed toward it, it seems a bit bizarre?

You have to take into account that other posters couldn't find this posted anywhere else, so the fact that it's fake is only in the realm of possibility.

[blef]

Jan 2, 2009 9:45:34 GMT -5 George Harrison said:

Isn't the current HBK storyline based, albeit loosely, on Mickey Rourkes character?

with all the WWE hate directed toward it, it seems a bit bizarre?

Well, you see now......they're doing it better.

See, if the events of The Wrestler was actually something that people involved at any time with World Wrestling Entertainment had encountered, this is what would've happened in their case.

And in the end, unlike those dreadful and third-world independent circuits, the WWE Global Brand and the WWE Universe would've never allowed their beloved independent contractors ever experience anything like what Mickey Rourke's character had to experience in this fictional movie.

[Bobby Womack]

although the original "quote" has been disproven, i have to laugh at the post and the comments by alvarez that vince doesnt 'get it', because im sure random internet guy #13432 and a gossip columnist whos had a handful of matches in glorified backyard feds, know more about pro wrestling than a guy whos lived and breathed the industry for over 50 years

[Fiddleford H. McGucket]

ok....

to make thinngs a little clearer.....

Everything after the italicized quote is me.

its my opinion.... I simply put the quote up there as a frame of reference.

[Mantaurded]

Sorry if this has been asked and answered, but when does this come out?

[blef]

It's in limited release right now, which means it'll be tough to find it in theatres.

I thought it might get a wider release, due to all the excellent reviews and also to increase the Oscar consideration buzz (which is pretty high already), but I'm not sure...