Goldenbane
Hank Scorpio
THE G.D. Goldenbane
Posts: 7,331
|
Post by Goldenbane on Jan 3, 2008 22:49:39 GMT -5
To my utmost surprise I recieved the new Shawn Micheals DVD in the mail as a late Christmas present from an old buddy of mine. I haven't gotten to watch any of the matches yet, but I did see the whole interview/story thingy...and man, I just don't know what to think. Shawn is very very hard on himself at times in the video, but then there are times, like during the Montreal stuff...he comes off kinda...eh.
Anyway, this DVD has been pretty good so far...I loved that they had the whole Larry King/Shawn "Hulk Hogan" Micheals interview...I think that was the greatest interview Shawn ever had, LOL!
Triple H is still a worthless suckass POS to me, and he comes off even worse in this, but I guess that's just my views on the man.
What did everyone else think?
|
|
Crappler El 0 M
Dalek
Never Forgets an Octagon
I'm a good R-Truth.
Posts: 58,479
|
Post by Crappler El 0 M on Jan 3, 2008 22:57:41 GMT -5
Pretty good DVD, a nice compliment to the "From the Vault" DVD.
|
|
J is Justice
Wade Wilson
Will now be grateful.
Hi.
Posts: 28,607 
|
Post by J is Justice on Jan 3, 2008 22:59:31 GMT -5
I need to buy this
|
|
|
|
Post by The Booty Disciple on Jan 3, 2008 23:07:27 GMT -5
GF got it for me for Christmas...I enjoyed it, but I think, much like Flair's book, it suffers from some one-sided views. However, I maintain that he did the right thing in Montreal, and the blame there rests solely on Vince (not that its relevent).
Watched his match with Davey Boy Smith from KotR '96, and was quite impressed, both with the quality of the match, and with the fact that Shawn had to audibly tell DBS to press slam him at one point. Say what you will about him, but Shawn was having that match with the canvas and the ring ropes that night, and it was still tremendous.
|
|
mattperiolat
King Koopa
Thank you, Brodie... for everything.
Posts: 11,445
|
Post by mattperiolat on Jan 3, 2008 23:11:38 GMT -5
I found what Michaels had to say as interesting. I do think he regrets being such a... well, brat earlier in his career, but I dunno how much he's really improved.
Most interesting was his comments on Montreal. Also the fact that he is almost completely unrepentant for his role in the screwjob. Certainly not going to endear him to Bret Hart, that's for sure.
Why the dislike for Triple H though? I dunno, I don't always love the guy, but he is talented and he seems to have a great apprication for the business. Gotta keep in mind, the line between character and man is very blurry with these guys in this day and age.
|
|
comahan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by comahan on Jan 3, 2008 23:16:22 GMT -5
Ive only seen the Bio. I really liked it. Im a sucker for that kind of stuff, though.
|
|
Goldenbane
Hank Scorpio
THE G.D. Goldenbane
Posts: 7,331
|
Post by Goldenbane on Jan 3, 2008 23:41:06 GMT -5
GF got it for me for Christmas...I enjoyed it, but I think, much like Flair's book, it suffers from some one-sided views. However, I maintain that he did the right thing in Montreal, and the blame there rests solely on Vince (not that its relevent). Watched his match with Davey Boy Smith from KotR '96, and was quite impressed, both with the quality of the match, and with the fact that Shawn had to audibly tell DBS to press slam him at one point. Say what you will about him, but Shawn was having that match with the canvas and the ring ropes that night, and it was still tremendous. Yeah, I found the thing with Vince taking full responsibility for that kinda interesting. I mean, I don't feel that what happened to Bret was right, but I do try to remember that 1. Shawn didn't like the guy anyway...if I had been in the same kinda situation with someone I hated, I would have done the same thing! 2. Even if there had been no personal issues Bret, would it have been worth it risking his job by not doing what Vince wanted? Mick couldn't do it, I guess I can't ask any more of Shawn. Anyway, my hate of Triple H is just a matter of personal opinion and taste I guess. I think his "love of the business" gets mixed a bit too much with his "love for himself and only himself." I have feelings about his matches and his interviews...but I've already kinda opened my big mouth on the guy (I was gonna write something more derogatory, LOL) so I'll just leave him alone. |
|
|
|
Post by The Booty Disciple on Jan 3, 2008 23:48:42 GMT -5
I found what Michaels had to say as interesting. I do think he regrets being such a... well, brat earlier in his career, but I dunno how much he's really improved. Most interesting was his comments on Montreal. Also the fact that he is almost completely unrepentant for his role in the screwjob. Certainly not going to endear him to Bret Hart, that's for sure. Why the dislike for Triple H though? I dunno, I don't always love the guy, but he is talented and he seems to have a great apprication for the business. Gotta keep in mind, the line between character and man is very blurry with these guys in this day and age. Five bucks says you and I have a much more civil conversation regarding Montreal than usually goes on around here... I don't think we'll ever get a full picture of Montreal from anyone. Bret states his side (rather frequently, though not without some encouragement, most times), and this was the first time that Shawn was able to discuss his role in such a wide market. He sucked it up and towed a company line. Whether this was because of his opinion of himself and his role in the company, his dislike for Bret Hart, or his desire to be a company guy is always going to be disputed. However, given that he doesn't bring it up unless he's asked, and that Bret sure seems to harp on it more regularly, and that Bret Hart is about as relevent to the current American wrestling scene as Bruno Sammartino is, I'm inclined to think that Bret, Shawn, Vince, and anyone else involved (including Meltzer and his constant republishing of his 13,000 word account of the months and days leading up to the incident and the incident itself) are somehow to blame. However, that does not mean that Shawn was completely honest about his role (nor does it say Bret was either). And this thread turns to crap and hollers about Montreal in 5, 4, 3... |
|
mattperiolat
King Koopa
Thank you, Brodie... for everything.
Posts: 11,445
|
Post by mattperiolat on Jan 3, 2008 23:58:45 GMT -5
I found what Michaels had to say as interesting. I do think he regrets being such a... well, brat earlier in his career, but I dunno how much he's really improved. Most interesting was his comments on Montreal. Also the fact that he is almost completely unrepentant for his role in the screwjob. Certainly not going to endear him to Bret Hart, that's for sure. Why the dislike for Triple H though? I dunno, I don't always love the guy, but he is talented and he seems to have a great apprication for the business. Gotta keep in mind, the line between character and man is very blurry with these guys in this day and age. Five bucks says you and I have a much more civil conversation regarding Montreal than usually goes on around here... I don't think we'll ever get a full picture of Montreal from anyone. Bret states his side (rather frequently, though not without some encouragement, most times), and this was the first time that Shawn was able to discuss his role in such a wide market. He sucked it up and towed a company line. Whether this was because of his opinion of himself and his role in the company, his dislike for Bret Hart, or his desire to be a company guy is always going to be disputed. However, given that he doesn't bring it up unless he's asked, and that Bret sure seems to harp on it more regularly, and that Bret Hart is about as relevent to the current American wrestling scene as Bruno Sammartino is, I'm inclined to think that Bret, Shawn, Vince, and anyone else involved (including Meltzer and his constant republishing of his 13,000 word account of the months and days leading up to the incident and the incident itself) are somehow to blame. However, that does not mean that Shawn was completely honest about his role (nor does it say Bret was either). And this thread turns to crap and hollers about Montreal in 5, 4, 3... I'll take the bet. Honestly, I don't like what happened in Montreal, but I can see both points of view: for Bret, being the "Canadian hero", he didn't want to drop the title in Canada (odd, given what he claims, he would have surrendered it the next night on RAW... in Canada), plus, let's face it, the man hated and still hates Shawn Michaels's guts and didn't want to drop the title to him. Vince, on the other hand, remembered what happened with Medusa and the Women's Title on Nitro and even if Bret DIDN'T do something like that, he knew Bischoff was going to do something, so the title had to come off Bret for the good of the company. Unfortunately for all involved, these two egos were not able to compromise and Vince had to get dirty and it had to involve Shawn, otherwise there was no promises it would come off. So unfortunately, everyone ended up a loser. Thank goodness Bret and Vince are at least being civil again and spared us a burial DVD. What does the future hold? I really wish I knew. I know feelings are still smarting even after 10 years, but in all honesty, to continue to be poisoned by what happened does no one any good. Then again, this is wrestling and grudges never die. Still civil? I had to try to be. |
|
Goldenbane
Hank Scorpio
THE G.D. Goldenbane
Posts: 7,331
|
Post by Goldenbane on Jan 4, 2008 0:04:16 GMT -5
I found what Michaels had to say as interesting. I do think he regrets being such a... well, brat earlier in his career, but I dunno how much he's really improved. Most interesting was his comments on Montreal. Also the fact that he is almost completely unrepentant for his role in the screwjob. Certainly not going to endear him to Bret Hart, that's for sure. Why the dislike for Triple H though? I dunno, I don't always love the guy, but he is talented and he seems to have a great apprication for the business. Gotta keep in mind, the line between character and man is very blurry with these guys in this day and age. Five bucks says you and I have a much more civil conversation regarding Montreal than usually goes on around here... I don't think we'll ever get a full picture of Montreal from anyone. Bret states his side (rather frequently, though not without some encouragement, most times), and this was the first time that Shawn was able to discuss his role in such a wide market. He sucked it up and towed a company line. Whether this was because of his opinion of himself and his role in the company, his dislike for Bret Hart, or his desire to be a company guy is always going to be disputed. However, given that he doesn't bring it up unless he's asked, and that Bret sure seems to harp on it more regularly, and that Bret Hart is about as relevent to the current American wrestling scene as Bruno Sammartino is, I'm inclined to think that Bret, Shawn, Vince, and anyone else involved (including Meltzer and his constant republishing of his 13,000 word account of the months and days leading up to the incident and the incident itself) are somehow to blame. However, that does not mean that Shawn was completely honest about his role (nor does it say Bret was either). And this thread turns to crap and hollers about Montreal in 5, 4, 3... Now I'm more of a Bret Hart fan that Shawn Micheals fan (but I do like Shawn Micheals!) I do kinda agree with Ted Dibiase when he said that Bret should just talk to Shawn in private, and bury the hatch with the man. Of course there will always be a wish deep in the darkest pit of my stomach that one day in the far future Bret, Shawn, and Vince will all come out and say "Actually Bret knew before hand about what was going to happen in Montreal...we did it to help get the WWF over, and sent Bret to WCW to coordinate some...agents...we had there to help collapse the company." But that's just the total mark in me I suppose.  |
|
|
|
Post by The Booty Disciple on Jan 4, 2008 0:11:30 GMT -5
Five bucks says you and I have a much more civil conversation regarding Montreal than usually goes on around here... I don't think we'll ever get a full picture of Montreal from anyone. Bret states his side (rather frequently, though not without some encouragement, most times), and this was the first time that Shawn was able to discuss his role in such a wide market. He sucked it up and towed a company line. Whether this was because of his opinion of himself and his role in the company, his dislike for Bret Hart, or his desire to be a company guy is always going to be disputed. However, given that he doesn't bring it up unless he's asked, and that Bret sure seems to harp on it more regularly, and that Bret Hart is about as relevent to the current American wrestling scene as Bruno Sammartino is, I'm inclined to think that Bret, Shawn, Vince, and anyone else involved (including Meltzer and his constant republishing of his 13,000 word account of the months and days leading up to the incident and the incident itself) are somehow to blame. However, that does not mean that Shawn was completely honest about his role (nor does it say Bret was either). And this thread turns to crap and hollers about Montreal in 5, 4, 3... I'll take the bet. Honestly, I don't like what happened in Montreal, but I can see both points of view: for Bret, being the "Canadian hero", he didn't want to drop the title in Canada (odd, given what he claims, he would have surrendered it the next night on RAW... in Canada), plus, let's face it, the man hated and still hates Shawn Michaels's guts and didn't want to drop the title to him. Vince, on the other hand, remembered what happened with Medusa and the Women's Title on Nitro and even if Bret DIDN'T do something like that, he knew Bischoff was going to do something, so the title had to come off Bret for the good of the company. Unfortunately for all involved, these two egos were not able to compromise and Vince had to get dirty and it had to involve Shawn, otherwise there was no promises it would come off. So unfortunately, everyone ended up a loser. Thank goodness Bret and Vince are at least being civil again and spared us a burial DVD. What does the future hold? I really wish I knew. I know feelings are still smarting even after 10 years, but in all honesty, to continue to be poisoned by what happened does no one any good. Then again, this is wrestling and grudges never die. Still civil? I had to try to be. Definitely still civil, and other good points brought up. Big one is the fact that you mentioned Madusa Micelli and her trashing the WWF/E Women's Belt on Nitro early on...yes, that was probably a factor, but remember, Vince has a long memory, and he had Flair do exactly what he was fearing Bret Hart would do not but 6 years before. Flair not only was the standing world champ in WCW, but had legal and physical possession of their world title belt (not that Jim Herd was without blame and didn't treat Flair like absolute garbage). Bret's word is one thing...a $3 million/year contract, a boss new boss that hates Vince with a passion, and very likely a real fear of a company order to Bret to show up in possession of the competition's belt are a whole different thing. After you posted $6 million in losses the previous year and were losing one of your top stars who had possession of your top tier belt, would you let him leave an arena to "surrender the title" when he is 1) no longer under contract and 2) could be getting a big bonus from the new boss (who we need to remember was throwing money around like I throw snowballs)? I know I wouldn't. Like I said, I think Shawn did what he needed to do (which is the right thing in his position, given my opinion of both guys, and the beauty of hindsight), but the blame lays on Vince's shoulders. Not that I think Vince was in the wrong either. Still civil? Guess we'll see. |
|
|
|
Post by Throwback on Jan 4, 2008 0:13:37 GMT -5
Bret and Shawn have always been 2 of my favorite wrestlers. Altho I think it's unfair the way montreal went down. I understand why shawn did it as well as I understand why Bret didn't want to drop the belt. I just think Bret should have understood Vince's concerns and did what was right for the business that made him.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Booty Disciple on Jan 4, 2008 0:16:32 GMT -5
Bret and Shawn have always been 2 of my favorite wrestlers. Altho I think it's unfair the way montreal went down. I understand why shawn did it as well as I understand why Bret didn't want to drop the belt. I just think Bret should have understood Vince's concerns and did what was right for the business that made him. Agreed. Harping on Vince and Shawn and their character for ten years isn't exactly helping his case, nor saying many positive things about his own character. |
|
|
|
Post by Throwback on Jan 4, 2008 0:20:27 GMT -5
I'm a HUGE bret Hart fan but that doesn't mean I have to support everything he does. What he doesn't seem to realise is the more he harps on Montreal the more the rest of his career will be forgotten. He's already starting to be known as "the guy who got screwed" to newer fans. which sucks because he has such a great history
|
|
mattperiolat
King Koopa
Thank you, Brodie... for everything.
Posts: 11,445
|
Post by mattperiolat on Jan 4, 2008 0:25:50 GMT -5
Definitely still civil, and other good points brought up. Big one is the fact that you mentioned Madusa Micelli and her trashing the WWF/E Women's Belt on Nitro early on...yes, that was probably a factor, but remember, Vince has a long memory, and he had Flair do exactly what he was fearing Bret Hart would do not but 6 years before. Flair not only was the standing world champ in WCW, but had legal and physical possession of their world title belt (not that Jim Herd was without blame and didn't treat Flair like absolute garbage). Bret's word is one thing...a $3 million/year contract, a boss new boss that hates Vince with a passion, and very likely a real fear of a company order to Bret to show up in possession of the competition's belt are a whole different thing. After you posted $6 million in losses the previous year and were losing one of your top stars who had possession of your top tier belt, would you let him leave an arena to "surrender the title" when he is 1) no longer under contract and 2) could be getting a big bonus from the new boss (who we need to remember was throwing money around like I throw snowballs)? I know I wouldn't. Like I said, I think Shawn did what he needed to do (which is the right thing in his position, given my opinion of both guys, and the beauty of hindsight), but the blame lays on Vince's shoulders. Not that I think Vince was in the wrong either. Still civil? Guess we'll see. Great point, guess my memory is fading as I had forgotten that Flair took WCW's title belt with him to the E where it was reduced to a prop. And like you said, even if Bret was St. Bret of Calgary, what a lot of people have forgotten with time is, as was pointed out, the E was in deep trouble at the time. Heck, it was the whole reason Vince was cutting Bret loose anyway was because he couldn't afford to keep him. Vince was in a very unenviable position and despite what the "Vince is the Devil" crowd may think, he had to do what he did for his company. Like it or not, this is a business and for the record, this is not the first time it has happened. Look back circa 1986 I think with Fabulous Moolah getting the Women's title back under the Spider mask. Heck, go back to 1984, Bob Backlund claims to this day he didn't know he was dropping to the Sheik until Skaaland threw the towel in the ring. I agree with another poster: Bret and Shawn really do need to put all this behind them before one of them dies. I think Shawn would like too, it's Bret that just can't totally let go. But that's me trying to read tea leaves so don't throw things at me for saying that. But really, ten years is long enough. The situation at the time, needless to say, sucked and the two will probably never be friends, but if Bret and Vince can make peace, why can't Bret and Shawn? Still shooting for civility. |
|
Jiren
Patti Mayonnaise
Hearts Bayformers
Posts: 35,163
|
Post by Jiren on Jan 4, 2008 0:41:07 GMT -5
All 3 are to blame
- Bret was stubborn about losing in Canada & to Shawn
- Vince should have realised Bret was Loyal to the WWF & would never jepordise it
- Shawn should have been straight
Not a single person is to blame because they all were the cause.
(Bret hates HBK for multiple reasons not just Montreal, that was just the final straw)
|
|
|
|
Post by lostmysmile on Jan 4, 2008 0:58:28 GMT -5
its weird that medusa in a way,started all of this
|
|
|
|
Post by batwoman on Jan 4, 2008 1:06:39 GMT -5
its weird that medusa in a way,started all of this Do you really believe Vince would have trusted Bret that he wouldn't bring the WWF title in WCW if the Madusa incident didn't happen? |
|
|
|
Post by Vice honcho room temperature on Jan 4, 2008 1:15:03 GMT -5
its weird that medusa in a way,started all of this Do you really believe Vince would have trusted Bret that he wouldn't bring the WWF title in WCW if the Madusa incident didn't happen? Yes. |
|
|
|
Post by batwoman on Jan 4, 2008 1:41:16 GMT -5
Vince Mcmahon thinks in his mind that Bret Hart would bring the WWF title into WCW even though Bret Hart was loyal to the WWF for 17 years while Madusa was in the WWF for only 1 year.
|
|
