|
Post by The Verdict on Nov 20, 2009 19:17:34 GMT -5
It sounds like an awful working environment over at the E. I'm curious to know how Hunter acts during these meetings. If he is more like his wife or more like his brother-in-law. i'm sure he just sits back with some popcorn, thats what i would do
|
|
|
Post by Designated Drinker on Nov 20, 2009 19:32:20 GMT -5
I have no trouble believing Shane is a likable guy and that Vince is an egomaniac.I'm really afraid of what will happen with that company when Vince isn't there and Shane having little,if any,say in what direction WWE goes in.
|
|
|
Post by Metalheadbanger Man on Nov 20, 2009 19:34:32 GMT -5
Some of those articles seem random - why the hell would Triple H have a specific agenda with Billy Kidman?
|
|
Mac
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 16,502
|
Post by Mac on Nov 20, 2009 19:39:20 GMT -5
Seems like a lot of people having the same problems. In fairness I'll admit I remember the "bad" stories about working in the WWE more than the good ones, but where theres smoke theres usually fire and I have to beleive that on some level this stuff is probably true.
Especially when week in and week out Triple H and Shawn Michaels get to run smarky, cutting edge kayfabe busting promos while the rest of the roster seems to have to resort to "This Sunday.. I'll beat you in the ring... 1.....2......3"
|
|
|
Post by Spankymac is sick of the swiss on Nov 20, 2009 19:41:06 GMT -5
Some of those articles seem random - why the hell would Triple H have a specific agenda with Billy Kidman? Apparently, Kidman's a main event heat magnet. First Hogan in WCW, then HHH in WWE.
|
|
Allie Kitsune
Crow T. Robot
Always Feelin' Foxy.
HaHa U FaLL 4 LaVa TriK
Posts: 46,339
|
Post by Allie Kitsune on Nov 20, 2009 19:51:15 GMT -5
Seems like a lot of people having the same problems. In fairness I'll admit I remember the "bad" stories about working in the WWE more than the good ones, but where theres smoke theres usually fire and I have to beleive that on some level this stuff is probably true. Especially when week in and week out Triple H and Shawn Michaels get to run smarky, cutting edge kayfabe busting promos while the rest of the roster seems to have to resort to "This Sunday.. I'll beat you in the ring... 1.....2......3" Well, more like Triple H gets to cut smarky kayfabe-breaking promos while Shawn stands around mugging for the camera, but I get your point.
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Nov 20, 2009 20:14:44 GMT -5
I remember making a post waaaaay back when saying a lot of the same things the writer brings up in the HHH article. Hunter is not the devil incarnate....he's a guy who played the game of life and WON. Not just that, he won HUGE. None of us can sit here and demean his relationship with Steph as being one of convienience...none of us save Hunter himself will ever really know whether their love is true or not, so it's pointless to even speculate on that.
What is a concrete fact is...Hunter made friends with the right people early in his career, learned how to politic from some of the best in the game, and put that to use to get himself elevated. Can I sit here and blame him for doing it? NO. Morally, do I object to it? YES. Because I believe one should EARN what one gets. One should work hard and reap deserving benefits....but you know, folks, I am also a realist. I know that the path to the top is a very dangerous rud. You don't want to play in that rud let me tell you. It's claimed more than a few careers and lives and relationships.
Pet Semetary jokes aside, being a realist means that I understand why Hunter took the path he did. He went for the path of least resistance to the top, and he got there. By learning the game from Shawn (and possibly Nash as well) Hunter learned how to get himself over and keep himself over and he used that knowledge to get himself to the top of the cards, where he's been a fixture ever since. Like I said, I can't blame him for being the best at politics in a sport DETERMINED by politics and relationships with writers, other talent, ect.
What I don't understand is his continued insecurity, especially given his current untouchable position. Hunter pretty much has to get caught red handed by TMZ with a needle in his ass, a hooker in each arm, and a pile of blow on the nightstand in order to jeopardize his status in the WWE. So why has he not started giving back to the younger stars? I guess in current years, he has, in a sense, though the spots his ardent supporters point to as examples don't exactly seem like ringing endorsements in my eyes. I mean, look at his just ended feud with Legacy, or his feud with Orton. In the Legacy feud, every pinfall (unless I'm missing one) was taken by HBK. Every time Legacy was to win, it was Shawn with his shoulders down, or tapping. It was Shawn that took all the major beatings, too. So essentially, HHH brought back Shawn to take the beatings and the pinfalls, is how it seems as far as that feud goes.
(Incidentally, am I the only one to ever wonder what would happen to HHH if you were to take a time machine back to 1997 and show Shawn Michaels just what he would become one day? Maybe 1997 Shawn buries Hunter so deep Hunter can take the temperature of the Earth's core with his pinkie?)
Anyway, like I say, Hunter has a lot of life ahead of him, so maybe he WILL mellow more with age, and maybe once he's away from the ring, he'll turn into the best thing to ever happen to wrestling backstage. We cannot know, or say for sure. I sure value his wrestling knowledge, and as a fan of old school style wrestling, having Hunter behind the scenes will be a huge advantage to the WWE, since he likely will champion causes/angles that reflect that. He has a lot of passion for this business, and I sincerely hope he will use his position for the benefit of the company.
|
|
|
Post by Cry Me a Wiggle on Nov 20, 2009 20:41:09 GMT -5
Please note that this is not a WWE-bashing reply. I'm a fan of WWE and only wish they could improve how they operate behind the scenes (and in front of the camera, if the last eight years is any indication). So I complain and criticize because I care.
With the Shane story (which is the biggest wrestling bombshell of 2009 even if many fans try to downplay it), I feel like the threads are slowly being pulled out of the McMahon tapestry. It's a slow unraveling that will take several years to become fully apparent, but it probably started back in late 2000 when Stephanie was appointed to creative and it became clear that WCW was more or less dead. That's when the abrupt tonal shift in programming began for the worse, and the insane momentum from the Attitude boom halted.
The one-two punch of Stephanie's rise and WCW's demise changed things for the worse. Prior to that, Vince was a control freak, but he was a man backed into a corner and was open to listening to other's ideas (hence how Vince Russo and others garnered such influence over the company's direction). That changed when he came out on top and had no reason to do anything that ran counter to his own tastes. By all accounts, that's also when the hostility towards the writing team and staff began to manifest itself.
It's no coincidence that in the last few years, several names like Foley have fled. Unlike the WCW exoduses, it's not because of a huge payday. Now even Shane and Linda have walked away. Maybe I'm being overly dramatic, but with increasing stories over the backstage environment in WWE, it seems apparent that unless you're a favored son, it's a miserable place to work.
Vince, Stephanie, and Triple H need to realize that this is a publicly traded corporation and not the local carny fed. They need to institute a serious Human Resources department and treat their employees with at least a modicum of respect. Otherwise, the defections will continue, the on-air quality will continue to decline, and the long-term survival of the company will be in doubt.
|
|
|
Post by Hugh Mungus on Nov 20, 2009 20:53:53 GMT -5
If anything all the proof you need that HHH is a schemer and a dick is the fact that he was caught on tape lying and saying he knew nothing about Bret being screwed but years later has himself retconned that into he SUGGESTED THE IDEA IN THE FIRST PLACE! Did someone say "Retcon"? ![](http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j67/washuchan282_2113/hhh-Primepunch.jpg) So Vince is X*n*, Steph is D*v*d M*sc*v*g* and, Trips is Tom Cruise.
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Nov 20, 2009 21:02:08 GMT -5
It will be interesting to see how many on the roster will either jump ship or quit in the first month after Steph is officially in charge of the company.
THAT ought to tell you once and for all what her standing is with the staff.
|
|
|
Post by wwefan78 on Nov 20, 2009 22:37:42 GMT -5
So why has he not started giving back to the younger stars? I guess in current years, he has, in a sense, though the spots his ardent supporters point to as examples don't exactly seem like ringing endorsements in my eyes. I mean, look at his just ended feud with Legacy, or his feud with Orton. In the Legacy feud, every pinfall (unless I'm missing one) was taken by HBK. Every time Legacy was to win, it was Shawn with his shoulders down, or tapping. It was Shawn that took all the major beatings, too. So essentially, HHH brought back Shawn to take the beatings and the pinfalls, is how it seems as far as that feud goes. Not to defend HHH, but I vividly remember him taking at least one pinfall in a handicap match against Ted & Cody on RAW directly leading to DX reuniting. Sure enough he cut a promo hanging on the bottom ropes right after the match, but still it's atleast something. I gotta agree on the fact that it's hard to understand why someone like HHH (who is more or less untouchable) hasn't started putting people over as much as possible at this point of his career. I mean, when was the last time HHH lost a one-on-one match by clean pinfall no shenanigans involved? You'd have to go back to Jeff Hardy in 2007 and even then it was a quick roll-up with Hunter laughing it off and no-selling the whole thing. What he should have done was act suprised and upset but NOOO that won't work so the win came of more as a fluke than huge upset. The guy is essentially taking money out his own pocket and future earnings when NOT putting over new guys who could become maineventers and make him money in the future. Let's face it, guys like Jericho, Taker, Rey, Edge and Shawn - who for the most part are willing to put over new talent when called upon, won't be around for more than 3-5 years at best. If HHH won't set an example by elevating talent, WWE might potentially have a BIG problem on their hands within the next 2-3 years when not enough guys have been elevated and there aren't any credible stars around anymore to give them that last push. Sooner or later current ME talent has to start putting over future ME talent by actually losing competitive matches that mean something. I feel the time for this is imminent looking at the average age of the ME in WWE today. With the exception of Orton they are all well above 30 and even in their 40's. Sheamus, Kofi, Miz and Morrison being pushed is encouraging, but they need wins over credible names at some point for the audience to start viewing them as ME-worthy.
|
|
|
Post by snugglecakes on Nov 21, 2009 3:06:10 GMT -5
It will be interesting to see how many on the roster will either jump ship or quit in the first month after Steph is officially in charge of the company. THAT ought to tell you once and for all what her standing is with the staff. There are little things called contracts, so they couldn't quit outright anyway. It's hilarious to see the overreaction on here, based on second-hand accounts and questionable sources.
|
|
|
Post by rrm15 on Nov 21, 2009 3:08:37 GMT -5
Please note that this is not a WWE-bashing reply. I'm a fan of WWE and only wish they could improve how they operate behind the scenes (and in front of the camera, if the last eight years is any indication). So I complain and criticize because I care. With the Shane story (which is the biggest wrestling bombshell of 2009 even if many fans try to downplay it), I feel like the threads are slowly being pulled out of the McMahon tapestry. It's a slow unraveling that will take several years to become fully apparent, but it probably started back in late 2000 when Stephanie was appointed to creative and it became clear that WCW was more or less dead. That's when the abrupt tonal shift in programming began for the worse, and the insane momentum from the Attitude boom halted. The one-two punch of Stephanie's rise and WCW's demise changed things for the worse. Prior to that, Vince was a control freak, but he was a man backed into a corner and was open to listening to other's ideas (hence how Vince Russo and others garnered such influence over the company's direction). That changed when he came out on top and had no reason to do anything that ran counter to his own tastes. By all accounts, that's also when the hostility towards the writing team and staff began to manifest itself. It's no coincidence that in the last few years, several names like Foley have fled. Unlike the WCW exoduses, it's not because of a huge payday. Now even Shane and Linda have walked away. Maybe I'm being overly dramatic, but with increasing stories over the backstage environment in WWE, it seems apparent that unless you're a favored son, it's a miserable place to work. Vince, Stephanie, and Triple H need to realize that this is a publicly traded corporation and not the local carny fed. They need to institute a serious Human Resources department and treat their employees with at least a modicum of respect. Otherwise, the defections will continue, the on-air quality will continue to decline, and the long-term survival of the company will be in doubt. Excellent post. Couldn't agree more with pretty much the whole thing.
|
|
|
Post by mauled on Nov 21, 2009 3:09:25 GMT -5
I feel the need to step in and defend Kurt Angle here as people are saying he is broken down and bitter etc etc.
Its on youtube where he does an interview about Trips and he does not insult him all he does is compare him to Taker and say the difference is that Taker will put himself in the main event but then drop himself back down to the mid-card again and help put others over which is why he is so respected. Whereas Triple H will keep himself in the main event and thats it. And while wrestlers are normally critical of trips its pretty universal that they praise Taker.
And its not just him. Randy Orton (And his great story of how glad Umeaga was when he heard Trips was going to Smackdown only to found out he was going too) and Carlito have talked about Trips.
Besdies can anyone really watch the Booker T promo then actually post here saying that was not a burial.
|
|
Allie Kitsune
Crow T. Robot
Always Feelin' Foxy.
HaHa U FaLL 4 LaVa TriK
Posts: 46,339
|
Post by Allie Kitsune on Nov 21, 2009 3:31:27 GMT -5
I remember making a post waaaaay back when saying a lot of the same things the writer brings up in the HHH article. Hunter is not the devil incarnate....he's a guy who played the game of life and WON. Not just that, he won HUGE. None of us can sit here and demean his relationship with Steph as being one of convienience...none of us save Hunter himself will ever really know whether their love is true or not, so it's pointless to even speculate on that. What is a concrete fact is...Hunter made friends with the right people early in his career, learned how to politic from some of the best in the game, and put that to use to get himself elevated. Can I sit here and blame him for doing it? NO. Morally, do I object to it? YES. Because I believe one should EARN what one gets. One should work hard and reap deserving benefits....but you know, folks, I am also a realist. I know that the path to the top is a very dangerous rud. You don't want to play in that rud let me tell you. It's claimed more than a few careers and lives and relationships. As awful as it sounds, that's still earning it. Being a leader, being a winner, means you have to be able to get people to do what you want them to. And that's something HHH has almost always been able to do. A lot of people don't like it (and hell, I don't really like him that much, either), but I begrudgingly have to admit that I can't take anything away from anyone who can do it. And Hunter can do it like the best of them (and one has to admit, he works a LOT harder than the guy he learned his methods from, one Big Lazy Kevin Nash).
|
|
|
Post by Prince Petty on Nov 21, 2009 11:20:57 GMT -5
A whole bunch of anonymous 'ex-WWE employees' saying that Steph is the the spawn of Satan, and Vince is a psychopath?
Well, as long as we're only going off reliable and well-evidenced testimony.
Honestly, I do feel that sometimes people forget the characters you see on tv are just that. Characters. Are they all sweetness in light in real life? I doubt it very much, but I also doubt that they're the modern day equivalent of the Borgias, as well.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Nov 21, 2009 11:41:45 GMT -5
A whole bunch of anonymous 'ex-WWE employees' saying that Steph is the the spawn of Satan, and Vince is a psychopath? Well, as long as we're only going off reliable and well-evidenced testimony. Honestly, I do feel that sometimes people forget the characters you see on tv are just that. Characters. Are they all sweetness in light in real life? I doubt it very much, but I also doubt that they're the modern day equivalent of the Borgias, as well. You can't act like every single "unnamed source" in a story is automatically untrustworthy. It's not like they're always 100% telling the truth, either, but let's be realistic here; if you line up a whole bunch of anonymous sources, and almost all correlate the same events, the same topics, the same opinions, etc. on a number of issues, it stands to reason that there's a whole lot of truth involved, unless we've got some kind of ex-WWE employee conspiracy going on.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Petty on Nov 21, 2009 11:54:27 GMT -5
A whole bunch of anonymous 'ex-WWE employees' saying that Steph is the the spawn of Satan, and Vince is a psychopath? Well, as long as we're only going off reliable and well-evidenced testimony. Honestly, I do feel that sometimes people forget the characters you see on tv are just that. Characters. Are they all sweetness in light in real life? I doubt it very much, but I also doubt that they're the modern day equivalent of the Borgias, as well. You can't act like every single "unnamed source" in a story is automatically untrustworthy. It's not like they're always 100% telling the truth, either, but let's be realistic here; if you line up a whole bunch of anonymous sources, and almost all correlate the same events, the same topics, the same opinions, etc. on a number of issues, it stands to reason that there's a whole lot of truth involved, unless we've got some kind of ex-WWE employee conspiracy going on. You can't act like they're trustworthy, either. 'Unnamed source' is a great way for a journalist to just flat out make something up, without being sued for libel. It's also a good way of someone with a grudge spewing a load of nonsense without having to back it up. Of course, some of them will be authentic accounts, but unless a journalist is also looking for corroborating evidence, and counter claims, then it's all a pretty worthless exercise in sensationalism.
|
|
|
Post by rrm15 on Nov 21, 2009 12:27:30 GMT -5
A whole bunch of anonymous 'ex-WWE employees' saying that Steph is the the spawn of Satan, and Vince is a psychopath? Well, as long as we're only going off reliable and well-evidenced testimony. Honestly, I do feel that sometimes people forget the characters you see on tv are just that. Characters. Are they all sweetness in light in real life? I doubt it very much, but I also doubt that they're the modern day equivalent of the Borgias, as well. If I was an ex-WWE employee with any hope of ever going back I'd want to be anonymous too.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Nov 21, 2009 13:14:19 GMT -5
You can't act like every single "unnamed source" in a story is automatically untrustworthy. It's not like they're always 100% telling the truth, either, but let's be realistic here; if you line up a whole bunch of anonymous sources, and almost all correlate the same events, the same topics, the same opinions, etc. on a number of issues, it stands to reason that there's a whole lot of truth involved, unless we've got some kind of ex-WWE employee conspiracy going on. You can't act like they're trustworthy, either. 'Unnamed source' is a great way for a journalist to just flat out make something up, without being sued for libel. It's also a good way of someone with a grudge spewing a load of nonsense without having to back it up. Of course, some of them will be authentic accounts, but unless a journalist is also looking for corroborating evidence, and counter claims, then it's all a pretty worthless exercise in sensationalism. There are counter claims by wrestlers. Believe me, internet reporting is pretty bullshit in my opinion, and some of those sources can be the same sources who report to National Enquirer. However, there are some sources who have said very similar things who have revealed themselves, including one guy who did a Wrestlecrap radio interview, and didn't even want to talk about the way Stephanie was as a boss, which lead me to believe she could be pretty nasty. Two guys, I think their names come up in this thread, talked about how Stephanie was. And the evidence from the unnamed sources is similar to the evidence brought up by the named sources. And, Who's Slamming Who's Brian Soloman, who worked under Shane McMahon and who ran the Smackdown magazine, can vouch for Shane McMahon being good with people, where as Vince was very hard on Shane at times, and wasn't surprised by the reason of him leaving.
|
|