Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,950
|
Post by Mozenrath on Aug 20, 2016 1:42:56 GMT -5
Mr. McMahon as a character was simply going to happen eventually, he had already begun putting the work in with his feud with Lawler in Memphis, and he had already acknowledged his ownership of the company in varying degrees on commentary. This gave him an excellent excuse to bring it to the forefront, but I think he always wanted to do it in some way. Bret gave him an opportunity he'd have been a bit daft to pass up. Shawn had to play dumb, and for years he did just that, refusing to own up to being a conspirator, and Vince got to take the heat.
|
|
Cranjis McBasketball
Crow T. Robot
Knew what the hell that thing was supposed to be
Peace Love and Nothing But
Posts: 42,373
|
Post by Cranjis McBasketball on Aug 20, 2016 2:42:12 GMT -5
Mr. McMahon as a character was simply going to happen eventually, he had already begun putting the work in with his feud with Lawler in Memphis, and he had already acknowledged his ownership of the company in varying degrees on commentary. This gave him an excellent excuse to bring it to the forefront, but I think he always wanted to do it in some way. Bret gave him an opportunity he'd have been a bit daft to pass up. Shawn had to play dumb, and for years he did just that, refusing to own up to being a conspirator, and Vince got to take the heat. Probably true. There's a segment of the fan base who believe Montreal was a work and Vince's plan was. A) Let Bret out of his contract. B) Make Montreal a work. C) Cite dire financial problems as his reason to let him go. D) Help Bret get contract with his direct competition. E) Send his world champion to direct competition. F) Profit?
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Order Inferno on Aug 20, 2016 7:13:21 GMT -5
Mr. McMahon as a character was simply going to happen eventually, he had already begun putting the work in with his feud with Lawler in Memphis, and he had already acknowledged his ownership of the company in varying degrees on commentary. This gave him an excellent excuse to bring it to the forefront, but I think he always wanted to do it in some way. Bret gave him an opportunity he'd have been a bit daft to pass up. Shawn had to play dumb, and for years he did just that, refusing to own up to being a conspirator, and Vince got to take the heat. Let's not forget all the foreshadowing in 96 and 7, Bret and (I think) Diesel directing their scorn at Vince on Raw on separate occasions, and then there's the whole heel JR character where he outed Vince as owner and aired a whole bag of dirty laundry in public, things that made Vince look like the bad guy in his dealings with Ross. And then there's the whole WWF throwing mud against the wall to see what sticks, copying everything WCW were doing, from factions, 'Diesel' and 'Razor', Light heavyweight/Luchadore matches... And what else did WCW have going on? A heel boss character out to undermine the faces.
|
|
|
Post by Jedi-El of Tomorrow on Aug 20, 2016 7:30:42 GMT -5
Mr. McMahon as a character was simply going to happen eventually, he had already begun putting the work in with his feud with Lawler in Memphis, and he had already acknowledged his ownership of the company in varying degrees on commentary. This gave him an excellent excuse to bring it to the forefront, but I think he always wanted to do it in some way. Bret gave him an opportunity he'd have been a bit daft to pass up. Shawn had to play dumb, and for years he did just that, refusing to own up to being a conspirator, and Vince got to take the heat. And Austin had been clashing with the authority figures before Montreal, and hit Vince with the Stunner. So everything had been set in motion for Austin vs Mr McMahon before Montreal.
|
|
thecrusherwi
El Dandy
the Financially Responsible Man
Brawl For All
Posts: 7,727
|
Post by thecrusherwi on Aug 20, 2016 8:18:12 GMT -5
I like the idea of adding the Undertaker for a triple threat, though I'm not sure how you get to Mr McMahon. Maybe have McMahon explain that he added Taker to all but assure that Bret lost the title (since everyone knew he was leaving for WCW so it would make kayfabe sense), thank the Undertaker on Raw for winning it and saying that Undertakers first title match would be against Kane. Taker refuses, McMahon says that he has to or forfeit the title, so Taker does. Vince awards the title to Shawn, who's an obnoxious little f*** about it. You could have Shamrock have a problem with a guy getting handed a title and still have that December match. Then maybe instead of Owen Hart returning, have Taker return after being off since the night after SS. "I said I will never fight Kane, but I would take pleasure in destroying you. I want my belt back". And into the OTL 1998 we go. I still think you could continue the slow build to Mr McMahon. Even with the screwjob, Vince spent the first 4 months of 98 as a kind of subtle arrogant jerk who was trying to manipulate things too much rather than a cartoon evil boss.
|
|
auph10imitated
Dennis Stamp
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 4,951
|
Post by auph10imitated on Aug 20, 2016 8:48:36 GMT -5
I might be wrong, but I think he was refusing to drop it on RAW in Ottawa too. He also refused to drop it at the Saturday's house show to Undertaker/Shamrock (and other names thrown about) as he thought it was anti climatic for the match to be non title after the build up. I do think Undertaker being added makes the most sense given he has been intertwined with them both for the past 4 months, has beef with Shawn still, Bret respects him enough to drop it too him over Shawn, and he had been off TV since the last PPV so him showing up would be a big deal.
From there you can have Bret & Vince have a confrontation on RAW which leads to a brawl and Bret walking out, you slowly now turn Vince into the evil owner, Shawn beats Undertaker at the December PPV for the title instead of Royal Rumble, and I would then have Shawn vs Owen at the Royal Rumble before setting up Shawn vs Austin at Wrestlemania. Underaker goes on to feud with Kane as is after he costs Taker the belt at the Dec PPV.
|
|
segaz
Samurai Cop
Posts: 2,381
|
Post by segaz on Aug 20, 2016 9:01:46 GMT -5
I might be wrong, but I think he was refusing to drop it on RAW in Ottawa too. He also refused to drop it at the Saturday's house show to Undertaker/Shamrock (and other names thrown about) as he thought it was anti climatic for the match to be non title after the build up. I do think Undertaker being added makes the most sense given he has been intertwined with them both for the past 4 months, has beef with Shawn still, Bret respects him enough to drop it too him over Shawn, and he had been off TV since the last PPV so him showing up would be a big deal. From there you can have Bret & Vince have a confrontation on RAW which leads to a brawl and Bret walking out, you slowly now turn Vince into the evil owner, Shawn beats Undertaker at the December PPV for the title instead of Royal Rumble, and I would then have Shawn vs Owen at the Royal Rumble before setting up Shawn vs Austin at Wrestlemania. Underaker goes on to feud with Kane as is after he costs Taker the belt at the Dec PPV. No he agreed to drop it anywhere at any time to anyone, just not Shawn on that night. He would have dropped it to Shawn before, or the night after. He would have dropped it to Brooklyn Brawler on the PPV.
|
|