Mr McMahon Netflix doc Thread

[Chili]

3 hours ago, RedTwoster said:

I strongly disagree with this, and I think the narrative around Mushnik has been heavily influenced by WWE trying to discredit him - much as many right wing hacks do to silence reporters who try to expose corruption.

Was he frustrated that his reporting had virtually no measurable impact on McMahon? Almost certainly, but you would feel that way, if you were him. All those wrestlers dying, yet nobody seemed to care. 

Well done to Mushnik for attempting to expose the toxicity in that company when everyone else was plugging their ears. Given that no one gave a shit, he could easily have given up and moved on to something else, but he didn’t. He knew the company was rotten to the core at that time, and shouted as loudly as he could. 

I completely agree that what Mushnik did was pretty great, he didn't fall for the smoke screen and kept at them, and he was doing a good job of it because Vince addressed it on television once or twice. He got to him and it showed. 

Should be noted that outside of his points against wrestling, he does seem like a bit of an arsehole with some questionable language and I guess like many journalist, a bit of a shit stirrer, he's hardly Woodward & Bernstein, but for wrestling, he hit a bullseye.

Edited September 30, 2024 by Chili

[JakeRobertsParoleOfficer]

I never expected anything like a Saville'esque reveal all!!!

Netflix have just got WWE so we're never going to taint it with an honest account, as it's not going to be kids watching the doc but parents who pay the bills and would say "your having no part of that"

In my heart I wanted a reveal or confirmation of all the rumours we've heard but on reflection and in my 40s as opposed to a teenager in the 90s (when bad behaviour was perceived as cool) it'd just been a sickener that the wrestlers I grew up and loved were in the majority sick, drug addled perverts!

 

 

[RedTwoster]

5 hours ago, Chili said:

I completely agree that what Mushnik did was pretty great, he didn't fall for the smoke screen and kept at them, and he was doing a good job of it because Vince addressed it on television once or twice. He got to him and it showed.

The fact McMahon, Prichard and co thought that this documentary ‘sucked’ because they weren’t fair on Vince (to be fair on Prichard, this seems to have happened before the most serious allegations were made public) is quite remarkable, and perhaps it was indicative of a level of deification* that existed when it came to Vince. 

The most confusing (and perhaps, in a subtle way, the most telling) moment of the whole documentary was the number of wrestlers who couldn’t answer the seemingly straightforward question of what Vince’s legacy would be. It seemed like the easiest possible question to answer - just say something along the lines of what Tony Atlas said. The fact so many people struggled with that one was really interesting. My best guess is they were answering questions through the lens of pleasing Vince and knew saying the wrong thing here - even if it was positive - would greatly upset him, so they left it be. Although I’m sure at least one of them didn’t know what the word ‘legacy’ meant. Whatever the case, it was really odd. 
 

 

*I’m aware that this word choice is dangerously close to another, tied into allegations made against the Savile-like prick.

[air_raid]

1 hour ago, JakeRobertsParoleOfficer said:

Netflix have just got WWE so we're never going to taint it with an honest account, as it's not going to be kids watching the doc but parents who pay the bills and would say "your having no part of that"

Because parents have always had a good handle on whether or not the wrestling is appropriate for their kids.

[JakeRobertsParoleOfficer]

3 hours ago, air_raid said:

Because parents have always had a good handle on whether or not the wrestling is appropriate for their kids.

They do now. Back in the 90s I don't think many parents looked into what content the kid was watching like they do now

[Browser Brady]

My wife howled and i mean howled with laughter at the Linda McMahon character and her being struck dumb storyline.

[Devon Malcolm]

She rises out of that chair like a zombie that's just turned.

[Kamran]

That reminds me...didn't Linda say something about the importance of showing emotion through your facial expressions ?

[wandshogun09]

Sorry to link to shite but this just popped up in my YouTube recommendations. Should’ve known better than to press play on this big thick dunce’s video but was curious to see just how shite his takes on the McMahon doc would be. I got as far as his pathetic little rant about Bret and sacked it off. 

Banging on about Bret being miserable and never smiling, completely ignoring the fact the man had a stroke! That’s probably got something to do with his ability to smile as much since 2002. Proper prick. Like I said, I fucked it off after that so I don’t know what he said after that but he seemed more fired up about slagging Bret off here than he did about the actual fucking deviant the documentary was about.

It’s around 16/17 mins in the Bret stuff, if you fancy losing brain cells (you’ll still have more than this big dollop). Can’t believe I got that far into the video, to be honest. 

Edited October 6, 2024 by wandshogun09

[TildeGuy~!]

Apologies if already posted elsewhere but with WWE’s Netflix deal are they just showing Raw or all shows and PLE’s?

Edited October 6, 2024 by TildeGuy~!

[SuperBacon]

14 minutes ago, wandshogun09 said:

you’ll still have more than this big dollop).

Speaking of which, isn't that the chap who likes to be pooed on?

[DavidB6937]

13 minutes ago, TildeGuy~! said:

Apologies if already posted elsewhere but with WWE’s Netflix deal are they just showing Raw or all shows and PLE’s?

Stolen from somewhere else:

Netflix’s deal for Raw, which at 31 years old is one of the longest-running weekly episodic sports television shows in the world, is reportedly worth $5 billion.

As part of its package, Netflix will also hold rights to WWE’s Friday Night Smackdown and NXT weekly shows in Canada, the UK, and Latin America, as well as its slate of premium live events, including the iconic WrestleMania annual event.

[Hannibal Scorch]

22 minutes ago, DavidB6937 said:

Stolen from somewhere else:

Netflix’s deal for Raw, which at 31 years old is one of the longest-running weekly episodic sports television shows in the world, is reportedly worth $5 billion.

As part of its package, Netflix will also hold rights to WWE’s Friday Night Smackdown and NXT weekly shows in Canada, the UK, and Latin America, as well as its slate of premium live events, including the iconic WrestleMania annual event.

My belief is the PLE are available on Netflix outside the US only until 2026 or which ever year the Peacock deal ends at which point they will be on there too.

 

We finished the documentary yesterday. My wife’s take away was he’s done some positive things and also some horrible things and felt no sympathy towards him, but a level of respect to the things he had done positively. She also found the Owen Hart stuff really sad (first she had seen about it). We were both confused as to why Vince had tried to buy it, because it was pretty soft on him and I wonder if the cut Pritchard had seen was much more negative and post Netflix deal they edited it down more. 
 

My main take away was the number of wrestlers whose verdict was Vince was like a father figure to them. No wonder they turned so many blind eyes. And Undertaker is boring and him and Stone Cold are pretty thick.

[RedTwoster]

12 hours ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

We were both confused as to why Vince had tried to buy it, because it was pretty soft on him and I wonder if the cut Pritchard had seen was much more negative and post Netflix deal they edited it down more.

I honestly don’t think that happened. as wrestling fans, we’re used to all of the negative stories about Vince McMahon. We knew a lot of what was in there, so it feels less shocking. But if you break it down, the show mentions - albeit in passing - the following:

* Rita Chatterton and the rape allegations 

* The ring boy scandal, and allegations against Pat Patterson being dismissed

* The suggestion Vince helped Jimmy Snuka cover up the murder of a woman

* Ashley Massaro’s rape

* Owen Hart

* Vince suggesting he be revealed as the father of his own daughter’s baby

* The steroid scandal

* Benoit, and denial that concussion exists

* Lots on the mistreatment of women

* The screw jobs 

* Vince acting like a bully during interviews etc

And, obviously, latterly, the Janel Grant allegations, but that wouldn’t have been in the cut Prichard saw. Most of these are just passing references, but being fed on a diet of WWE documentaries and WWE narratives, I can’t imagine seeing all of these negative things mashed together in one documentary would have sat right with Vince or Prichard. 

I agree that it was pretty soft on him, but it was a documentary in which he had his alleged wrongdoings placed front and centre alongside his achievements. And even when presented in a softer way, it’s hard to look at all of these things and consider him anything other than a deeply unpleasant individual.

Edited October 7, 2024 by RedTwoster

[Reignited Steak]

A lot of the horrible stuff hasn't ended up in court yet, has it?

I'm not knowledgable on the legalities of this but if a documentary went too far into some of details, could it not affect the eventual trial(s) or even provide grounds to have it thrown out?

If a high-profile Netflix documentary solely painted McMahon as the predator he is, and went into granular detail, it could give McMahon's lawyers a reason to argue that there'd be no chance of a fair trial.

So for the sake of some of the victims, maybe not having the documentary we'd have all liked may be the best thing in the long-run?

This is through optimistic lenses. Hoping a more knowledgable poster can provide clarity on this.