Something to Wrestle with Bruce Prichard

[The Thread Killer]

I'm still only about halfway through the NAO episode, and I haven't really found it all that great so far. I want to finish listening to that one before I tackle the Bret Hart episode. That one might take a while to get through, it looks like it is almost 5 hours long. Not sure what to expect when it comes to Bruce's perspective on Bret either, based on past history I don't get the impression that Prichard cared all that much for Bret Hart, whereas he seemed to be a big Shawn Michaels fan. I know they covered the Screwjob in depth during an earlier episode, and Bruce didn't seem to have any sympathy for Bret's position at all. (Not that I do either, really.)

[BrianB]

I enjoyed the Bret Hart episode. I'd agree that it's a good lapsed fan companion too. Bruce struck me as much more evenhanded and less anti-Bret than that first Montreal screwjob episode. I don't know what's behind that exactly--maybe the wrestling convention circuit? Bruce feeling more secure about podcasting as a career future?--but he was less pro-Shawn than I thought he'd be, even after the lost smile episode. Conrad did a lot of reading for the Bret episode too, but I liked it more than the NAO episode, since Bruce added some more flavor, and it's clear lots of various sources were drawn for this one. I suspect most board readers will find the earlier part of the episode more interesting than the later parts. But I don't think I'd heard before that Shane McMahon was in the production truck giving directions for the Survivor Series 1997 main event, so that was new for me and I don't think it was in the first screwjob ep either.

[Cox]

One thing that I enjoyed about this week's episode is that it added another viewpoint to the Montreal talk that I don't know has ever really been out there. We've had Bret's side through his book and through the Observer, we had Vince's side through the lens of WWF television in 1997 and 1998, and Shawn had his side presented through his book and shoot interviews, but Bruce talked about what it was like being in the WWF office. He's brought to light the frustrations of having to deal with three very large egos, three very stubborn men who didn't want to give an inch, and how that culminated in what happened at the Survivor Series. I think Bret's creative control clause ultimately trumps over all, so I tend to take his side more than any other, but Bruce has also made me realize that even before he had creative control, he wasn't always the easiest person to work with, and I can only imagine what having that veto ability did to amplify that (but that's Vince's fault for giving it to him, which is a whole other issue). I tend to think Bret would have been willing to drop it after Montreal but before starting with WCW, but I also can understand that because Bret had been difficult to work with in 1997, why folks in the office may not believe that and why they believe that Vince had to get the belt off of Bret at Survivor Series.

 

It's much more of a morally gray issue than I think has ever been presented in the Observer, and even as somebody who generally sides with Bret, I do wonder why Dave never made more of an effort to understand the non-Bret sides, especially since Ross and Cornette would have had his ear by this point. You can believe that Bret is ultimately in the right while also acknowledging that he was a pain in the ass to work with and somebody who didn't react well to being moved down the card after Shawn had become a hotter heel after SummerSlam. I think that's probably why Bret ultimately wound up jumping, not because of the money, but because he was no longer going to be the top heel or the top babyface anymore with Austin and Michaels about to pass him, and that unlike in the past when he was moved down the cards, he was unlikely to get those spots back this time. Which is a perfectly reasonable thing to believe, and a move to WCW should have freshened him up. Even if Shawn had become a hotter heel, he was still the hottest he had been in years after the heel turn and would have been a great addition to WCW if they knew what to do with him, but again, that's a whole other issue.

[flyonthewall2983]

I'm a bit behind. Has Bruce talked at all about the "rumors and innuendo" that Jim Carrey and Jerry Lawler were going to do an angle around the time Man On The Moon came out?

[The Thread Killer]

He's never addressed that rumor that I'm aware, and I highly doubt that rumor was true. You should check out the documentary "Jim & Andy" that just came out on Netflix this past Friday. The basic idea is that Jim Carrey was doing the whole "method acting" deal while filming that movie and thought he actually was Andy Kaufman. There is a ton of backstage footage of Carrey harassing and taunting Lawler during the filming. (Ironically, that wouldn't be what Andy actually would have done, since he and Lawler were actually friends.)

 

Of course, the whole thing could all be a work. Who knows. The only certain thing you can say after seeing that film is that Jim Carrey needs to be seeing an entire team of psychiatrists.

[flyonthewall2983]

I watched it which is why I asked. I'm actually uncertain whether that teasing on set was genuine or not. The behind-the-scenes footage was purposely shot for release by the studio to use as promotional material. I came away thinking one of two things happened. One, Lawler and Carrey did it as a work to keep what will happen on film genuine (to the point that the cast and crew think there is genuine heat between the two, which would attract it's own attention) and to play for the cameras of what was to be this behind-the-scenes footage. Or, Carrey just pissed Lawler off not having figured out or bothered to learn the intricacies of pro wrestling that helped make the original feud so hot. Most likely the 2nd part of that is true, but seeing all that posed that question in my mind much more.

[The Thread Killer]

I'd be inclined to agree with you that it's the second option. I remember when Lawler was on Stone Cold's podcast a few years ago he talked about the problems he had with Carrey during the filming of the movie, and it didn't sound like any work to me. But then again, with something involving Andy Kaufman and pro wrestling on top of that, who could ever truly say?

[BrianB]

I think it's most likely that Carrey thought he should go method, and since he figured Lawler and Kaufman, although cooperative to a degree, must not have gotten along and fucked with eachother, he'd go a similar route to ensure what he wanted on film would show up.

[BigBadMick]

Oh boy, this is a big one....

 

Prichard has offered an alternative narrative on survivors '87 coming into existence. He says that Vince complained to the PPV providers about carrying Starrcade, claiming that he brought PPV to prominence. The companies then said 'ok, give us something else to put on if you're not happy'. Vince then came up with survivors, with the provisos about not carrying starrcade.

 

I have never heard this before. Looking forward to shitstorm with Meltzer, Keller etc....

[Cox]

I think it's most likely that Carrey thought he should go method, and since he figured Lawler and Kaufman, although cooperative to a degree, must not have gotten along and fucked with eachother, he'd go a similar route to ensure what he wanted on film would show up.

 

I think this was more about Lawler's performance than Carrey's. My thinking is that Carrey knew Lawler is not a trained actor, and wanted to make sure Lawler had a genuine reaction of dislike towards Kaufman in the Mid South Coliseum and Letterman scenes, even though in real life it was all a work (which they eventually revealed in a later scene) so Carrey acted antagonistic towards Lawler on the set to make sure on-screen, Lawler looked like he hated Kaufman's guts. That way, if there were people watching the film who didn't know that everything was a work, it added power to that scene later in the film.

 

Oh boy, this is a big one....

 

Prichard has offered an alternative narrative on survivors '87 coming into existence. He says that Vince complained to the PPV providers about carrying Starrcade, claiming that he brought PPV to prominence. The companies then said 'ok, give us something else to put on if you're not happy'. Vince then came up with survivors, with the provisos about not carrying starrcade.

 

I have never heard this before. Looking forward to shitstorm with Meltzer, Keller etc....

 

I think Bruce has brought this up on the show before. I don't think the two sides of this necessarily contradict one another. In the end, in both versions of the story, Vince created the Survivor Series to keep Crockett off of PPV in the vast majority of the country. That has always been the story, and it's even the story Bruce pushes here, he just phrases it in a different way than has always been carried by the sheets. Dave has also always told this story framed through the lens of his local cable operator in San Jose, which was one of the few that carried Starrcade, so it is possible that his local cable company was unaware that many of the cable companies had pushed for the WWF to offer a show to compete with Starrcade, and momentarily thought they could carry both, before Vince declared that they could only carry one. I think both tellings of how this came to be can coexist, even though I do expect Meltzer to say that Bruce is lying.

 

As an aside, I thought Survivor Series 1987 didn't really lend itself to an alternative commentary track by Bruce and Conrad. It wasn't a great show, and Bruce and Conrad rarely seemed interested in what was going on in the ring unless something was happening that they didn't like (Honky walking out, too many people in the tag team match, Hogan getting counted out). It was mostly stuff like "I don't know when we'll talk about him again, so do you have any Dangerous Danny Davis stories," and then Bruce would not have any Dangerous Danny Davis stories. As usual, the best moments of this show were when Bruce was talking about things Vince would have blown a gasket over, like the ring apron or the referee's untucked shirt in the tag team match.

[The Man in Blak]

The only alternative commentary podcasts that I've ever enjoyed are the match commentaries from Austin's podcast and it's primarily because they're short. Schiavone and (especially) Prichard can occasionally land on some insightful notes and subtleties about the production, but it's tough to slog through an entire three hour PPV to pick up five to ten minutes of worthwhile observations.

 

As for the Prichard show in general, I think it's a good podcast, but it comes with a couple of caveats that become very clear after a couple of episodes. You're going to get an interesting view of the internal processes and machinations of the WWF/WWE creative team at the time, but you're never going to get any meaningful criticism of Vince or Triple H along the way because Bruce has so dutifully internalized and compartmentalized their faults. (Judging by the conversations with Vince that Bruce has shared on the podcast, that might be the only way to work with someone like Vince for so long.) You're also going to get a lot of gimmickry and schtick, even more than you might expect from a long running show.

 

But I think it's a worthwhile listen, especially once you get past a dozen or so episodes. (The 1990 Survivor Series episode is a great place to start.) The difference between an earlier episode like Montreal -- an episode that was utterly useless and probably in contention with the Houston episode for the low point of the show -- and the episode on Bret's '97 run isn't that Bruce has softened up over time; it's that Conrad has become much more adept at navigating the issues that will make Bruce become reflexively defensive and getting a little closer to the truth. It might be a truth that Conrad has to recalibrate through Vince's (and, thus, Bruce's) skewed lens, like the straight-faced explanation that Crockett had crossed a line by getting into pay-per-view with Starrcade, but it's still a little closer to reality than the propaganda that you'll get from the WWE on the Network and other WWE-produced features.

[El-P]

The Katie Vick stuff from Survivor Series 2002 episode is fascinating.

 

Anyone listened to the Jake Roberts episode yet ? Sounds like one of the most interesting on paper. Steiners are up and Edge is next, which doesn't appeal to me nearly as much.

[zep81]

Yeah this is the only podcast I really listen to. They cover some great topics and I love the detail they go into and all the information you find out.

 

I listened to the Bret Hart 96/97 one yesterday and really enjoyed it. Also makes me want to go back and revisit some of the things they talk about too.

[The Thread Killer]

I agree, I found Bruce's take on the Katie Vick stuff to be really interesting.

 

I listened to the entire Jake Roberts episode, and found it a bit of a letdown. Bruce couldn't give any insight to the recruitment and signing of Jake to the WWF, since Jake got there before he did. Aside from that, it was a lot like the New Age Outlaws episode which I also found underwhelming - it was basically Conrad reading a list of dates and events and Bruce throwing in the odd tidbit here and there. The episode had it's moments (especially if you enjoy the goofy banter between Conrad and Bruce, which I do now) but there was nothing new or interesting presented about Jake Roberts.

 

That can also be attributed to the fact that, let's be honest - for a guy with a ton of skeletons in his closet, Jake Roberts has a lot of information about him out there. There was Beyond the Mat, during which Jake aired most of his family's dirty laundry, then there was Pick Your Poison, the WWE DVD project they did on Jake including a detailed documentary, and then just recently there was The Resurrection of Jake The Snake Roberts. If you've seen those three movies (like I have, as I assume most hardcore fans will have as well) then there is very little about Jake Roberts we don't already know. Or if there is, I don't think we'll be finding it out...and I'm not sure I'd want to know.

 

Anyhow, the Jake episode is okay but it's unremarkable.

 

I am looking forward to the Steiners episode (although I don't expect anything critical, as Bruce is good friends with Rick Steiner) and I am not really looking forward to the Edge episode at all. As much as I like Edge as a personality and podcast host, I didn't enjoy his career at all, and I don't see much there that would make for an interesting show anyhow.

 

The Goldust episode could be good, if he wins the poll.

[BigBadMick]

Steiners/Scott Steiner episode was duuuulllll..........

 

Picked up slightly in discussing the HHH matches in 2003, otherwise very little of note here.

[El-P]

Probable because the Steiner's stint in WWF was short and pretty uneventful. When there's nothing to comment on, it's hard to make it interesting. I enjoyed the second part too, and there was some hilarious Vince stuff on the episode still.

 

I thought Jake's episode was good though, nothing earth-shattering but Jake has been covered to death already.

 

The Goldust episode has so much potential...

[BruiserBrody]

Conrad is warning people away from the Edge show over at the BOARD. Nothing new to learn + way long.

[zep81]

Yeah the last couple if subjects; Steiners/Edge don't really interest me and I hope next week's subject peaks my interest.

[Zoo Enthusiast]

Conrad is warning people away from the Edge show over at the BOARD. Nothing new to learn + way long.

He kind of walked it back eventually, though.

[Cox]

He wasn't wrong. I think sometimes these shows get lost in the weeds. Do people really care about who guys are working with on the house shows? More often than not, there are two reasons why a guy would be working with somebody on a house show: because he's in a program with that guy, or because there are two guys without a program who need somebody to work with to fill shows. There's some areas I think are absolutely worth getting lost into the weeds over, but house show programs are not one of them.

[flyonthewall2983]

Not sure why they're trying push the length of these episodes. It would just make sense to me if you've got something over 3 hours to split up and maybe put out the first half Friday and the next one Saturday.

[Zoo Enthusiast]

Not sure why they're trying push the length of these episodes. It would just make sense to me if you've got something over 3 hours to split up and maybe put out the first half Friday and the next one Saturday.

Conrad says the download numbers suffer when they split them.

[BigBadMick]

He wasn't wrong. I think sometimes these shows get lost in the weeds. Do people really care about who guys are working with on the house shows? More often than not, there are two reasons why a guy would be working with somebody on a house show: because he's in a program with that guy, or because there are two guys without a program who need somebody to work with to fill shows. There's some areas I think are absolutely worth getting lost into the weeds over, but house show programs are not one of them.

completely agree. This should have been tackled on a feud by feud basis to give an overview

[El-P]

Conrad is warning people away from the Edge show over at the BOARD. Nothing new to learn + way long.

 

I should have listened. Tepid doesn't even begin to describe it.

[zep81]

Looking forward to listening to the Goldust episode.