Bret Hart- On a High Horse?

[joejoe]

So I read Bret Harts book and since have been pretty much obsessed with all things Bret Hart. (Read the book and you'll know why you want to learn more about him)

I've watched shoot interviews, re watched wrestling with shadows and some other DVDs and interviews on all things Bret. Throughout all of it I've noticed one re occuring theme..

Bret Hart seems to think his way of thinking as far as the wrestling business goes is the only way to go. According to Bret he should have never turned heel, and the business should have never gone the way of the "attitude" era, also known as the most finacially successful era for the wrestling business.

I'm not sure if he means to but Bret often comes across as aragont and "I'm better than you because I have values and morals with my character" when talking about the wrestling business.

I'm sure that's just because Bret is "old school" in a way and wants the business to gp back to the way it was when he was the most popular meaning the simple good guy vs. bad guy.

So what do you guys think? Is Bret right when he talks about how his way of thinking is the way the wrestling business should go and his character should have never been changed? Or was Bret being a baby with the "I'm better than you" attitude?

 

[reddevil69]

So I read Bret Harts book and since have been pretty much obsessed with all things Bret Hart. (Read the book and you'll know why you want to learn more about him)

I've watched shoot interviews, re watched wrestling with shadows and some other DVDs and interviews on all things Bret. Throughout all of it I've noticed one re occuring theme..

Bret Hart seems to think his way of thinking as far as the wrestling business goes is the only way to go. According to Bret he should have never turned heel, and the business should have never gone the way of the "attitude" era, also known as the most finacially successful era for the wrestling business.

I'm not sure if he means to but Bret often comes across as aragont and "I'm better than you because I have values and morals with my character" when talking about the wrestling business.

I'm sure that's just because Bret is "old school" in a way and wants the business to gp back to the way it was when he was the most popular meaning the simple good guy vs. bad guy.

So what do you guys think? Is Bret right when he talks about how his way of thinking is the way the wrestling business should go and his character should have never been changed? Or was Bret being a baby with the "I'm better than you" attitude?

Don't you think it's rather odd that now all of a sudden the past few months that WWE has toned down their programming and have issued a corporate mandate that they want to be more 'family friendly'? There has been no blood and far less sexual overtones..is this not what Bret was lobbying for in 1997? I always found it very hypocrytical that Shawn and Hunter used to mock Bret for his family values stance in 1997 and for the past 6 years Shawn has been waving the born-again banner and won't allow himself to be involved in any questionable angles. It's ok for him to do that now in 2008, but Bret was being unreasonable in 1997?

while the attitude era was extremely successful and profitable for WWE, it also hurt the industry in the long term. There is no such thing as a true heel any longer, Stone cold set the bar for that and anyone who tries to be like he was when he was at the prime of his heel run is just going to be branded a carbon copy....how many guys can run around giving the finger and promoting assault on you boss before it gets redundant? The curtain has been pulled back way too far on the business and now it's seen as just another form of entertainment, the special feeling that the ppv's used to provide is missing.

The sports bar in my neighborhood has been showing WWF ppv's for 17 years and they stopped this past July because no-one was coming out to watch them....they turn people away for the UFC ppv's but you can hear crickets at the WWE ppv's...this is not the only place this type of thing is happening. Bret was against all that and wanted the business to stay old-school and retain some of that carnival-magic feeling.Wrestling will always have its fans and survive, but I don't believe it'll ever be the thing to talk about at the water cooler the next day at the office like it was in the late 80's and late 90's.

 

[joejoe]

Don't you think it's rather odd that now all of a sudden the past few months that WWE has toned down their programming and have issued a corporate mandate that they want to be more 'family friendly'? There has been no blood and far less sexual overtones..is this not what Bret was lobbying for in 1997? I always found it very hypocrytical that Shawn and Hunter used to mock Bret for his family values stance in 1997 and for the past 6 years Shawn has been waving the born-again banner and won't allow himself to be involved in any questionable angles. It's ok for him to do that now in 2008, but Bret was being unreasonable in 1997?

while the attitude era was extremely successful and profitable for WWE, it also hurt the industry in the long term. There is no such thing as a true heel any longer, Stone cold set the bar for that and anyone who tries to be like he was when he was at the prime of his heel run is just going to be branded a carbon copy....how many guys can run around giving the finger and promoting assault on you boss before it gets redundant? The curtain has been pulled back way too far on the business and now it's seen as just another form of entertainment, the special feeling that the ppv's used to provide is missing.

The sports bar in my neighborhood has been showing WWF ppv's for 17 years and they stopped this past July because no-one was coming out to watch them....they turn people away for the UFC ppv's but you can hear crickets at the WWE ppv's...this is not the only place this type of thing is happening. Bret was against all that and wanted the business to stay old-school and retain some of that carnival-magic feeling.Wrestling will always have its fans and survive, but I don't believe it'll ever be the thing to talk about at the water cooler the next day at the office like it was in the late 80's and late 90's.

You mention how the WWE has toned down their product and what is happening? The ratings are low and interest is low in the product right now.

Bret was lobbying for basically more of the same back then which wasn't working for the WWF as they were getting destroyed by WCW, Vince was close to even making the WWF a north eastern territory company they were getting beat so bad. The WWF had to do something drastic and they did, it worked.

You can argue right now that they are toning down because they are allowed to. They have no competition so whats the point in pushing the envelope and getting yourself into some unessesary hot water with censors and sponsors. They have no reason to take a risk so there is no reason not to stick to the same old formula.

 

[HBK-aholic]

I need to get ahold of his book, I've been trying for quite a while but it's not widely available around here. Anyway, the one thing I disagree with is him thiking the attitude era was a bad thing. As you rightly say, it was the biggest financial succes pro-wrestling has ever seen. Without all those things that made the attitude era, we may not weven have a WWE today. We could be sat watching Monday Night Nitro, with Bischoff. The attitude era was great, and I don't really understand where he's coming from in saying they shouldn't have done it.

What does he even mean by having "Morals and values" for his character? That's all it is - a character. And I don't think he's better because of it. I mean now, Shawn won't do anything that goes against his religion. Does that make him a better person? Of course not.

 

[reddevil69]

You mention how the WWE has toned down their product and what is happening? The ratings are low and interest is low in the product right now.

Bret was lobbying for basically more of the same back then which wasn't working for the WWF as they were getting destroyed by WCW, Vince was close to even making the WWF a north eastern territory company they were getting beat so bad. The WWF had to do something drastic and they did, it worked.

You can argue right now that they are toning down because they are allowed to. They have no competition so whats the point in pushing the envelope and getting yourself into some unessesary hot water with censors and sponsors. They have no reason to take a risk so there is no reason not to stick to the same old formula.

well that's the point isn't it? They went so far past the line during the attitude era that there is no where else for them to go now and regressing to a product that is watered down for kids is not going to attract nor entertain the adult audience that came on board during the attitude era, or most adults in general for that matter. I've been watching for over 20 years and i'm really having a hard time watching the current product. you are correct though, they have no direct competition for their spot so they can give the people whatever they want to at this point.

 

[Emmet]

HBK a acholic,I bought my Bret book off the canadian amazon when it first came out. Its defintely worth buying its without doubt the best wrestling book of all time. Ive read it 3 or 4 times now.

As for the high horse thing. Bret never wanted wrestling to take the direction it did in mid 1997, but there wasnt alot he coulddo about it. Bret has a better mind for the wrestling business than 99% of the people in it now.

Everything they do now is just crap compared to the attitude era, it was Vince's greatest success in years but has also been his achilies heel since. in that nearly everything has been shit since 2002.

 

[Nadeem Ahmad]

What exactly is the current era of wrestling referred to? Before the "Attitude Era", there was the era of the smaller wrestlers becoming more successful like Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels and before that era was the one that was dominated by the bigger wrestlers like Hulk Hogan, Andre, and others. I think that the current product lacks a central theme and the only thing I can think of it being mostly known for is the company trying to capture parts of the market of entertainment such as reality shows like "Tough Enough" and the different brands that exist now.

My opinion is that Bret Hart does have a lot of knowledge about the business and that he probably felt that the changes in wrestling should not have been more favorable to those who gave less preferences to technical wrestling than they did to the brawling styles that became more broadly accepted as wrestling later on.

 

[agentmichaelscarn]

Yeah definitely try getting ahold of Bret's book if you can. It is the best wrestling book Ive ever read and Im not just saying that because Im a Hart mark. It is very informative and although he does talk about how great he is alot he also does admit his faults and does praise most wrestlers even guys like HBK and Hogan who he doesnt really care for. After reading it you get a sense on just how knowledgeable he really is for wrestling and how in depth and how much thinking he puts into his matches. Its easy to see why he was such a good storyteller. Also just so you know he only dedicates like 8 pages or so out of the 500+ to the Screwjob so dont expect the whole book to revolve around that.

Anyway back on subject even though Bret is far and away my favorite wrestler of all time along with Hogan even I will admit that he does come across as very stubborn when it comes to the wrestling business. He does feel that his way or views are the right way most of the time. He is still stuck in the old days, back before it was sports entertainment and just pro wrestling. But when you are around the business aslong as he was thats all he really knows. He was born and raised around old school wrestling and that is his mentality, his first 40 years of his life were like that then all of the sudden things started to change and he just wasnt able and didnt want to adjust to that. But with that said even though he doesnt agree with it he did admit in his book how successful the attitude era was and how good of business it did. So it wasnt like he was in complete denial.

 

[Slam Master]

Vince was calling it sports entertainment back when Bret was in the original Hart Foundation in the mid-80s. Vince always pushed for that over-the-top presentation. I read his book a few times and I agree its great. He does feel he's the be-all-end-all of whats right and wrong.

Bret was the son of a promoter and was used to having everything his way. When they went with Shawn and pushed the envelope he disagreed and strongly went against it. Look what happened....

Now they don't have competition so they watered it down to create a new generation of younger fans...It will never be the same. I don't get the same feeling I used to. It became too much like a soap opera and kayfabe was thrown out the window.

Its a shame though cus he coulda stayed. Vince told Bret he could pay him the money. The plan he laid out had 3 major losses to Shawn, followed by Bret finally beating HBK, but losing to Austin and WM14. If Bret played ball and realized its a business and not the Bret Hart show he could still be around today as an agent, and Owen would still be around.

 

[Lu Nortd Court]

Yes Bret said that he was against the direction in which Vince was going, but if you ask me Bret is the real first person to portray the attitude "character". Sure Austin said ass first on TV but he was running behind Bret most of the time, until Mania 13...because Bret somewhat made him!!! Bret was involved in every seed of the attitude era. Him and Austins feud is the real beginning of the attitude era...And it was mostly Bret in my view. For many obviouse reasons.

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

Bret Hart seems to think his way of thinking as far as the wrestling business goes is the only way to go.

Well, he's entitled to his opinion. Fortunately, we can be glad he wasn't the man in charge of the direction of the product back then.

According to Bret he should have never turned heel,

Hmmmm. I may actually take his side on this one. He was highly, highly instrumental in the Double Turn with Steve Austin, but I think Austin would have still gotten over just fine as a Face, without Bret Hart.

I don't think that the whining Bret Hart was necessarily the way to go ... as that deliberately turned the fans on him. Rather, I think a rougher, very slightly edgier Hitman may have been the way to go with him. And I think he would have still been a Top Face in the Attitude Era, had they not done that with his character.

And yes, I know Hart was instrumental with the groundwork being laid for the Attitude Era, in so far as the fanbase turning on the nice-guy, Babyfaces. But, I still think that Era could have been pulled off just fine without turning Bret Hart Heel.

and the business should have never gone the way of the "attitude" era, also known as the most finacially successful era for the wrestling business.

As much as it pains me to say this, but the Attitude Era isn't the most financially successful Era of the WWE. Believe it or not, in terms of only "corporate profits", the PG Era is the most profitable, if you look at the company's profits. Although, the only reason I feel that is, is because of Vince raising prices for tickets and PPV's in today's Era, to compensate for the loss in fans.

But there is absolutely no question that the Attitude Era drew in by far the most fans of any Era, and blows today's fanbase out of the water.

For the entire wrestling business though, as you said, definitely ... since we had two major organizations still in business sharing the profits. Plus, ECW, which at least had a PPV deal and did remarkably well for an organization with nowhere near the amount of capital to startup the company as Vince and Bischoff had.

But again, at least we can be thankful that Bret Hart wasn't in charge of the direction of the company, or else the Attitude Era may not have even occurred. Then, all of today's fans, who began watching in the Attitude Era (who ironically enough trash that product today) would never have a Stone Cold Steve Austin engraved in their memories.

I'm not sure if he means to but Bret often comes across as arrogant and "I'm better than you because I have values and morals with my character" when talking about the wrestling business.

He's just bitter because times changed and the product went in a different direction than he wanted to. To be frank, I can sympathize because I feel the same way about what the WWE has turned into today with the PG Era, and I vehemently disagree with the company ONLY offering that one type of product. But at least I can back my positions up with data and research on why things should be different today, where as he simply has to rely on his own "Moral Compass".

I'm sure that's just because Bret is "old school" in a way and wants the business to gp back to the way it was when he was the most popular meaning the simple good guy vs. bad guy.

So what do you guys think? Is Bret right when he talks about how his way of thinking is the way the wrestling business should go and his character should have never been changed? Or was Bret being a baby with the "I'm better than you" attitude?

I think that there are more than enough fans out there that currently follow the product, and would LIKE to come back into the product again, that it merits a show reflective of his Era (which I enjoyed), as well as the Attitude Era. So, he's partly right, because we have different generations of fans out there ... who can no longer be told by Vince what type of programming they "SHOULD BE" liking.

So, I think the solution is to offer both ... actually all three types of products:

Raw- Attitude Era product

Smackdown- Hogan Era product

ECW- rename the Brand and make it a wrestling-oriented product without the gimmicks and storylines for the current WWE/ROH fans.