PlayTheGame
The Cerebral Assassin
Now on the surface, the character was obviously a good idea. The character provided a lot of entertainment, helped a lot of guys get over in HUGE ways (Stone Cold immediately comes to mind), and more.
So as for entertainment, the character was unquestionably positive. But let's dissect this a bit further. I remember watching an old Vince McMahon interview with Bob Costas on youtube in which Costas questioned the antics of McMahon's on-screen character. Costas basically asked something to the extent of, "Do you think it's good for the identity of your business that you, the head of the company, is depicted (fictionally, albeit) as a salacious, vulgar, pugnacious figure?" Vince basically skirted around the question, not directly addressing it, but explaining it away (as only Vince can do).
Now, one could immediately go to his defense and hold that Vince's character is purely fictional entertainment, and it is obviously not really him, nor should it be considered as such. In a more recent example, it is the same thing with the Chris Jericho/flag incident, in which I supported Jericho, as he was just acting in his heelish character (a stance I still hold, along with everything else I said that day, but that's neither here nor there). So, at first glance, one could defend Vince and say "it's just his fictional character". But here's a potential difference between the two: Vince was not primarily an on-screen figure; his bigger role was as head of the company, whereas Jericho and all other wrestlers are primarily on-screen figures and are thus seen and considered as such.
So thus, one could argue that although McMahon's antics were fictional, he's held to a different standard and is largely negatively judged by the general public based on his on-screen character, which is a complicated notion in and of itself. You could either argue that the head of the company should not cross the lines of fiction, as it reflects on his company. Or you could argue that no matter how you look at it, it is still fictional. Obviously Costas was holding the former, and I believe a lot of the general public does as well. Because, let's face it, VKM isn't exactly a heralded public figure, and it has to be partly due to his risque involvement on television. One could then go onto argue (although it would be an arguable stance) that VKM's character didn't help the public image of the company and thus hurt the identity of the WWE, possibly even business-wise. For example, if you owned a company, you might think twice before advertising with the company owned by a man who's regularly taking chair shots and flirting with young women on a weekly basis on national tv.
As you can see, arguments can clearly be made by both sides. Was VKM good creatively? No doubt. Was it good for the image of the WWE? Probably not. But, overall, was it a good idea? That's the true question here, and you can break it down/answer it in any fashion you like.
Personally, I would probably say that it was a good idea, especially when you consider the times. Wrestling wasn't really at a point where it could be widely accepted by all walks of life, so to speak. I think that's why Vince didn't mind becoming the risque character that he became due to the time context. And after becoming the character and taking this leap, he certainly made the most of it, and it was successful. However, since wrestling is now slowly becoming more acceptable to the public (appearing on ESPN, charitable works, B.A. Star, Make A Wish, etc.), I don't think it would've been a good idea in today's WWE. And I think that's why he's not being the arrogant, enraged, and crazy "Mr. McMahon" every week on TV now, combined with the fact he's aged. Instead, that character is played by others nowadays, such as John Laurinaitis. So, personally, I think the best way to address the question is to look at the time period. When you do, I think it was a good idea, despite what Costas pointed out in the interview and what the general public thought of VKM at the time.
What are your thoughts?
So as for entertainment, the character was unquestionably positive. But let's dissect this a bit further. I remember watching an old Vince McMahon interview with Bob Costas on youtube in which Costas questioned the antics of McMahon's on-screen character. Costas basically asked something to the extent of, "Do you think it's good for the identity of your business that you, the head of the company, is depicted (fictionally, albeit) as a salacious, vulgar, pugnacious figure?" Vince basically skirted around the question, not directly addressing it, but explaining it away (as only Vince can do).
Now, one could immediately go to his defense and hold that Vince's character is purely fictional entertainment, and it is obviously not really him, nor should it be considered as such. In a more recent example, it is the same thing with the Chris Jericho/flag incident, in which I supported Jericho, as he was just acting in his heelish character (a stance I still hold, along with everything else I said that day, but that's neither here nor there). So, at first glance, one could defend Vince and say "it's just his fictional character". But here's a potential difference between the two: Vince was not primarily an on-screen figure; his bigger role was as head of the company, whereas Jericho and all other wrestlers are primarily on-screen figures and are thus seen and considered as such.
So thus, one could argue that although McMahon's antics were fictional, he's held to a different standard and is largely negatively judged by the general public based on his on-screen character, which is a complicated notion in and of itself. You could either argue that the head of the company should not cross the lines of fiction, as it reflects on his company. Or you could argue that no matter how you look at it, it is still fictional. Obviously Costas was holding the former, and I believe a lot of the general public does as well. Because, let's face it, VKM isn't exactly a heralded public figure, and it has to be partly due to his risque involvement on television. One could then go onto argue (although it would be an arguable stance) that VKM's character didn't help the public image of the company and thus hurt the identity of the WWE, possibly even business-wise. For example, if you owned a company, you might think twice before advertising with the company owned by a man who's regularly taking chair shots and flirting with young women on a weekly basis on national tv.
As you can see, arguments can clearly be made by both sides. Was VKM good creatively? No doubt. Was it good for the image of the WWE? Probably not. But, overall, was it a good idea? That's the true question here, and you can break it down/answer it in any fashion you like.
Personally, I would probably say that it was a good idea, especially when you consider the times. Wrestling wasn't really at a point where it could be widely accepted by all walks of life, so to speak. I think that's why Vince didn't mind becoming the risque character that he became due to the time context. And after becoming the character and taking this leap, he certainly made the most of it, and it was successful. However, since wrestling is now slowly becoming more acceptable to the public (appearing on ESPN, charitable works, B.A. Star, Make A Wish, etc.), I don't think it would've been a good idea in today's WWE. And I think that's why he's not being the arrogant, enraged, and crazy "Mr. McMahon" every week on TV now, combined with the fact he's aged. Instead, that character is played by others nowadays, such as John Laurinaitis. So, personally, I think the best way to address the question is to look at the time period. When you do, I think it was a good idea, despite what Costas pointed out in the interview and what the general public thought of VKM at the time.
What are your thoughts?
