Juicy Tidbits from HBK's Book

[benoit4hor 0]

Maybe I should have posted a sarcasm emoticon afterwards, yet I thought it was obviously implied.

[chaosrage 0]

Karl Stern did a review on his podcast on dragonkingwrestling.com and said that the book was a quick and good read, but after he was done, he liked HBK less. He said a lot of it is HBK justifying his bad behavior and changing wording on things. For instance, he would bash Shane Douglas swearing and using questionable language in his ECW promos saying they were horrible for the business and bad for kids to see, but would put over his D-Generation X days as "me and Hunter just having some fun" although they were just as suggestive with their words and especially their actions and gestures.

 

Stern than said that if HBK were to have said in the book that he was an asshole back then and what he did was wrong, but was now a changed man, the tone would be different. Here, it looks like he's just spin doctoring his past as well as serving as the WWE rebuttal to Bret's DVD on the Montreal situation.

 

I think Stern needs to pay more attention when he reads. I don't remember anything in it about Shane's promos being bad for kids to see. He says Shane couldn't wrestle and got over in ECW just on shock value. Then he says that in DX they also used shock value but didn't stop there. There was a lot of satire in what they said and made fun of the status quo in their promos. "We weren't crude just to be crude."

[Guest JMA]

Stern than said that if HBK were to have said in the book that he was an asshole back then and what he did was wrong, but was now a changed man, the tone would be different. Here, it looks like he's just spin doctoring his past as well as serving as the WWE rebuttal to Bret's DVD on the Montreal situation.

He's right on the money there. From what I've read it sounds like HBK wants people to believe what he did was right (when it never was). I'd think it would be very un-Christian to justify lies, deceit, and slander--in theory, that is. I'm just not interested in reading HBK's side of the story--we've heard his side and WWE's on TV, magazines, and books for YEARS.

 

Also, if the situation were reversed I can't see Bret getting as demonized as Shawn was. For one thing, Shawn never had an entire nation behind him. Secondly, Shawn has a FAR worse history of playing politics than Bret does.

[NoCalMike 0]

Karl Stern did a review on his podcast on dragonkingwrestling.com and said that the book was a quick and good read, but after he was done, he liked HBK less. He said a lot of it is HBK justifying his bad behavior and changing wording on things. For instance, he would bash Shane Douglas swearing and using questionable language in his ECW promos saying they were horrible for the business and bad for kids to see, but would put over his D-Generation X days as "me and Hunter just having some fun" although they were just as suggestive with their words and especially their actions and gestures.

 

Stern than said that if HBK were to have said in the book that he was an asshole back then and what he did was wrong, but was now a changed man, the tone would be different. Here, it looks like he's just spin doctoring his past as well as serving as the WWE rebuttal to Bret's DVD on the Montreal situation.

 

I think Stern needs to pay more attention when he reads. I don't remember anything in it about Shane's promos being bad for kids to see. He says Shane couldn't wrestle and got over in ECW just on shock value. Then he says that in DX they also used shock value but didn't stop there. There was a lot of satire in what they said and made fun of the status quo in their promos. "We weren't crude just to be crude."

 

 

Umm, the HELL that DX wasn't Crude for the sake of being Crude, I mean HELLOOOOO can you say entire fucking WWE ATTITUDE Era? It was basically a lite-version of ECW crudeness, without the "insider" feel and overall satire, not to say every promo in ECW was intelligent and genius. I mean wow, making fun of Sgt Slaughter's Chin.........HOW FUCKING GENIUS!?! I mean don't get me wrong, at the time I laughed, and found it entertaining, but to act all elitist like DX was somehow the PINNACLE of satire and crudeness in the Wrestling business is a fucking joke.

Edited December 3, 2005 by NoCalMike

[chaosrage 0]

I don't know about pinnacle of crudeness but I do have to give the edge in creativity to DX making fun of everyone and everything in a juvenile way than Douglas just being an angry man cursing everyone out. I can see where he's coming from.

[Guest JMA]

DX was all about doing things for shock value. It wasn't intelligent satire, it was about rebellion and dick jokes. That's it.

[chaosrage 0]

It wasn't intelligent satire.

 

What about the Bret Hart midget?

[Guest JMA]

DX was all about doing things for shock value. It wasn't intelligent satire, it was about rebellion and dick jokes. That's it.

And that's why it worked so well. It had no deeper meaning, it was just an adolescent power fantasy. The first and second incarnations of DX were handled almost perfectly.

Edited December 3, 2005 by JMA

[NoCalMike 0]

I don't know about pinnacle of crudeness but I do have to give the edge in creativity to DX making fun of everyone and everything in a juvenile way than Douglas just being an angry man cursing everyone out. I can see where he's coming from.

 

 

Yeah but it was stupid for HBK to compare Douglas to DX. They are apples and oranges really. Compare DX to another group or faction trying to be funny. I mean a better gimmick comparison would be Douglas and Triple H since HHH liked to go around calling himself the Franchise there for awhile, but Douglas vs. DX is a dumb comparison to begin with.

[Guest JoeJoe]

[Yeah but it was stupid for HBK to compare Douglas to DX. They are apples and oranges really. Compare DX to another group or faction trying to be funny. I mean a better gimmick comparison would be Douglas and Triple H since HHH liked to go around calling himself the Franchise there for awhile, but Douglas vs. DX is a dumb comparison to begin with.

Uhh..(insert wisecrack here)...Michaels didn't make that comparison. A poster in this thread did.