"Mr. McMahon" on Netflix discussion thread

Just finished everything today. While I agree to a point with the criticism about a lot of the topics discussed weren’t really new, overall I still it a recommended thumbs up. This was definitely a mostly negative depiction of McMahon and WWE’s biggest faults and controversies, and they are paraded throughout the series. To say it’s unfair isn’t a valid statement, because of the overall tone of the series. In short, the viewer gets what’s been marketed to them.

I will say my big complaint is too much of a focus on the business evolution itself and only a small portion on the collateral damage. Completely skipped Jimmy Snuka/Nancy Argentino. The All absent. It was all just “well, this happened” then they moved on. And of course, it really is telling when Trish Stratus and Wendi Richter were the only women, outside of Stephanie, interviewed.

The whole part on Owen Hart’s death at Over the Edge 1999 was what I expected plus more. Vince didn’t really have any remorse on it and him saying that if it was him or his son that ‘splattered on the mat’, his mindset still is to continue the show. I remember Jeff Marek saying that would’ve been one of the question he would’ve added when he was writing for Michael Landsberg’s interview with Vince. And it got answered here.

Listening to Phil Mushnick’s point of view, I don’t think I understand why so many in the industry have a vehement hatred for this man. Including Jim Cornette who he was a part of his backstage worked shoot promos on Raw after Brian Pillman died. I mean, I don’t think Mushnick was completely off base about his accusations of the company and some turned out to be true.

One big ick was in the 4th episode where HHH is talking about the use of women in the attitude era, where he says something along the line of “who’s worse - the ones doing it or the ones cheering for it?”

I thought Dave Meltzer and Bret Hart were the true MVPs in the whole series. Honest men in a sea of carnies. Kinda wish they made room for Wade Keller too.

There are a lot of people that have very nice things to say about their time with Vince, but there are also many who don’t. It was interesting to see even some of his most loyal associates - minus Bruce Prichard - seemingly waiver a bit when asked about Vince’s legacy. If you want to skip the history you already know, then episode 6 is definitely the one to watch, but it is indeed graphic in some spots and was hard to watch personally.

I watched to be informed for the daily reviews. Vince speaking candidly and the editing are things that resonate having some distance from it. I won’t go into detail about anything else. It was fine and more for a general interest viewing (like people who like real-world character profile pieces like this) or general WWE fans.

I’m still getting caught up on the show and am now through Episode 5 that focused on his family.

I don’t have much to add except the most frustrating thing I’ve found so far is that there wasn’t a good reaction from the family to his affairs.

Multiple times throughout episodes 1-5 Vince admits to having affairs on Linda. They interviewed Linda. But did they not ask her how she feels about Vince’s affairs? Even prior to the scandal this would have been one of the first things I would have asked her. Even if she gives a non-answer that would have been worth showing to help viewers understand Vince & Linda’s relationship and how she functioned within WWE for so long.

1 Like

100% agree. My guess is she gave them her boundaries beforehand and they agreed to them to be able to use her. It would have added though.

I feel like this is the Attitude Era parallel to Tony Atlas’ statement about Pat Patterson. Regardless of his personal feelings Hunter came to terms long ago with the fact that he wasn’t in a position to change things during that era. Also his reluctance to say negative things about the company as opposed to Vince is reflected by still working for the company.

Am I being crazy to just now question why did the WWF even have underaged kids to set up the ring in the first place?

1 Like

Were they “underaged” or like 18-19? I thought at least Tom Cole was young but of age (not excusing anything, obviously).

Mentions these kids were as young as 13.

It was cheap labor. These kids were excited to be a part of things, and would help out and get into shows for free.

Highly problematic in hindsight - but I mean… MLB uses teenagers for Bat Boy positions, or did at least. So it’s not an entirely foreign concept in sports.

1 Like

Gross.

(extra characters)

2 Likes

Mr. McMahon review in the New Yorker. https://archive.ph/YyBmf

I thought about Donald Trump far more than I would have liked while watching “Mr. McMahon.” The association is obvious: Trump, like McMahon, is obsessed with generating attention-grabbing “heat,” has a habit of dismissively denying lawsuits—especially the sort that allege sexual assault—and continues to erect money and its pursuit as a kind of gilded god. As the series reminds us, Trump has also appeared on W.W.E. broadcasts, playing an even more brightly caricatured version of himself, a rich-asshole foil to the ultimate rich asshole, Mr. McMahon—Vince McMahon’s long-running character, perhaps the most well-developed “heel” (wrestling-speak for “villain”) in history.

1 Like