Ex-Writer on wrestlers being jealous of The Rock

[TDK]

<table><tr><td>Ex-Writer on wrestlers being jealous of The Rock

Former WWE creative writer Seth Mates reacted on Twitter to the apparent jealousy within WWE circles of Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson being successful in Hollywood.

"Talking point: let's say WWE Films had been a success. Don't you think VINCE would have done same thing The Rock did - leave for Hollywood?" he wrote. "Vince has conquered wrestling over and over. If he'd smelled blood in Hollywood, he'd have already handed the keys to the kingdom to HHH and Steph.

"The jealousy towards Rock isn't for him leaving. It's that others can't."</td><td>

</td></tr></table><table><tr><td>TDK's Take:

Sounds spot on... As radical as it may seem, I think the fact the Rock was able to transcend Vince's industry was actually a good thing. Hogan tried it and failed, but the Rock was able to pull it off. So many people seem to get caught up in the 'I stayed and he left' B.S. when the truth is when big Hollywood money is on the table anyone would who could. I say get over it. They're all entertainers making the best money they can. If one of them is successful enough to be able to do it without Vince controlling his every move, more power to him!</td></tr></table>

 

[Tired]

Again, I can't agree. If Rock had put in more full-time years than he did, I wouldn't be so hard on him. But the Rock had gotten far more from the industry than he has given to it. And the WWE should not prostitute itself just to help a career that Rock did not earn.

But I will agree that there has to be some jealousy in the locker room. But I would put it more to the minority than the majority.

For example, Austin had multiple opportunities to leave for Hollywood, as has Big Show. But both men rejected it. Big Show turned down Hollywood too many times and missed the boat. Austin went to Hollywood only because he couldn't stay in the ring anymore. So I can't believe that every wrestler is an aspiring Hollywood actor.

 

[Deleted User]

Like it or not, the Rock made a huge impact in the business in a very short time. A lot of people, myself included, do not really appreciate the way he left "without ever leaving us", because we know he could have had more years in the ring.

Then again, who am I to ask someone to do that to their body 300 days a year?

I just wish he would either stay away, or come back 100% for awhile. Either dive in or don't.

 

[TDK]

Again, I can't agree. If Rock had put in more full-time years than he did, I wouldn't be so hard on him. But the Rock had gotten far more from the industry than he has given to it.


So I can't believe that every wrestler is an aspiring Hollywood actor.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be suggesting Rock 'owes the industry' something. I guess I'm having a hard time understanding your point of view, 'cause if I bust my ass working at a service station for a year or two - and then leave for a higher paying job - I don't 'owe' the service station industry a damn thing.

Why you seem to be holding the Rock to a different standard strikes me as a bit of a mystery, unless you're invoking some unspoken 'code' that wrestling insiders are supposedly a part of.

That being said, I do acknowledge a 'general debt of gratitude' to the fans for helping build the career in the first place. But as to just who gets to quantify exactly how and when that 'debt' shall be considered repaid - re: your suggestion regarding not enough full-time years - seems once again very ambiguous.

As for getting more than he gave, once again how are we to measure such a thing? If the Rock delighted a thousand fans a thousand times can you actually put a price on that? And having done so, then turn around and claim he still 'owes' a thousand more delights before he breaks even?

Sorry but this whole line of 'reasoning' strikes me as very odd...

Then again I don't claim to be an industry insider - just a life long fan - so pardon me if I totally don't get it. Obviously you're entitled to your point of view, and while I may profoundly disagree, I do respect your view. For my part, I'm just happy he's coming back - even if it is for 'one night only' - as I hope to kick back, relax and enjoy the moment! :yes:

P.S. One last thing regarding the latter part of your quote...

While they may not all be aspiring Hollywood actors, they certainly are all entertainers who aspire to bigger paydays with less (physically harmful) stunts... For some that means Hollywood but for others it could just as easily mean the circus provided it was less taxing than and paid more than WWE. Provided of course they actually had the skill set to succeed. Which most don't...

 

[Deleted User]

Don't get me wrong, I'll be enjoying the living hell out of that moment at Wrestlemania... I just wish at Backlash he would come back to put someone else over. This whole "I'll never leave you" shtick is tired. Gimme heel Rock. Heel Rock kicks ass.

 

[Blue Warrior]

Of course I don't like the fact that Rock has left wrestling for Hollywood, and that I would love The Rock to stay in the ring for a few more years, but let's face it: Who are we to be mad at him for doing what he did?

There is a reason to why he went to Hollywood, only he knows it. The man got an opportunity not every guy gets: He got to choose. And he chose.

But I think he should cut the "I'm never leaving again" crap out.

 

[Tired]

TDK, if that petrol station had been paying you $70 an hour just to stack the confectionary shelves, then you sure as heck would owe the industry something.

A lot of wrestlers have worked hard to make it to the top. And I have to include Triple H in that. And the Rock did... for a while. But then he was handed a lot of stuff in the hopes that the would prove to be a good investment. Did the Rock deserve to be a main eventer? Definitely. Did the Rock deserve to win the WWF Heavyweight Championship? He probably did. Did he deserve to get as many accolades as he did. DEFINITELY NOT. And the fact that he had so much invested into him over just 5 years is a waste.

And I say the same about Brock Lesnar and Goldberg.

I used to respect the hell out of Rocky Maivia. He received the IC title far too soon, and the fans gave him hell for it. But then he pushed himself to work harder, and he became very good in a short space of time. But around about when he started feuding with Billy Gunn, he became complacent. He depended on the same 6 moves and no selling to get him through a match.

There is not many times when I would say something good for John Cena. A full-time wrestler does 240 matches a year. Cena does more than 300 (injuries permitting). If the Rock had done 200 matches (and not just 1) since the last WrestleMania, I could maybe appreciate him coming back.

But here is my compromise. Don't make Cena vs Rock a main event. If it is on the mid-card, or an opener, I would feel better about the whole thing. Do you think that Foley, a 4-time World champion that has held more titles than the Rock, could be in the main event at WrestleMania if he asked? Or Dusty Rhodes? Or Kevin Nash?

And I have been saying this all along. Triple H needs to get into the ring more, or just stay out of it entirely. And Undertaker needs to retire at WrestleMania, win or lose. I don't like that Triple H is in such a prestigious match either after such little time in the ring over the last year. And if Undertaker took an entire year out before returning for WM29, I would disagree with him being in a main event.

I still believe Cena vs Undertaker and Christian vs Rock would be much better.

 

[Deleted User]

And the fact that he had so much invested into him over just 5 years is a waste.

And I say the same about Brock Lesnar and Goldberg.

This is very valid. However, I don't understand the Goldberg reference.

 

[Tired]

Goldberg was a man who could not wrestle, but was pushed to the moon. Won the United States and World Championships less than a year after his FIRST EVER match. Squashed hundreds of other wrestlers, including legends and former world champions. Never improved and never fell down into the mid-card in WCW. His ONE YEAR in the WWE was a total bomb, inspite of his push.

Goldberg was also given more than he had worked for, and quit early.

 

[TDK]

And the fact that he had so much invested into him over just 5 years is a waste.


But around about when he started feuding with Billy Gunn, he became complacent. He depended on the same 6 moves and no selling to get him through a match.

I wouldn't say a total waste 'cause WWE is about to reap more dividends at this year's Mania... That being said, - for the sake of argument - even if you're right I think the blame game is a two way street. In other words, if the investment in the Rock was faulty then WWE also bears some of the blame for backing a horse that wasn't totally committed to the sport.

Then again, hindsight is 20/20 and it may have appeared he was all in... Hell, even he might have believed in his heart of hearts he was all in - never imagining the types of offers that would soon come his way - but who's to say he had to stay married to Vince for his entire prime just because Vince invested in him? Does Vince's investment somehow mean he 'owns' him? Is Rock not free to pursue other dreams or has Vince's investment made him a bondservant until Vince no longer has any use for him?...

Moving on to the second part of your quote, I actually agree about the Rock's limited move set and ongoing complacency. Fact is I've never considered him a great in-ring performer, merely a great entertainer.