Earlier this week, the staff at WWE.com released an article examining eight "urban legends" within its annals of history. Curiously, one of the topics profiled was the legend of Bret Hart being secretly in-the-know about the events surrounding the infamous "Montreal Screwjob" at the 1997 Survivor Series, a scenario profiled extensively in the new two-disc DVD set "The Montreal Theory", which was released in early April of this year at MontrealTheory.com.
The WWE article (which seems to use descriptions lifted straight from the "Montreal Theory" trailer & synopsis), concludes the theory to be false, calling those that subscribe to an alternative theory as "relatively insane" and comparing them to the likes of Alex Jones. The entire article is available right now at this link - http://www.wwe.com/classics/classic-lists/8-wwe-urban-legends/page-7
"Montreal Theory" producer Joe Dombrowski was quick to offer comment upon discovering the writing, and had the following to say -
"No offense to anyone on the .com team, but if Vince & Bret WERE in secret collusion all these years, they definitely wouldn't blow their cover to the website staff. That'd be major, major news. I certainly don't fault them for writing that, but my question is why is it so 'relatively insane' to hold an alternative point of view to the official story? Why are people so quick to ridicule others for thinking outside the box and against the grain? What are we supposed to do? Accept everything at face value and never doubt anyone? From politicians to news media to corporations -- none of them have agendas?
I stand by the "Montreal Theory" - maybe Bret was in on what happened, and maybe he wasn't. I can't prove either one. But there's still a lot of awfully interesting questions that need addressed before I can say there was no way Bret didn't know about it in advance. Why did a documentary film crew get an all-access pass to document all of this and with some mighty convenient timing? Why did Bret ignore warnings from several in the locker room and obvious unusual behavior, such as Vince sitting at ringside the whole match? Why is there documented evidence that Bret & Vince discussed the exact finish that happened (punch to Vince included) a week before the match? Why does Jerry Lawler, and several other people who were there, publicly admit they don't believe what happened was legitimate? Why does Montreal fit perfectly in a linear narrative of events as far as what made the most sense to everyone's characters? And what about the fact everyone came out of Montreal technically getting the result they wanted, and everyone made a ton of money from it? It's all very VERY convenient. I'll admit, it could very well possibly be a disproportionately large amount of coincidences one after the other. But is it "insane" to think it's TOO convenient? I don't think so.
Fans, skeptics, and on-lookers alike are encouraged to watch "The Montreal Theory" for themselves. We give you both sides - the argument for the conspiracy and the argument against it. It's up for the viewer to decide. I want the people to form their own opinion. And never stop asking questions. Never, ever stop asking questions."
View the "Montreal Theory" trailer - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGHBucy_gO0
Purchase the "Montreal Theory" - www.MontrealTheory.com
Like Us On Facebook - www.Facebook.com/MontrealTheoryProducer Joe Dombrowski Online: www.Facebook.com/JoeDombrowskiWrestling or @Joe_Dombrowski on Twitter