Yeah the Rita Chatterson part was ridiculous. If he's going to maintain he did nothing wrong then okay, whatever, people can make their own judgements on that. Why even mention the statute of limitations though? It's like, bruh, why did you feel the need to bring that up? I get the feeling the pre-scandal documentary would have left that line on the cutting room floor - along with a few others.
The part where he basically accuses Taker of lying about his concussion and suggests the pressure of the streak ending got to him was just bizarre. Taker is as loyal a soldier as Vince has ever had, and he comes out with that? If I was Taker I'd be pretty fucking angry watching that. It was very disrespectful, but also utterly nonsensical as Vince went to the fucking hospital with Taker where he was presumably legitimately diagnosed with a concussion. What planet is Vince living on where he feels the need to cast doubt on that story? I just don't get his motivations behind it. There was no need to throw Taker under the bus like that, especially with comments that are blatant falsehoods.
In regards to Vince forgetting the Sable stuff, I read something from one of the producers who said that Vince had people (including Heyman) at his interviews having to constantly remind him of things that happened, because he'd forgotten a lot of it or was just making no sense. That makes me think his comments about the Sable situation are definitely an attempt to deflect from the story entirely. It's pretty bizarre that Brock has such a close relationship with Vince considering what he undoubtedly did to and with Sable. Then again, this is a guy who by his own admission literally stalked Sable and broke into her house to make her go out with him, so... probably doesn't speak well for any of them and it's quite gross all around.
One of the more annoying parts of the doc, to me, was the usual WWE rewriting of history. For example, pretending that Austin went straight from ECW to WWE and became Stone Cold. Like, you ain't gonna mention the fact you initially gave him that shitty Ringmaster gimmick? It was clearly designed to push the narrative of "WCW didn't know what to do with him, but ECW and WWE - we knew exactly what to do". ECW, sure, but WWE saddled him with a shit gimmick before he became Stone Cold. Then there's the oft-repeated lie that as soon as Austin said the 3:16 line that there were 3:16 signs everywhere. In the doc it says literally the next night. That is not what happened at all. SCSA's rise in popularity was slow but steady, with the big shift coming after his WM match with Bret Hart, not his King of the Ring promo. That may have been the genesis but it wasn't the overnight explosion in popularity that the documentary suggests.
In general I felt like they were at times a bit too detailed on aspects of storylines, when the documentary was supposed to be about Vince. There are plenty of documentaries telling stories about WWE in 1997 and 1998, it isn't really necessary to go over that old ground when the documentary is supposed to be looking at Vince specifically. There were times when it felt like a retelling of WWE history via WWE propaganda, without really focusing on what it precisely has to do with Vince's character or motivations. Those parts just felt like wasted time when there was so much else to unpack about Vince around that time period.
Also, when they were showing Vince still getting involved even in his advancing years, and you aren't going to show the Owens headbutt that busted Vince open hardway? That was a genuinely shocking moment in terms of the brutality and Vince's age, so I'm not sure why they wouldn't show that. Then again, there were many aspects that weren't covered. Johnny Ace conspicuously absent throughout, despite his direct link to the current scandal. I didn't expect him to be interviewed, but there's plenty to analyse there in terms of his on-show appearances and his relationship with the Bellas and their mother. I don't think it was an accidental oversight.
I thought Bischoff's accusation of Vince stealing his gimmick was a bit weird as well. Like, yeah, there are similarities but it was hardly the same thing beyond it being an authority figure wielding his power unfairly. Even if it was somewhat new in wrestling at the time, it's not exactly an uncommon trope and Vince was basically forced into it after the Screwjob. Vince's intention, because he's a narcissist who struggles to understand other people's perceptions, was to be the babyface in that scenario. His "Bret Screwed Bret" interview was not intended as a heel turn, he thought he was the good guy in this situation. The fans decided to make him a heel character and he pretty much ended up being forced to roll with it. No fans were clamouring to make Bischoff heel, it just kind of happened on one episode of Nitro in a fairly illogical fashion.
