We have heard from a reliable source that one reason (the major reason) for the match being shown only from the “hard cam” point of view pertains to former ring announcer Mel Phillips. If you are not aware, Mel Phillips was involved in one of the sex scandals plaguing the WWF in the early ’90s. It was alleged he harassed underage boys on the ring crew.
Rumor has it that one alleged victim is still a fan of the WWE product to this day and claims to suffer “flashbacks” when seeing Phillips again in old footage, and has gone as far as to threaten a lawsuit against WWE if it isn’t changed for future presentations. Phillips was sitting at ringside during the WrestleMania 3 event and it is suggested that it is for this reason that WWE switched to the arena camera for that match on the new DVD.
Although this news reaches us from what we consider to be a reliable source, it is purely rumor at this time. WrestlingDVDNews.com can neither confirm nor deny the rumor.
In counter to the rumor, it is worth noting that Mel Phillips was shown in footage contained on the Bret Hart “Dungeon Collection” DVD earlier this year. As for WWE muting the commentary on the match, this is most likely to remove Jesse Ventura’s audio. It could also be speculated that the “Arena Camera – No Commentary” format is simply a way to get around removing commentary from the match and market it with a positive slant.
For a limited time the “History of WWE” DVD and Blu-ray in the UK and Europe will come with a free pack of Topps Superstar trading cards inside. It releases on December 2nd and you can pre-order your copy now over at WWEDVD.co.uk.
For those wondering, the UK version is packaged in the traditional “digipack” style which is usually not the case for most releases as of late. It also has paper inserts detailing the content listing of the DVD and more on the upcoming History of WWE book. Photos below.
Hell in a Cell 2013 is the next WWE DVD to hit stores across the United States. It releases on Tuesday. Ernesto Guzman sends word of finding it already at K-Mart, priced at only $9.99. The price has also now been dropped to $9.99 here on Amazon.com.
The DVD contains the full PPV event and the 3 extra features mentioned here previously – the Kickoff show match and two new interviews with CM Punk and John Cena.
WWE will release their “Best Pay-Per-View Matches 2013” DVD to the United States on December 31st. The match listing for the set should be unveiled in the coming weeks.
Below is a new “3D” look at the official cover artwork, featuring CM Punk.
Speaking of new cover artwork, we can now exclusively reveal the cover for the TNA Bound for Glory 2013 DVD. This will be released by TNADVD.co.uk in January.
Our new code “WDVDNEWS” gives 20% off all purchases at TNADVD.co.uk (official UK licensee). Save a further 10% off when buying 3 or more TNA DVDs together!
More deals for the UK fans! WWEDVD.co.uk are celebrating this Survivor Series PPV weekend by offering last year’s Survivor Series 2012 for only £8.99 on DVD or £9.99 on Blu-ray. That’s running for 1 week only (November 22nd to November 29th).
You can also grab the Survivor Series 2010/2011 DVDs for only £5.99 each in this deal.
Check out more posts here on WrestlingDVDNetwork.com:
1. As was mentioned, he was on the “Bret Hart: Dungeon Collection” release from earlier this year (he’s the ring announcer for the 1985 match with Dynamite Kid and the 1990 match with Tiger Mask).
2. During Hogan-Andre, he was only on camera for about two seconds (he is very briefly seen at the timekeeper’s table when Mary Hart rings the bell to start the match). No need to edit the entire match just for that.
I have a hard time believing that rumor. Mel Phillips has been included on DVD releases in the past, and they don’t bother editing him off of any of there other content that contains him. If this were the case, it would be consistent across the board. I’d question your source on that one.
i found BattleGround in the $5 bins at WalMart but i went up to buy it and it rang up for $9.95 but there was multiple copies in the bin, WalMart is preparing for Black Friday way to early! if they put out the prices it better be that price!
This particular edit has its pros and cons. The pro is a new look at a match that has been released several times before, since alternate commentary was not possible on this one. The con is that no commentary has left this set with the omission of a Gorilla Monsoon called match, which is as part of the history of the WWE as anything else.
Yeah edits get on my nerves also, but hey… they could just not release the match/dvd at all! People need to be more positive nowadays… all you ever hear is negativity towards WWE, which of course there will also be haters, but the hypocrites really get on my nerves!
No matter what, people who complain about edits end up buying anyways…grown men on Youtube even admit it. Was just watching some guy getting pissed off about Benoit not being included on the HBK DVD and still says “Well, yeah, I’m still going to buy it”…what does that really prove to WWE?! just shows people will buy anything with a WWE stamp put on. What a way to stick it to WWE, that will show ’em
If people really want the uncut stuff there are MANY resources out there now and the quality is just as great..you just have to search and find the right people. I found a trader that puts all RAW, SD, ECW, WWF, WCW etc. on Blu-ray, because I know WWE will never release the full years unedited. I bought those and very very please with the sets.
Just recently got the full years of RAW 1998, 2001 and 2002 on Blu-ray…its VHS quality but still really good compared to the other crap people out on ioffer and others sites and much better than the butchered sets WWE puts out.
Take a look at some these sets i got from a trader – quality is just as great and covers look professionally done.
You’re absolutely right about people buying anything with the WWE logo on it. But, no matter how good the VHS transfer, it can never be as good as an official WWE DVD release. Not even close. Well, until this year with the horrible quality on the ECW Unreleased May 1994 match and the Hart release (Georgia multi-generational VHS quality match and the Andre YouTube download quality).
Yeah hook us to where you got those RAW seasons from. And if it makes you feel better I’ve not even bought a WWE DVD this year. Last one I bought was Attitude Era.
“As for WWE muting the commentary on the match, this is most likely to remove Jesse Ventura’s audio. It could also be speculated that the “Arena Camera – No Commentary” format is simply a way to get around removing commentary from the match and market it with a positive slant.”
That is the reason for the no commentary/camera angle. I read that Jesse Ventura is Randy Savaged from WWE for not supporting Linda McMahon.
They often take out Jesse Ventura’s commentary because of the royalties that need paying to him to keep it in there. As we speculated up top, it could all be related to that but it doesn’t exactly explain the change to the hard cam view. Then we heard what we heard this week from more than one contact.
I don’t think we’ll know for sure either way but it’s an interesting talking point.
Selfish!? I’m sure you would get over it really quickly if some dirty old man tried to molest you correct?
If anyone, todays so called “fans” are the most selfish and self-entitled just because they watch the product and read up on dirt sheets thinking they know the business.
In a very weird sort of way, MDAX’s reaction doesn’t surprise me in the least. So many of WWE fans support the company to absolutely ridiculous levels that they never see anything the company does as being wrong.
Insert sarcasm/: Surely the guy who was molested is the selfish one. He’s not the victim, right? WWE must be the victim here as this guy put a black eye on the company. /sarcasm over
People need to start engaging their brains a little more. WWE can and do make mistakes and pointing them out doesn’t mean you’re causing the company any harm — you’re likely helping them if you’re giving them honest consumer feedback.
It would be great if people actually did their homework before commenting on a story. First off, Tom Cole was never “molested”. He was sexually harrased. There’s a big difference.
He worked for the WWF as a part of the ring crew from age 13-19. When he was 19 he was approached by Terry Garvin who made a pass at him by offering to give Tom oral sex. When Tom refused he was fired. Tom told his older brother about what happened and his brother urged him to sue the company for millions. (Btw, this all from Tom’s own mouth. He used to be a guest on Dave Meltzer’s radio show frequently in the early 2000’s and talked in detail about all of this.) So in 1993 Tom filed the lawsuit against the WWF. He not only mentioned Garvin in the suit, but Mel Phillips as well. He claimed Mel made similar sexual offers to him during his time there as well. Never once said anything about being touched. Eventually the WWF reached a financial settlement with Tom and then guess what happened? HE WENT BACK TO WORK FOR THEM AFTER SUING THEM!
But I guess that last part isn’t important to the story. Eventually he left the company after a couple more years. In one particular interview with Meltzer in 2001 he specifically claimed that he was “over it” and doesn’t consider himself a VICTIM. He actually used that term.
So I guess the moral of the story here is it’s more important to take a big money settlement and then go back to work for the company than it is to have justice served on those accused. Then again, by the time Garvin(in particular) made a pass at him he was already 19 so there wasn’t anything that could be done legally against Garvin. Also, both Phillips and Garvin were fired as soon as the allegations were made and neither ever returned to the company.
So this whole thing about Cole being upset and having flashbacks to what Phillips asked of him contradicts his own statements from 12 years ago that he was “over it”.
If you’re a straight guy who’s approached by another guy for the purpose of oral sex that’s close enough to molestation in my books.
And I’m not alone. According to Webster’s dictionary to molest means “to disturb, interfere with, or annoy.” Maybe you should take your own advice and do your homework. Here’s the link: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/molestation
Instead of coming back with a reasonable rebuttal to the facts I pointed out, you instead want to play semantics and nitpick.
“If you’re a straight guy who’s approached by another guy for the purpose of oral sex that’s close enough to molestation in my books.” Wow. No, actually that’s called homophobia.
Sorry. You’re wrong again. I came forward with facts. A straight guy would find being propositioned for oral sex by another man (or an unattractive woman) disturbing (or unpleasant (see http://thesaurus.com/browse/disturbing for more synonyms)), which would constitute molestation. There’s no phobias involved other than perhaps your obvious phobia of using dictionaries and thesauruses. Once again, use the links I provided to help you do your homework.
The only phobias I see are you afraid to give yourself a name and afraid to respond to what I wrote earlier about the real issue of this thread, the Tom Cole situation. Instead you want to ignore it by coming up with distractions.
The main thrust of your argument was that Tom Cole wasn’t molested. By definition of the term, you could easily make the argument that he was molested — a point that David originally made, not me. Regardless of whether the rest of your statements were factual or not, the one thing that shined through was your lack of a vocabulary.
But, still you persist seemingly obsessed with receiving Internet praise as being some kind of know-it-all historian, which is ironic considering you neglected to make the most significant point. In your rambling 5 paragraph rant, you failed to mention that when WWE settled with him, they would have most likely put in the settlement a clause indicating he was releasing them from future legal action. As I understand it, that’s fairly standard. Therefore, there’s almost no chance that Tom Cole’s situation has anything to do with this presentation.
Again do YOUR homework. And, while you’re at it, buy a thesaurus and dictionary or learn how to use the free ones provided online.
One again, you see what you want to see and ignore what you don’t. The main point of my post was to show that this guy is inconsistent. He “claims” he was molested(which nobody knows for sure since there was no trial) and according to Daniel Bee’s article he’s now claiming that seeing Mel Phillips on WWE DVD’s is bringing back all the bad memories when he already claimed in 2001 that he was over it. Which is funny since the main sticking point of my post was to show that he was so scarred by this incident that he decided to go back to work for them almost immediately. That one point alone almost kills his whole story. Furthermore it was you, not David, that declared him a victim and it was Tom himself who said he doesn’t see himself as a victim. Again, back in 2001. So I posted a correction. Instead of talking about the main subject at hand you instead go off on tangents about using words inappropriately and sidetrack from the whole point.
And your little quip about me being obsessed with receiving praise for being a “know-it-all historian” seems to be your own insecurities talking. Just because I love the business and have been a fan for 29 years and love reading up on the history of the business doesn’t mean I’m a know-it-all. Nobody knows it all. There are people who know a lot, sure, but nobody knows everything about everything and nor have I ever claimed to. If I can bring up interesting pieces of history that have to do with a certain article or if I can bring the correct information to an article when I see people posting misinformation then I will.
This is also the last time I give you this much attention. You’re clearly a troll that gets off on annoying people, or should I say “molesting” people. There’s your thesaurus for you. Good day ma’am.
There was another guy(or girl) on the thread about Chris Benoit not being included on the Shawn Michaels DVD who also didn’t have a name. They used “anonymous” also. Just to be on the safe side you might want to take two seconds and give yourself a name so the two of you are not mistaken. 😉
Tom Cole lost all credibility in my opinion when 10 years ago he made it public knowledge that he was upset about Bobby Heenan mentioning in his book that he thought Tom Cole was a strange kid. He said it brought back all the memories of what allegedly happend and demanded a public apology from Bobby Hernan. Shortly after that he went on a book signing tour for a book he was featured in, Sex lies and headlocks. Makes me wonder if times are tough and he’s tryin to squeez some more money from the WWE.
I find the Mel Phillips excuse pretty lame. If WWE didn’t want to show Phillips they could just as easily have chosen a different match to put on the History Of WWE DVD. Or they could’ve just changed the camera angle for the very brief glimpses of him at ringside.
Also, if that guy still has flashbacks of what allegedly happened to him(25+ years later) then why the heck is he still watching old stuff from that time period? The whole thing sounds pretty silly.
Posted in 
Tags: 
I call BS on the Phillips thing.
1. As was mentioned, he was on the “Bret Hart: Dungeon Collection” release from earlier this year (he’s the ring announcer for the 1985 match with Dynamite Kid and the 1990 match with Tiger Mask).
2. During Hogan-Andre, he was only on camera for about two seconds (he is very briefly seen at the timekeeper’s table when Mary Hart rings the bell to start the match). No need to edit the entire match just for that.
Is the tna bound for glory cover for USA 2
I have a hard time believing that rumor. Mel Phillips has been included on DVD releases in the past, and they don’t bother editing him off of any of there other content that contains him. If this were the case, it would be consistent across the board. I’d question your source on that one.
i found BattleGround in the $5 bins at WalMart but i went up to buy it and it rang up for $9.95 but there was multiple copies in the bin, WalMart is preparing for Black Friday way to early! if they put out the prices it better be that price!
Jordan, you should challenge the price at the register – if the price is posted, they have to honor it. I’ve done it over here in Canada.
This particular edit has its pros and cons. The pro is a new look at a match that has been released several times before, since alternate commentary was not possible on this one. The con is that no commentary has left this set with the omission of a Gorilla Monsoon called match, which is as part of the history of the WWE as anything else.
Yeah edits get on my nerves also, but hey… they could just not release the match/dvd at all! People need to be more positive nowadays… all you ever hear is negativity towards WWE, which of course there will also be haters, but the hypocrites really get on my nerves!
im not buying it case its a total repeat fest,ive actually passed on serveral dvds this year because im sick of buying the same matches over and over
Getting sick of WWE editing so much in DVD’s now.
No matter what, people who complain about edits end up buying anyways…grown men on Youtube even admit it. Was just watching some guy getting pissed off about Benoit not being included on the HBK DVD and still says “Well, yeah, I’m still going to buy it”…what does that really prove to WWE?! just shows people will buy anything with a WWE stamp put on. What a way to stick it to WWE, that will show ’em
If people really want the uncut stuff there are MANY resources out there now and the quality is just as great..you just have to search and find the right people. I found a trader that puts all RAW, SD, ECW, WWF, WCW etc. on Blu-ray, because I know WWE will never release the full years unedited. I bought those and very very please with the sets.
Just recently got the full years of RAW 1998, 2001 and 2002 on Blu-ray…its VHS quality but still really good compared to the other crap people out on ioffer and others sites and much better than the butchered sets WWE puts out.
Take a look at some these sets i got from a trader – quality is just as great and covers look professionally done.
http://imageshack.us/a/img842/3793/ls5k.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img690/6093/2uwa.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img593/9505/fady.jpg
You’re absolutely right about people buying anything with the WWE logo on it. But, no matter how good the VHS transfer, it can never be as good as an official WWE DVD release. Not even close. Well, until this year with the horrible quality on the ECW Unreleased May 1994 match and the Hart release (Georgia multi-generational VHS quality match and the Andre YouTube download quality).
Anyway you could possibly let me know who sells those and the prices? It’d be cool if you could, but if you can’t I completely understand!
Yeah hook us to where you got those RAW seasons from. And if it makes you feel better I’ve not even bought a WWE DVD this year. Last one I bought was Attitude Era.
“As for WWE muting the commentary on the match, this is most likely to remove Jesse Ventura’s audio. It could also be speculated that the “Arena Camera – No Commentary” format is simply a way to get around removing commentary from the match and market it with a positive slant.”
That is the reason for the no commentary/camera angle. I read that Jesse Ventura is Randy Savaged from WWE for not supporting Linda McMahon.
They often take out Jesse Ventura’s commentary because of the royalties that need paying to him to keep it in there. As we speculated up top, it could all be related to that but it doesn’t exactly explain the change to the hard cam view. Then we heard what we heard this week from more than one contact.
I don’t think we’ll know for sure either way but it’s an interesting talking point.
Is it me, or loke’s the B4G-Cover like the WrestleMania one of this year?
😉 Looks nice, nonetheless.
Since TNA chose Clear Vision as their UK distributor their DVD covers have been awesome! Now we just want some Blu-rays…
TNA! Please start using these covers in the US!
Love the BFG cover. TNA really puts a lot of effort into their covers.
Brooke’s ass is amazing…
Yeah, nothing to do with this article..but DAMN
becos of one selfish guy who could not get over with it, the whole wwe universe suffer?
Selfish!? I’m sure you would get over it really quickly if some dirty old man tried to molest you correct?
If anyone, todays so called “fans” are the most selfish and self-entitled just because they watch the product and read up on dirt sheets thinking they know the business.
In a very weird sort of way, MDAX’s reaction doesn’t surprise me in the least. So many of WWE fans support the company to absolutely ridiculous levels that they never see anything the company does as being wrong.
Insert sarcasm/: Surely the guy who was molested is the selfish one. He’s not the victim, right? WWE must be the victim here as this guy put a black eye on the company. /sarcasm over
People need to start engaging their brains a little more. WWE can and do make mistakes and pointing them out doesn’t mean you’re causing the company any harm — you’re likely helping them if you’re giving them honest consumer feedback.
It would be great if people actually did their homework before commenting on a story. First off, Tom Cole was never “molested”. He was sexually harrased. There’s a big difference.
He worked for the WWF as a part of the ring crew from age 13-19. When he was 19 he was approached by Terry Garvin who made a pass at him by offering to give Tom oral sex. When Tom refused he was fired. Tom told his older brother about what happened and his brother urged him to sue the company for millions. (Btw, this all from Tom’s own mouth. He used to be a guest on Dave Meltzer’s radio show frequently in the early 2000’s and talked in detail about all of this.) So in 1993 Tom filed the lawsuit against the WWF. He not only mentioned Garvin in the suit, but Mel Phillips as well. He claimed Mel made similar sexual offers to him during his time there as well. Never once said anything about being touched. Eventually the WWF reached a financial settlement with Tom and then guess what happened? HE WENT BACK TO WORK FOR THEM AFTER SUING THEM!
But I guess that last part isn’t important to the story. Eventually he left the company after a couple more years. In one particular interview with Meltzer in 2001 he specifically claimed that he was “over it” and doesn’t consider himself a VICTIM. He actually used that term.
So I guess the moral of the story here is it’s more important to take a big money settlement and then go back to work for the company than it is to have justice served on those accused. Then again, by the time Garvin(in particular) made a pass at him he was already 19 so there wasn’t anything that could be done legally against Garvin. Also, both Phillips and Garvin were fired as soon as the allegations were made and neither ever returned to the company.
So this whole thing about Cole being upset and having flashbacks to what Phillips asked of him contradicts his own statements from 12 years ago that he was “over it”.
If you’re a straight guy who’s approached by another guy for the purpose of oral sex that’s close enough to molestation in my books.
And I’m not alone. According to Webster’s dictionary to molest means “to disturb, interfere with, or annoy.” Maybe you should take your own advice and do your homework. Here’s the link:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/molestation
Instead of coming back with a reasonable rebuttal to the facts I pointed out, you instead want to play semantics and nitpick.
“If you’re a straight guy who’s approached by another guy for the purpose of oral sex that’s close enough to molestation in my books.” Wow. No, actually that’s called homophobia.
Sorry. You’re wrong again. I came forward with facts. A straight guy would find being propositioned for oral sex by another man (or an unattractive woman) disturbing (or unpleasant (see http://thesaurus.com/browse/disturbing for more synonyms)), which would constitute molestation. There’s no phobias involved other than perhaps your obvious phobia of using dictionaries and thesauruses. Once again, use the links I provided to help you do your homework.
The only phobias I see are you afraid to give yourself a name and afraid to respond to what I wrote earlier about the real issue of this thread, the Tom Cole situation. Instead you want to ignore it by coming up with distractions.
The main thrust of your argument was that Tom Cole wasn’t molested. By definition of the term, you could easily make the argument that he was molested — a point that David originally made, not me. Regardless of whether the rest of your statements were factual or not, the one thing that shined through was your lack of a vocabulary.
But, still you persist seemingly obsessed with receiving Internet praise as being some kind of know-it-all historian, which is ironic considering you neglected to make the most significant point. In your rambling 5 paragraph rant, you failed to mention that when WWE settled with him, they would have most likely put in the settlement a clause indicating he was releasing them from future legal action. As I understand it, that’s fairly standard. Therefore, there’s almost no chance that Tom Cole’s situation has anything to do with this presentation.
Again do YOUR homework. And, while you’re at it, buy a thesaurus and dictionary or learn how to use the free ones provided online.
One again, you see what you want to see and ignore what you don’t. The main point of my post was to show that this guy is inconsistent. He “claims” he was molested(which nobody knows for sure since there was no trial) and according to Daniel Bee’s article he’s now claiming that seeing Mel Phillips on WWE DVD’s is bringing back all the bad memories when he already claimed in 2001 that he was over it. Which is funny since the main sticking point of my post was to show that he was so scarred by this incident that he decided to go back to work for them almost immediately. That one point alone almost kills his whole story. Furthermore it was you, not David, that declared him a victim and it was Tom himself who said he doesn’t see himself as a victim. Again, back in 2001. So I posted a correction. Instead of talking about the main subject at hand you instead go off on tangents about using words inappropriately and sidetrack from the whole point.
And your little quip about me being obsessed with receiving praise for being a “know-it-all historian” seems to be your own insecurities talking. Just because I love the business and have been a fan for 29 years and love reading up on the history of the business doesn’t mean I’m a know-it-all. Nobody knows it all. There are people who know a lot, sure, but nobody knows everything about everything and nor have I ever claimed to. If I can bring up interesting pieces of history that have to do with a certain article or if I can bring the correct information to an article when I see people posting misinformation then I will.
This is also the last time I give you this much attention. You’re clearly a troll that gets off on annoying people, or should I say “molesting” people. There’s your thesaurus for you. Good day ma’am.
There was another guy(or girl) on the thread about Chris Benoit not being included on the Shawn Michaels DVD who also didn’t have a name. They used “anonymous” also. Just to be on the safe side you might want to take two seconds and give yourself a name so the two of you are not mistaken. 😉
not really, even if what the company does is wrong, it should not affect the consumer’s right to own something that is unedited.
if he don’t like it. he can don’t buy what. but cause the other people who wants to but it with edit is selfish
Tom Cole lost all credibility in my opinion when 10 years ago he made it public knowledge that he was upset about Bobby Heenan mentioning in his book that he thought Tom Cole was a strange kid. He said it brought back all the memories of what allegedly happend and demanded a public apology from Bobby Hernan. Shortly after that he went on a book signing tour for a book he was featured in, Sex lies and headlocks. Makes me wonder if times are tough and he’s tryin to squeez some more money from the WWE.
I find the Mel Phillips excuse pretty lame. If WWE didn’t want to show Phillips they could just as easily have chosen a different match to put on the History Of WWE DVD. Or they could’ve just changed the camera angle for the very brief glimpses of him at ringside.
Also, if that guy still has flashbacks of what allegedly happened to him(25+ years later) then why the heck is he still watching old stuff from that time period? The whole thing sounds pretty silly.
Nobody has the power to simply NOT watch what offends them anymore do they? Where there’s an issue, there’s a claim for lawsuits…. @_@
That BFG cover’s awesome, a prime example of what you can achieve without resorting to spoiler pics. Take the hint WWE….
I’m passing on the Best PPV Matches of 2013 since there is not gonna be a Blu Ray.
The BFG Cover is Bad Ass.
im also passing because there isnt a bluray. i havent bought a dvd in years
Wow. That Bound for Glory cover is awesome. TNA DVD covers have been amazing lately (in the UK at least)