My big problem with the whole case against Stalone

So, first of all, this documentary is most definitely not an unbiased examination of what happened. It is an attempt to vindicate Chuck Wepner. And that's fine, as long as they don't pretend to be unbiased. But since it clearly is biased, I watched it with a bit of skepticism. I ended with that skepticism mostly in tact and here's the number one reason why I remain skeptical of his claims: The Timeline.

Here's my problem. For Wepner to truly be the inspiration for the character of Rocky, as he claims this would have to have happened. Stalone sees his fight in 1975, takes some amount of time to research Wepner's life, writes a screenplay, pitches the screenplay to a studio, gets the screenplay greenlit, get's funding, begins production, gets casting done, films the movie, edits the movie, promotes the movie, releases the movie. And all of that had to happen in one year.

Personally, I find that hard to believe. Making a movie takes time, usually multiple years. I think it's much more likely that what Stalone now claims is true, that he had the Rocky movie planned or written and that seeing Wepner's fight inspired him to push to get it made. I do think he used Wepner's fame and story to promote Rocky. I think he saw it as an opportunity to piggyback on Wepner's notoriety to make his movie more successful. And can you blame him? If you had a movie planned and then a real life version of that movie happened, wouldn't that seem like a great opportunity to promote your movie? The only problem was that they didn't just hire Wepner to promote the movie, as they should have.

Wepner's lawyer makes this same argument very briefly in the film and I agree on that point. So I do think there's a legitimate suit there, although a much smaller one than what they claimed Wepner was owed. But I don't buy the main premis, that Wepner is the "Real" Rocky.

_____________________
Need a new signature?
Why not Zoidberg? (\/)(°,,°)(\/)