JerryvonKramer

Either make it about work or make it about drawing and titles. This halfway house fudge is a total mess.

Haven't checked but that might be the record, there is a slight chance Dylan and Dave have a show in their catalogue longer!

I'd agree that it is basically impossible to watch those old MSG or Spectrum shows and argue that Backlund wasn't over on his own. I've seen him against some pretty shitty workers now (Swede Hanson, Sika to name but two) and, it doesn't matter who it is, Backlund is crazy over. The most negative possible argument you could make is that those fans were trained so well that they'd pop for any face (see also Ivan Putski), and there's some truth to that, but I take things like fans counting the see-saw arm wrenches as evidence of them being into his matches and Backlund being over entirely on his own terms. And I still don't even like the guy that much. Meltzer comes across to me as someone who is used to enjoying, at least in his own mind, a near-monopoly on giving "the definitive account of wrestling history". All this seems like an attempt to protect that legacy from new readings or interpretations. He might not even realise he's doing it and I suspect he doesn't. You see that in academia all the time: the old guard don't like to see their version of things overturned. Meltzer represents a kind of orthodoxy, nerds like us revisting old footage and reading around and piecing together a picture of the wrestling landscape and forming new opinions represents a threat to that orthodoxy. This whole argument from him reads like a post-hoc justification for a stance which is essentially "I'm Dave Meltzer dammit, and my version of things is right". It's transparently obvious.

I'm legit shocked at this. I just did a google search for "Hulk Hogan" "cultural icon" just to see what would come up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_U...0%E2%80%9389%29 What the hell?! There are 52 items listed for US History in the decade of the 80s in that article and that's one of them? It is something of a travesty that this is most people's one-stop shop for "knowledge". But there we have it. According to Wikipedia, Hogan headlining Wrestlemania I was one of the 52 most noteworthy events to happen in America in the 1980s.

Truth

I honestly don't have a sense of Molly Ringwald's level of fame in the 80s. I was a kid. So Ellen Page might be off (someone who has been in big/ biggish films whose name might not be on the tip of your tongue). She might have been more akin to a Cameron Diaz or Liz Hurley (actresses in hit comedies who were on the tips of everyone's tongues in the 90s). Someone who was a teenager in the 80s might know better. Johnny?

Modern-day Ringwald = Ellen Page.

I really enjoyed the Meltzer and Scott Williams Mid-South podcast from a week or so back. Listened to it in the car earlier. Excellent, Meltzer seemed really excited to be talking about it and was much more energised than usual. It was also fun when Bix called in. I couldn't help but noted this down though: [Referring to Mid-south's decline] "Of course, the economy had a lot to do with it" - Dave Meltzer. Try saying that on here, Dave.

Reading over this, I don't think Loss and I disagree at all, except perhaps over semantics as to what "icon" means. My belief is that being an "icon" only stretches to the shallow snap-jerk recognition I'm talking about. "Oh, that's Marylin Monroe" I don't think the average person could name three Monroe films either. This, to me, is the definition of being an icon. Instant recognition despite not really knowing anything about said person. Loss, at times, seems like he's talking more about cultural impact or penetration. I think after all these distinctions have been made, everyone ultimately agrees. Happy ending to this thread.

This doesn't really prove anything against what I'm saying. I've said Hogan is more enduring. I'm saying in the 1980s, there were many acts bigger than him, and I've listed several examples. Hey, I have no idea what the results will be, maybe Hogan might get less than 50%. And I don't think anyone is saying that Hogan was "bigger" than some of the people you've picked out. I think the point is that just as people know who Batman is without ever having read a comic book in their life, people can know who Hogan is without giving two shits about wrestling. This isn't really about drawing power either. Everyone KNOWS who Hogan is, does that mean if you put Hogan in a film that more people will go to see it? Probably not. Name and image recognition is one thing, selling tickets to see films is another. I don't think it comes down to measurable eyeballs either. You can pull out numbers. X million people saw this, Y million people saw that. Doesn't say much. 28 million people saw Star Kid, 12 million people have seen "Charlie Bit Me". So what? Some of this stuff is transient. --------------- I want to say also that I'm not saying that Hogan means a whole lot to popular culture either beyond this: "Oh, that's Hulk Hogan!" That's it. His sole contribution to the "big non-wrestling picture of popular culture" right there. Maybe in some circles in some age groups you can extend it to. "Oh, that's Hulk Hogan!" "Hey, remember wrestling man?" "Good times, good times" The same is true of pretty much anyone with this instant recognisability factor. "Oh, that's Mr. T!" [sole contribution to "big non-wrestling picture of popular culture"] "Oh, that's Mr. T!" "Hey, remember A-Team man?" "Good times, good times" [some circles in some age groups] I'm ultimately talking about something very shallow.

I think I've come up with something that might be able to put some of this to the test. I'm gonna come up with a picture quiz which I give out at the end of every class this week and possibly even for the next couple of weeks. "Just for fun". Then I can take them in and track percentages for each person on it. I dunno 10-15 people. Thinking Hogan, Bale, Molly Ringwald and Bill Murray are locks for a places, but I'm gonna throw in like Taylor and Burton, Elvis, Pacino, Brando, maybe some UK-centric people too, let's see the extent shall we. But I have some other ideas too. Like acts currently in the UK top 10 singles chart. If my internet theory is to hold, at least partly, then I'd predict some difficulty in the 18-22 year olds picking out current acts. I'm gonna do this rogue bit of research and, then, after this roundtable might get in touch with someone in sociology to do a proper survey and paper on it. A bit outside of my area, but hey, why not. Sort of thing newspapers like "University finds undergraduates don't know who Elvis is", journals need hits too.

I also want to say that a one to one equation between recognisability and stardom can't really be made. Hogan is probably more recognisable than lots of people who are demonstrably "bigger stars" than him. I wonder if more people might be able to pick Hogan out of a lineup than Christian Bale. Probably. Yet there's no question of "who is the bigger star?" If it was Hogan vs. Batman or Hogan vs. Darth Vader, then probably Hogan loses. Hogan would probably beat He-Man these days. But I guess the point is that his fame is operating in that sort of way. He's an action figure, an image, a brand identity, rather than a "celebrity".

Loss, I think you underrate the "stickiness" factor of the trademark moustache and bandana. One of the reasons why guys like Hogan and Mr. T endure is because they literally don't look like anyone else. Once you've seen either of them, it's hard to forget them. I think that's the key difference between those two and, say, Molly Ringwald or let's say the kid from Gremlins. We all remember Gizmo, do we remember Zach Galligan? Well, we might, but you get the idea. When I was talking about iconography, I was talking about the simple kneejerk irreconcilability factor. If a dude has a big blonde moustache and wears a red bandana he's easier to remember than just a normal guy. If a dude is big and black with a Mohawk and massive gold chains around his neck and says "'S'hup Fool" a lot, he's easier to remember than just a normal woman. This is one of the ways in which our mass culture operates. Sometimes it's the novelty or gimmick factor that sticks. I was using "pop culture icon" in the strictest sense of being actual iconography. Like the Golden Arches of McDonalds are icongraphy. You recognise them. Hogan is part of a fabric of stuff that everyone recognises. Molly Ringwald isn't, not in the same way. I wasn't saying that Hogan has the same cultural significance as Michael Jackson or Madonna or that he is some sort of pop culture legend, but that his image is iconic and instantly recognisable. Hope this makes sense.

That's an interesting take. What do you think of the idea of Bret's 2nd run actually being a throwback to Backlund in the way it was booked? That's an idea I was taken with when I first read it on here.

Ok, if you say so. The 95 roster looks pretty shitty to me. Diesel vs. Mabel might smack of old-school WWF booking, but that looks like one of the weakest main events on a big four show possibly ever. I can buy the general narrative that Vince went "back to basics" in 94-6 while cutting costs and that at no time during that time was he "desperate". If we want to say that, fine.

How many JTTSs end up headlining Summerslam?

Depends on what your take on "desperation" is.

I believe DiBiase sat on his. His neck injury was in the same ballpark as Austin's. All I was saying is that the minute you step into the ring you void the insurance payout. What I don't get is the scenario where Rude has an injury (not career ending, but enought to give him the option) and then doesn't take the insurance money but sits out. Can't see any motive for doing that, you might as well take the money if it's there. So Shawn didn't take any Lloyds money in 99-02?

Labyrinth was a flop critically and commerically everywhere. It was a sleeper hit on VHS and more of a cult film. Bill and Ted and Robin Hood: Prince of Theives were both "of the moment" sort of films and I'd expect them both to drop off the face of the earth, which they have. I only asked about Bill and Ted because there's the parody of Death from Seventh Seal in it, it was more of a joke on my end because when those two students put their hands up it gave me leave to say "So all hope is not lost". They laughed at least. ---------------- Which films from the 80s / early 90s do we think have iconic status? Terminator? Batman 89? Scarface? A lot of the 80s films I can think of seem to hover around that "cult" status. I have to push back the roundtable because it clashes with some annoying Board of Studies thing I have to sit on. I might just come right out and ask them Monday "Terminator? Batman 89? Scarface?" I'll just say "It's for a bet with a friend", that'll raise a laugh. My sense is that no matter which films I pick the results will be dismal.

What Johnny is implying is what I was saying: leaving WCW healthy rather than leaving it taking the insurance money. Sorry bit confused about this. You made it sound like he had an option and that he might have worked if he wanted to. Why would he have just sat out if there was no gain? I don't get that.

That would actually invalidate the Lloyds of London deal. I believe taking a single bump could void that.

Is it interesting or just an indictment of the voters? I'm very disillusioned with the WON HoF at this point. Seems like a joke.

I said it last week and I'll say it again, but he might be my all-time favourite "worker in a vacuum". I can't think of a guy who can come in with no storyline or context and just have a great match out of nowhere. I love that Race vs. Rich match from GAB 90, I love Race vs. Martel from AWA, and neither of them have any sort of context at all. Where he suffers, I'd argue, is in the opposite scenario. He's very underwhelming at Starrcade 83 because he doesn't bring any emotion to the match despite the fact that it had been so built up. Weird that.

Why?! I'm watching him deck Gary Young now (circa 78?). He's awesome. I think I love Harley because he throws so many bombs. You can criticise him a la Matt D for not really being much of a structure guy and I get that criticism. But boring? I don't get that. Just seen him hit an awesome backbreaker, swinging reverse neckbreaker and a massive stalled vertical suplex in the space of 2 minutes. He's anything but boring!

Thanks Kris, just a couple more questions: 1. How did this work in practice? A guy like Bill Watts, for example, would he be happy to let his guys do GCW on the weekend because it gave them national exposure? And if so, were there not some complications? For example, what if he wants to keep Wrestling II strong for an angle and on GCW they job him out? Could see some potential conflict arising with the booking. 2. Did this mean that Georgia's "roster" was essentially a "who's who" of the top stars cherry picked from around the territories? Were there any guys who exclusively worked GCW? Cheers. This is the sort of thing you can't find out on Wikipedia.