Undertaker > Hogan

[JerryvonKramer]

I'd be surprised if they knew any of those guys either OJ. I don't think they could pick out any of them in a lineup.

 

My main point is articulated towards the end of this post. In short, I think the internet has "de-centred" culture to the point where pop culture is (much) less ubiquitous than it was. Do you disagree with that?

[Dooley]

As a footnote, I'm watching the Cincinnati-Miami NFL game and they just did a split screen of Hogan and a youngster dressed like Hogan at the game. They spent a few seconds talking about how "Hulkamania was running wild at the game tonight".

[ohtani's jacket]

I dunno how I feel about that. These days when something happens in popular entertainment you have real time commentary in the form of twitter and instant reaction on the internet. I have no doubt that kids today are more interested in taking selfies and connecting through social media than watching the 1001 greatest films ever made, but there's still shit they're heavily into. Right now One Direction are big in Japan and I'd argue that there's never been a better time for young Japanese fans to really get into an overseas foreign artist because of the internet. Beside which, the number of people who are interested in exploring pop culture from the past has always been small compared to those interested in the here and now. We're in the minority on that account. It wouldn't surprise me, though, if there was at least one old thing that most of your students had discovered somehow whether it's through their parents or the internet.

 

I do get the gist of your argument. When I was a kid there were only two channels before a third one was added and you'd all watch the same stuff after school and on weekends and rent the same videos and games from the video store. There is far greater choice these days. But I also feel that things like memes are modern pop culture and that popular culture has simply moved on. No matter how much I chew it over some kid not knowing MacGyver, Bill Cosby or The Muppet Show isn't indicative of some decline in popular culture. I had an English teacher in high school who used to boast that of course he understood all the popular culture references in The Simpsons that we didn't so evidently he felt we didn't know much about pop culture in the late 90s. What's more, you need to give these kids a chance. When I was 20, I hadn't begun watching classic or foreign cinema yet and was still listening to grunge music. They still have a lot of experience to be gained. When I was 20, all I would have known of Bogie or Cagney would be parodies like Daffy Duck so don't be too hard on them. The kids are all right. They just like shitty One Direction.

[ohtani's jacket]

As a footnote, I'm watching the Cincinnati-Miami NFL game and they just did a split screen of Hogan and a youngster dressed like Hogan at the game. They spent a few seconds talking about how "Hulkamania was running wild at the game tonight".

Thus reminds me of when Jesse Ventura sold out at Wrestlemania VI and admit that Hulkamania will live forever.

 

Speaking of cultural icons, I knew this guy who heckled Rick Derringer once by requesting Real American at one of his shows. Turns out Derringer has had a change of heart about performing his iconic song. Here's Real American better than ever, jeez:

 

[JerryvonKramer]

The kids are all right. They just like shitty One Direction.

lol, I understand what you're saying OJ and I don't hold it against them too much. I am prone to being grumpy and curmudgeonly, it's one of my MOs, and I'd hope the students see it as an endearing trait of mine rather than a genuine value judgement against them. Who knows, one or two of them might go and watch The Seventh Seal this weekend. And the internet will probably make it possible for them. I actually think the internet is amazing ... but you have to know what to look for.

 

Anyway, how did we get onto all of this. Oh yes. Loss can't count on everyone knowing the Breakfast Club, but everyone does know Hulk Hogan.

 

Since we've mentioned my work, one of the things I have to do this year is act as Programme Director for this old course that is being put out of commission in 2014. About two weeks ago, walking down the corridor, I made a joke to a passing colleague that "I'm like an undertaker with this thing" and he turned round and laughed "Knowing you, I assume you mean the wrestler". This marks the only time wrestling has ever come up in a work context. He'd probably seen the Andre, Virgil and DiBiase facebook cover photo I had at the time.

[Eduardo]

As a footnote, I'm watching the Cincinnati-Miami NFL game and they just did a split screen of Hogan and a youngster dressed like Hogan at the game. They spent a few seconds talking about how "Hulkamania was running wild at the game tonight".

Right now, one of the players did the John Cena "You can't see me" hand gesture, and the announcer referenced John Cena, the catch phrase and the gesture.

[Sidebottom]

I think Tyson is the perfect comparison. Neither he nor Hogan are pop culture icons, but they both have near-universal name recognition that transcends their respective sports.

I'd love to see where both would be if they didn't stray from their "reasons for notoriety."

 

I.e. if Tyson hadn't become such a train wreck with the rape, the arrest and some of the batshit stuff he's done and said since, and being someone that TV show and movie producers would bring in as a cameo or whatnot (BTW, Mel Gibson was dropped from Hangover II because of his antisemitic and off the rails drunken tirades rubbed the actors the wrong way, which is fair, but they'd rather do scenes with a CONVICTED RAPIST?)

 

Train wreck was part of the deal with Tyson from early on. The Robin Givens interview came when he was still clearly the No. 1 boxing star in the world. There was never a version of him that wasn't headed down that path.

 

I was thinking last night about whether Tyson is clearly bigger than Hogan. He probably is, because he was such a huge figure both for straight sports fans and in tabloid culture. Particularly surreal is his third act as a beloved old crazy, touring the country with a one-man show. That I did not see coming, though perhaps I should've, because Mike was always super-engaging in doses.

 

I think Hogan is a little bigger now. I've had to explain to more than one younger coworker about just how huge Tyson was at his peak.

 

No way is Hogan bigger than Tyson in the public eye. In any way you wan to measure he success of a star.

[cheapshot]

I have to agree with Frank, and disagree with Mad Dog. Mike Tyson is far bigger to the masses worldwide than the Hulkster would ever, ever be.

 

Tyson is in that top tier of well know sportsmen with the likes of Michael Jordan, Pelé, Muhammed Ali, Tiger Woods, Magic Johnson and David Beckham.

[SteveJRogers]

As a footnote, I'm watching the Cincinnati-Miami NFL game and they just did a split screen of Hogan and a youngster dressed like Hogan at the game. They spent a few seconds talking about how "Hulkamania was running wild at the game tonight".

Right now, one of the players did the John Cena "You can't see me" hand gesture, and the announcer referenced John Cena, the catch phrase and the gesture.

 

I'm still amazed that they (WWE/Cena) didn't "borrow" that from some other rapper.

[Kevin Ridge]

I just won a bet

Very Barry Horowitz like finally picking up a victory.

[jdw]

As far as how over he was, it depends upon which Vince McMahon-like version of his bio you read. I've seen ones where he got a three-picture, $30M deal with Universal in 1983 off Vacation and Mom making $60M each that summer. Was he kicked off the production of them? Again, depends on the bio. In the end, he is the only person with a writing credit on either of then, which wouldn't be unique for someone getting the the boot for re-writes, but also we've seen plenty of movies where the rewriters are listed as well if it's a major rewrite.

According to Mr. Mom's producer, Lauren Shuler Donner, Hughes was fired and they brought in a group of TV writers. I know there were times when Hughes tried to fob off failures like National Lampoon's Class Reunion by saying they'd butchered his original script, which the director Michael Miller steadfastly denied and produced Hughes' script to prove it, but Hughes was pretty upfront about being fired for being a pain in the ass.

 

Actually I've read Hughes himself say he was shitcanned from Mr. Mom. The problem is that it comes in articles where he's getting that three picture $30M deal with Universal because Mr. Mom and Vacation made a shitload of money. So... I tend to take the Hughes Bios with the same amount of salt that I take McMahon Bios. It's Hollywood, and they make silly shit up while Reporters are hit and miss in getting at the truth (or even bothering to chase it).

 

As far as Class Reunion, who cares. It was before Mom and Vacation put him on the "writer" map can got him a deal. Hughes was an asshole? Could swear I mentioned it already.

[jdw]

with Rob Lowe I don''t think it can be underestimated how much Wayne's World and Tommy Boy helped his career. He was becoming somewhat of a joke by that time due to the sex tape and some terrible script choices. They led to a career resurgence in comedy that he is still reaping today

Yep. I'd add in the West Wing and second Austin Power movie as kind of sealing the deal. He had regular work between Wayne/Tommy and AP2/WW, but it mostly was a lot of crappy TV movies and crappy smaller movies. West Wing gave him some cred finally, while AP2 continued the line of working comedies.

 

Have to give him some credit for rebuilding his career, and being pretty smart about it. West Wing was a smart move, and while it was risky to leave the show... that was probably a smart idea. Sorkin was pushing That Fucking Josh more and more, to the degree that it was eating into Lowe's spot. Kind of smart to walk away rather than sink to being like Riker in ST:TNG as a piece of furniture while Picard/Bartlett became the start and Data/Josh became the #2 star in terms of sucking up air. Brothers & Sisters was a smart move: regular work / payday on a show that had critical chops and the women demo. Parks and Recreation is another critical fav, working comedy as a change to the two prior long runs in more dramatic TV series... and again a good payday.

 

Yeah, for a guy who was dead with the sex tape and the teen hearthrob stuff fading, he ended up with a good career.

[jdw]

as was the star of Ghostbusters (though he kind of pissed away that stardom)

WHAT!?

 

Is that your opinion of Murray's post-Ghostbuster work (which is quite substantial quality wise) or is that based on, like the Hughes/Ringwald/Cusak/Brat Pack flicks being held to higher esteem in the home video market/retrospect?

 

If its Danny-Boy and/or Harold Ramis you are talking about...eh, okay, I can see Aykroyd and Ramis as examples of people who just had their careers go a different trajectory for whatever reasons and feeling comfortable with never reaching the heights again.

 

Here's Bill's box office:

 

http://boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?id=billmurray.htm

 

Razor's Edge would have been in the can by the time Ghostbusters came out, but it bombed.

 

Then he stopped working for close to 4 years. That alone is pissing away the success of Ghostbusters.

 

His big comeback was Scrooged, which did business by got beat by these two other comedies release the following two weeks:

 

$111,938,388 Twins

$78,756,177 The Naked Gun

$60,328,558 Scrooged

 

Scrooged was the one that got the better release date (Thanksgiving) with the anticipation of hit-hit-hot attached to it. Perhaps not a massive bomb, but it was disappointing.

 

Ghostbusters II did half the business that GB1 did. Quick Change did bomb. What About Bob did decent business, but not epic. Another two years off, with Groundhog Day being a "career rebirth" at the time... and Mad Dog and Glory being a total bomb the following month. Groundhog Day was the last mainstream hit he's anchored, and the "hitish" movies he's anchored since then are small budget / art house flicks.

 

I give credit for Bill transitioning his career, making small movies for the most part and getting a fair amount of acclaim doing it. But as far as being a "star", he pretty much pissed away the Mega Star level with the 3+ years off after Razor's Edge. By choice on some level, it would seem. Even the hit Groundhog Day was a smaller comedy, tossed out in a month where the movies anticipated to be blockbustered aren't release (Feb). It connected and did business.

 

Bill is a variation of the Lowe discussion. When Ghostbusters hit, folks kind of thought Bill would be making big box office comedies for a while to come. Then he went away, then attempts to get back there fell well short (Scrouged & GB2), and over time he adjusted to create a different kind of successful career. Something to admire there.

[jdw]

Murray has done a lot of indie films directed by Wes Anderson in the past 20 years, so you could make the argument that choosing to do smaller critically acclaimed films is akin to blowing one's stardom. I don't agree though. He almost won an Oscar for Lost in Translation which made over $100,000,000 . And a case could be made that 2003 was Murray's peak year as a marquee star. I recall his cameo in Zombieland being raved about at the time.

 

But Steve, why bother getting into this? It's what happens when you engage with tedious people, you get into tedious debates where you're somehow trying to prove Bill Murray was still a star after Ghostbusters.

No one is saying that Bill wasn't a star after Ghostbusters. What I said was that Bill pissed away his Ghostbusters level of stardom.

 

Then again, if you think that pulling in $44M in the US in 2003 is the "peak star" equiv of pulling in $238M in the US in 1984, then there's not much to argue. Even the international box office doesn't make it close when you factor in 20 years of changes in ticket prices and the international market.

 

 

Do you like being punched in the face over and over again by a poisonous and criminally boring dwarf? It's easier to just say "go fuck yourself". Which is what I've done and will continue to do forever more concerning that particular member of this forum.

Nope... it's just another example of your reading comprehension being awful.

 

Insert Quote

[ohtani's jacket]

Actually I've read Hughes himself say he was shitcanned from Mr. Mom. The problem is that it comes in articles where he's getting that three picture $30M deal with Universal because Mr. Mom and Vacation made a shitload of money. So... I tend to take the Hughes Bios with the same amount of salt that I take McMahon Bios. It's Hollywood, and they make silly shit up while Reporters are hit and miss in getting at the truth (or even bothering to chase it).

 

As far as Class Reunion, who cares. It was before Mom and Vacation put him on the "writer" map can got him a deal. Hughes was an asshole? Could swear I mentioned it already.

There's no evidence to suggest that Hughes wasn't tossed from Mr. Mom. Hughes was consistent about that from his earliest interviews and it's been corroborated by others. It's also consistent with the creative control he demanded from Universal. That deal wasn't on the table when Hughes wrote and pitched Breakfast Club, which happened a good year before Mr. Mom or National Lampoon were released. Hughes had no track record as a director at that stage. According to him that was the reason he chose to film TBC as his directorial debut since it was a low budget, single location shoot, but A&M didn't think much of the idea and Universal execs even less when it was finally made. They buried it with a February release, but it was a sleeper hit. The details may be off, but the general timeline on Hughes turning writer-director makes sense and I'm not seeing any McMahon-level fabrications.

 

Regardless of how it panned out, it's a different kettle of fish from Rambo or Back to the Future. I know Zemeckis and Gale had a hard time getting Back to the Future made and there was a big risk of it bombing, but Fox was a star with Family Ties and the word of mouth it garnered was tremendous. Rambo II opened in over 2000 theaters, which was the first time in US cinema history. It got a huge push.

[PeteF3]

It should be noted that Murray did Ghostbusters for the specific purpose of getting The Razor's Edge greenlighted.

[Jesse Ewiak]

I think the difference is, sure, Murray pissed away his Box Office cache, but I don't think he pissed away his cultural cache (largely due to having GB and other 80's comedies that were rerun 5,000 times during the 90's and early 00's). So, I think that's why JVK was surprised about his students not knowing who Murray is. Honestly, I was surprised at that number because I remember a decent 'pop' for his reveal when I went to see Zombieland and that was on a weekend where most of the audience was either teenagers or people in their 20's. Maybe he just had a weird class when he asked the question.

[jdw]

Actually I've read Hughes himself say he was shitcanned from Mr. Mom. The problem is that it comes in articles where he's getting that three picture $30M deal with Universal because Mr. Mom and Vacation made a shitload of money. So... I tend to take the Hughes Bios with the same amount of salt that I take McMahon Bios. It's Hollywood, and they make silly shit up while Reporters are hit and miss in getting at the truth (or even bothering to chase it).

 

As far as Class Reunion, who cares. It was before Mom and Vacation put him on the "writer" map can got him a deal. Hughes was an asshole? Could swear I mentioned it already.

There's no evidence to suggest that Hughes wasn't tossed from Mr. Mom. Hughes was consistent about that from his earliest interviews and it's been corroborated by others.

Daniel: I'm not saying he wasn't pitched. I'm saying that over the last two decades there have been varying stories about the pitching, which are a bit like David Von Erich dying. He died. The explanation of the death varied over time based on who was telling it, and who had an agenda to spin it to.

 

But the end result if also the same: Huges was the sole writer credited on both, and he got his 3 picture, $30M deal off them. They put him on the map... unless you think Hollywood was just handing out deals like that in 1983.

 

 

It's also consistent with the creative control he demanded from Universal. That deal wasn't on the table when Hughes wrote and pitched Breakfast Club, which happened a good year before Mr. Mom or National Lampoon were released. Hughes had no track record as a director at that stage.

I don't give a crap about what was on the table when he pitched TBC. The guy had been writing and pitching shit for years. It's not like everything he ever pulled out of his creative ass got made. But in the end, when he got his Deal to make Sixteen Candles, he ended up making TBC as the second movie of his Universal deal. On the cheapo end? Yes. Really nicely profitable? Yep. We agree. It launched people's careers or made them stars? We disagree when walking through the individual actors... well... I assume we do since you've side stepped that point when I walk through it.

 

 

According to him that was the reason he chose to film TBC as his directorial debut since it was a low budget, single location shoot, but A&M didn't think much of the idea and Universal execs even less when it was finally made. They buried it with a February release, but it was a sleeper hit. The details may be off, but the general timeline on Hughes turning writer-director makes sense and I'm not seeing any McMahon-level fabrications.

 

Buried it in February? It opened in a reasonable number of theaters for February, more than Witness did the prior weak with Ford coming off four monster hits in his prior five movies. Buried is January.

 

Regardless of how it panned out, it's a different kettle of fish from Rambo or Back to the Future. I know Zemeckis and Gale had a hard time getting Back to the Future made and there was a big risk of it bombing, but Fox was a star with Family Ties and the word of mouth it garnered was tremendous.

Who is saying otherwise?

 

My comment was no one thought it would do $200M. It was a phenom. Good lord, I live through it being a phenom and getting dragged out to it several different times with several different groups of friends and family.

 

Rambo II opened in over 2000 theaters, which was the first time in US cinema history. It got a huge push.

Again... who said it wasn't given a huge push.

 

My comment was that it making $150M was a big surprise. We have this mental image of Sly making all these massive hits, but heading into Rambo it was just the three Rockys, none of them did that number, and even the "successful" First Blood didn't get to $50M let alone $100M. Folks thought Rambo had a chance to be a big hit. But $150M is a whole 'nother level. In the 80s prior to that: Empire, Raiders, ET, Tootsie, Jedi, Beverly Hills Cop, Ghostbusters and Indy II. Those are phenoms or sequels to phenoms.

 

The theater number is cool. My thought would be to look up how many Cannonball Run II and Red Dawn opened up in the prior year, and how much money those two made. Push doesn't equal box office. Which you know.

 

Going back to the original point:

 

Sly and MJF were bigger stars than Molly.

[ohtani's jacket]

Daniel: I'm not saying he wasn't pitched. I'm saying that over the last two decades there have been varying stories about the pitching, which are a bit like David Von Erich dying. He died. The explanation of the death varied over time based on who was telling it, and who had an agenda to spin it to.

 

But the end result if also the same: Huges was the sole writer credited on both, and he got his 3 picture, $30M deal off them. They put him on the map... unless you think Hollywood was just handing out deals like that in 1983.

I don't give a crap about what was on the table when he pitched TBC. The guy had been writing and pitching shit for years. It's not like everything he ever pulled out of his creative ass got made. But in the end, when he got his Deal to make Sixteen Candles, he ended up making TBC as the second movie of his Universal deal. On the cheapo end? Yes. Really nicely profitable? Yep. We agree. It launched people's careers or made them stars? We disagree when walking through the individual actors... well... I assume we do since you've side stepped that point when I walk through it.

 

Hughes didn't have this Universal deal you're talking about when he shot Sixteen Candles. Sixteen Candles was shot in the summer of '83 while Mr. Mom and National Lampoon were being released. Ned Tanen gave Hughes his chance at directing when he stepped down from Universal pictures to start up his own production company, Channel Productions. Warner Bros passed on the Sixteen Candles script because Hughes had demanded to direct it himself, despite having never directed a film or even been on a film set (according to Hughes.) Other studios passed on it, but Tanen picked it up. Universal agreed to produce both Sixteen Candles and Breakfast Club, but Tanen wanted Hughes to make Sixteen Candles first because he thought it was an easier project for a first time director. The Breakfast Club was shot before Sixteen Candles was released. I don't know the exact timing on Hughes getting his Universal deal but it was sometime after Candles was shot, Mr. Mom and National Lampoon were released and TBC went into production. I believe it was actually a three year deal not a three picture one and that Hughes was supposed to establish a comedy wing for Universal, but there was a change in power and they hated TBC because it wasn't Animal House meets Porky's. There's that legendary story of the execs presenting their re-cut trailer for how they were going to market TBC and Tanen throwing the mother of all boardroom fits. Ultimately, I believe Hughes got out of his Universal contract to follow Tanen to Paramount as Tanen was very much his protector.

 

The reason I didn't mention anything about you running through the Brat Pack's history is that my basic point was that in the eyes of the public they didn't gain notoriety until '85. The name "Brat Pack" wasn't coined until June of '85 by that New York Magazine writer. That article is often credited with the paparazzi interest in St. Elmo's Fire's premiere and certainly didn't hurt its box office.

 

Buried it in February? It opened in a reasonable number of theaters for February, more than Witness did the prior weak with Ford coming off four monster hits in his prior five movies. Buried is January.

If the worst time to release a film is January then the second worst time to release a film is February. No studio releases a film in February that they care about.

 

My comment was that it making $150M was a big surprise. We have this mental image of Sly making all these massive hits, but heading into Rambo it was just the three Rockys, none of them did that number, and even the "successful" First Blood didn't get to $50M let alone $100M. Folks thought Rambo had a chance to be a big hit. But $150M is a whole 'nother level. In the 80s prior to that: Empire, Raiders, ET, Tootsie, Jedi, Beverly Hills Cop, Ghostbusters and Indy II. Those are phenoms or sequels to phenoms.

Okay, but is it a surprise to you that it made more money than The Breakfast Club? That was my point. I don't think people in the industry would compare a film like Sixteen Candles to a blockbuster. They'd compare it to Risky Business.

 

The theater number is cool. My thought would be to look up how many Cannonball Run II and Red Dawn opened up in the prior year, and how much money those two made. Push doesn't equal box office. Which you know.

Sure, Rambo had a clever marketing strategy playing on the 10th anniversary of the United States' withdrawal from Vietnam and created a media barrage where even Regan was commenting on the film. It was the same kind of play on American patriotism as Hogan. It was also a comparatively weak year for summer releases. But you don't open in that many cinemas unless you have big expectations.

 

Going back to the original point:

 

Sly and MJF were bigger stars than Molly.

Sure, and going back to the original, original point, Hogan was a bigger star than Molly.

[jdw]

Hughes didn't have this Universal deal you're talking about when he shot Sixteen Candles. Sixteen Candles was shot in the summer of '83 while Mr. Mom and National Lampoon were being released.

You are correct.

 

Ned Tanen gave Hughes his chance at directing when he stepped down from Universal pictures to start up his own production company, Channel Productions. Warner Bros passed on the Sixteen Candles script because Hughes had demanded to direct it himself, despite having never directed a film or even been on a film set (according to Hughes.) Other studios passed on it, but Tanen picked it up. Universal agreed to produce both Sixteen Candles and Breakfast Club, but Tanen wanted Hughes to make Sixteen Candles first because he thought it was an easier project for a first time director. The Breakfast Club was shot before Sixteen Candles was released.

Agree on all this generally.

 

I don't know the exact timing on Hughes getting his Universal deal but it was sometime after Candles was shot, Mr. Mom and National Lampoon were released and TBC went into production. I believe it was actually a three year deal not a three picture one and that Hughes was supposed to establish a comedy wing for Universal, but there was a change in power and they hated TBC because it wasn't Animal House meets Porky's.

Agree that there are reports that it was 3 year, $30M.

 

 

The reason I didn't mention anything about you running through the Brat Pack's history is that my basic point was that in the eyes of the public they didn't gain notoriety until '85. The name "Brat Pack" wasn't coined until June of '85 by that New York Magazine writer. That article is often credited with the paparazzi interest in St. Elmo's Fire's premiere and certainly didn't hurt its box office.

 

I know when the Brat Pack as a group got famous. My point again is the Molly was over before it, as were others. Writers and books want to put it over as all happening together in a magical fashion, and that's not the case.

 

Buried it in February? It opened in a reasonable number of theaters for February, more than Witness did the prior weak with Ford coming off four monster hits in his prior five movies. Buried is January.

If the worst time to release a film is January then the second worst time to release a film is February. No studio releases a film in February that they care about.

So if they don't care about movies release in Feb, why was the next Hughes+Molly movie released in Feb as well? Stallone would release a Feb as well as he was just coming off his peak (only one underperformed movie after his peak). It's hard to image that the the studio didn't give a shit about it given Sly's salary. They could have easily have pushed it in March if that was a massively critical difference.

 

I'm not pimping Feb as a great month. It's not May-Jul, nor Nov-Dec. But it's not the burial that January is, or that a similar movie getting released in September would be when kids are heading back to school.

 

 

My comment was that it making $150M was a big surprise. We have this mental image of Sly making all these massive hits, but heading into Rambo it was just the three Rockys, none of them did that number, and even the "successful" First Blood didn't get to $50M let alone $100M. Folks thought Rambo had a chance to be a big hit. But $150M is a whole 'nother level. In the 80s prior to that: Empire, Raiders, ET, Tootsie, Jedi, Beverly Hills Cop, Ghostbusters and Indy II. Those are phenoms or sequels to phenoms.

Okay, but is it a surprise to you that it made more money than The Breakfast Club? That was my point. I don't think people in the industry would compare a film like Sixteen Candles to a blockbuster. They'd compare it to Risky Business.

I think at the time it felt like both Rambo and TBC overshot their number by about the same %. Rambo felt like it would do "Stallone hit" range of $100M with the hype, and did $150M. TBC coming off Sixteen Candles felt like it would build a bit off that, which would be $30Mish, and it hit $45M.

 

 

The theater number is cool. My thought would be to look up how many Cannonball Run II and Red Dawn opened up in the prior year, and how much money those two made. Push doesn't equal box office. Which you know.

Sure, Rambo had a clever marketing strategy playing on the 10th anniversary of the United States' withdrawal from Vietnam and created a media barrage where even Regan was commenting on the film. It was the same kind of play on American patriotism as Hogan. It was also a comparatively weak year for summer releases. But you don't open in that many cinemas unless you have big expectations.

 

I agree. But big expectations don't mean $150M expectations unless you were part of the Lucas-Spielberg pipeline at the time.

 

 

Going back to the original point:

 

Sly and MJF were bigger stars than Molly.

Sure, and going back to the original, original point, Hogan was a bigger star than Molly.

Loss has Molly as bigger.

[BrickHithouse]

You are correct.

 

Agree on all this generally.

 

Agree that there are...

 

I agree.

The Apocalypse is upon us

[Log]

I don't know about his exact level of stardom, but I want to be Bill Murray when I grow up.

 

Dude just always seems like he's having a great time.

[cm funk]

I'd venture to guess that almost everyone from my generation (born in 81) knows Hulk Hogan. Older people like my mom and my grandmother who have no knowledge at all about wrestling know Hulk Hogan. Younger people know Hulk Hogan. He was at the forefront during the biggest pop culture crossover wrestling has ever seen, and the second biggest. Local newscasts and shows like Sports Machine would cover him. Cover of Sports Illustrated! SNL, Regis, Arsenio, MTV, Leno, Howard Stern etc. etc. Movies. Tabloid coverage in the early 90s and with his show/divorce/set tape now. He's a genuine transcendent pop culture figure. Look at all the coverage Randy Savage got when he died. Hogan dwarves him as a star. When he dies he'll get writeups in Time, People, SI, The NY Times etc. etc. He'll get tons of coverage on the net and on tv.

 

Saying that someone like Molly Ringwald is more well known or more popular is just so far out there I can't believe it. She had a string of modest hits in the 80's that new audiences discover over the years. She was a star. You could even say she's an iconic 80's pop culture figure. But she hasn't really been relevant in over 25 years. I looked her up and you know what she does now? She writes novels and has recorded a few albums. How many people know that? What sort of coverage does it get? Hulk Hogan farts and he's on TMZ and all the celebrity tabloid blogs.

 

I put Hogan up there with the biggest pop culture and sports names of the last 30 years. He wasn't a bigger star than say Montana or Gretzky or Tyson I don't think, but I bet if you threw out the names or showed pictures more people would probably know him today.

 

This has nothing to do with Hogan but what the hell:

 

I'm 32. I find the idea of kids in their early 20's in general not knowing older films pretty interesting. I think you can directly trace that to the death of the video store. I grew up during the VHS boom of the 80's-mid 90's and I know for a fact that that introduced me and a lot of others to older movies. I could browse the comedy section at one of my local video stores and come across something like The Jerk and think, "I love Steve Martin, and this looks funny" and rent it. I can't tell you how many movies I discovered that way, and I know I'm not unique in that experience. First Arnold movie I saw in the theater was T2, but I'd seen all his 80's movies on VHS. I remember renting Black Sunday specifically because the cover looked cool. As I got into my teens and high school years and got more into cinema as art I started watching stuff like The Godfather, Apocalypse Now, Serpico, Cuckoo's Nest, Kubrick etc. etc. Once I watched all the best stuff from the 70's, I started going back to the 60's.....and I still discover more and more old movies to this day, stuff that I couldn't have seen back then because it was probably too obscure or niche to be carried at one of the video stores.

 

If you didn't grow up with that tactile experience of browsing through the video store looking at covers and boxes you might not have watched as many movies growing up, or certainly not as many older movies, unless you had a parent/sibling/friend who introduced them to you. Sure, there's Netflix and IMDB....but with all the media out there pulling at kids attention....video games, internet, tv, music.....I totally buy that kids today don't watch as many films or don't have the interest to go back and explore cinema history.

 

To jdw's point about how he wouldn't have known or cared about movies from the 64-68 period growing up, I bet that's less true than you think. That period was full of all-time classics that have obtained iconic status. Planet of the Apes. Night of the Living Dead. 2001. Rosemary's Baby. Cool Hand Luke. The Graduate. The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. The Jungle Book. The Sound of Music. Even if you hadn't seen all these movies, I bet you'd at least heard of them.

[jackwebb]

Going back to the original point:

 

Sly and MJF were bigger stars than Molly.

Sure, and going back to the original, original point, Hogan was a bigger star than Molly.

Loss has Molly as bigger.

 

Hogan might have a similar star level as her just based on the sex tape.

[JerryvonKramer]

I'm 32. I find the idea of kids in their early 20's in general not knowing older films pretty interesting.

I've talked about this with a few people here now and this is interesting enough for me to be hosting a roundtable discussion on it next week with people young (18-21) and old (in their 50s and 60s) attending.

 

I've found quite a hard split on those who agree with my theory that it's more than simply a generational gap but down to a shift in delivery mechanism -- from TV (passive audience all watching same stuff at same time) to internet (active audience watching different stuff at different time) and those who think that it's basically no different from any other generational gap.

 

I've been interested to learn that several books and studies have been done on this phenomena; it's the sort of thing they study in "Communciations" -- a discipline I'm only vaguely aware of. It's not that surprising to learn that "my theory" is not original, I'm not the first to make this observation. There is a lot of stuff on the effects of the internet and the "fragmentation of culture" or in other books, the "diversified dominant".

 

I don't know what this roundtable will achieve but it will be interesting to hear it from the point of view of actual 20 year olds.

 

I brought this up with my American students this past Monday and we talked about it for like an hour, they were pretty into the discussion. And they were also largely split 50/50 on "my theory". If enough people are interested, I can report back next week after this roundtable takes place. I'm going to try to remain neutral as the chair, but as anyone who has listened to my podcasts knows, sometimes I can get carried away and cant' resist ...