Undertaker > Hogan

[cheapshot]

From today's Observer update:

 

The AV Club web site is doing a 1993 week and they listed the movie Mr. Nanny starring Hulk Hogan as the least essential and worst of pop culture for that year.

[ohtani's jacket]

I like the video shop theory for the nostalgia of it, but you can do all that and more with the internet. I just think it's a personality type that's interested in history and research and takes hobbies seriously, but if you have time PM me the results of the discussion.

[jdw]

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.

 

What I wrote:

 

I have countless examples, but this is just from the past 3-4 weeks of the new semester that I can remember. Usually between 50-60 in the lecture hall.

 

Godfather: no one

Seventh Seal: no one

Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey: 2 people

Labyrinth: 2 people

"Have you heard of Bill Murray?": 4 people

Ghostbusters: 3 people

The Princess Bride: 4 people

Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves: 1 person

Mary Poppins: 7 people (heartbreaking for me!!)

 

Some dates:

 

1957 = Seventh Seal: no one

1964 = Mary Poppins: 7 people (heartbreaking for me!!)

1972 = Godfather: no one

1985 = Ghostbusters = "Have you heard of Bill Murray?": 4 people / 3 people

1986 = Labyrinth: 2 people

1987 = The Princess Bride: 4 people

1991 = Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey: 2 people

1991 = Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves: 1 person

 

They're kind of old.

 

20 years ago is a hell of a long time ago.

 

18-22 year old.

 

For me, that would have covered 1984-88. 20 years prior to that would have been 1964-68. Godfather is 41 years ago, which for me would have been 1943-47.

 

I don't think *a lot* of kids my age would have know the semi-obscure films like Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, Bill & Ted and Labyrinth from the 1964-68 range. By semi-obscure I don't mean that those weren't hits (though Labyrinth wasn't). But more in the sense that none of them even had much staying time within their own era. RH:POT was a bit of a throw away blockbuster. B&T was fun for it's time, but there are all sorts of goofy comedy's that come and go like that (such as Police Academy that was a big hit). So... that's not terribly surprising. Maybe someone was a big enough movie fan of 1964-68 to know what their equivs were, but I'm not sure.

 

Ghostbusters was huge at it's time. But I'm not sure that it was still huge in say 1995, other than for those of us who had some fond memories of it. Murray's career ran aground. Ackroyd's went bust. There wasn't any big reason for it to stay in younger folk's minds, other than the iconic symbol.

 

Going back further... not may at the age of 18-22 would know the equiv of Godfather from 1943-47 in 1984-88. I'm looking at the Oscar nominated Best Picture movies from 1943-47, and Casablanca stands out to me as the most likely to be known by my peers in 1984-88, though there are other great films. Kids in the UK in that same time frame would have a lay up: Henry V, because it's an iconic movie. But going beyond those... how many 18-22 kids would have cared much about those older movies, to the point of knowing riffs from them? Not many. :/

 

I think sometimes we think what we know, or how we are, is what others probably know or how they are. I toss out Animal House references at work, to friends, on boards, etc. But... it was a 1978 movie. I was 12 when I saw it for the first time. Most of the folks on the board weren't even born at the time. They have their own Animal House... and since we have so many different ages, there are probably several different Animal House equivs for the posters here.

 

It's at times jarring that people don't know that, or who Rod Carew and Reggie Jackson are, or for whom Fleetwood Mack is an oldies group. [insert joke of me going to a John Fogerty concert a couple of weeks ago and having a blast]

 

My past, your past, or collective past... it doesn't mean much to folks today. But my father's past growing up in the 40s and 50s didn't mean a whole helluva lot to me, other than the really big things (WWII, Korea, etc).

 

Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, Bill & Ted and Labyrinth

 

vs

 

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.

 

I'm trying to figure out which ones might be equiv.

 

Labyrinth really was a bomb here in the US, and not one with critical acclaim or lasting impact. I don't think it's any of those.

 

Bill & Ted was a "hit", but the #32 movie of the year in terms of box office ($40M in a year with 9 $100M+ movies), and it's legacy kind of got turfed by Wayne's World three years later being a much bigger hit. Maybe in theory that's Rosemary's Baby since it was topped massively by Exorcist a few year later in what became the iconic movie of the genre for the era, but Rosie was a much bitter hit than Bill & Ted:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_1968_...e_United_States

 

That said, I don't think a lot of my friends in college knew dick about Rosemary's Baby.

 

Robin Hood was a really big hit: #2 for it's year. It's strange, but the movie has really little legacy for reaching that level... other than say that silly Bryan Adams song. I think there may be two major reasons for that: (i) Costner's iconic movies from that era are Dances With Wolves and Bull Durham from a legacy/longstanding viewpoint, and (ii) there are a lot of Robin Hood's that the character is a bit more iconic than that movie can get to.

 

Can that happen? Hawaii allegedly was the biggest box office hit of 1966 as far as new releases. That, or Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? or The Bible: In the Beginning. None of those movies meant a thing to the average 18-22 year olds in 1986. Cleopatra was the Liz & Dick movie. Ten Commandments was the Biblical movie. Hawaii... that was a Michner book to me, and I don't think I've ever seen the movie.

 

I'd agree that most of the #2 movies of the year in the 60s would be something that I probably would have known. But I tended to be a bigger fan of history (of pretty much any history) than most of my peers, and a bigger movie fan.

 

Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, Bill & Ted and Labyrinth... they're not really big movies 23-26 years later. Pretty confident that would be the case if we find the true 1964-68 peers for them.

[JerryvonKramer]

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.

[Jesse Ewiak]

Ironically, you'd probably get better results for Scarface here, because it's become "the" movie for rappers and wannabee gangstas of all creeds and colors to reference.

[Loss]

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.

 

Not quite "bigger" and that's not really the point I intended to make. I think Hogan is probably the more enduring celebrity nearly 30 years after both of them peaked, but I do think Hulk Hogan at his most popular couldn't touch Molly Ringwald at her most popular. Wrestling is such a niche subculture hobby that appeals to a smaller segment of the population, while most people watch movies. Hulk Hogan was a big fish in a small pond.

 

Just by the nature of what they are involved in, any actor/actress du jour will be more popular than the most popular wrestler. Wrestling means very little in the big picture of pop culture, which is the point I was trying to make. He's hardly a pop culture icon. He's a sidebar. He was doing 1-800-COLLECT commercials a few years back with Alf, a show that averaged 13 million viewers weekly in its *least* popular season (and 21 million viewers weekly at its peak). I'd put Alf above Hogan too, for that reason -- he was a bigger deal at the time that he was a big deal. Molly Ringwald was a bigger deal at the time she was a big deal.

 

Yes, Hogan is still a footnote today, probably more so than Alf or Molly Ringwald, but the point I was trying to make is that I think the wrestling bubble was causing people to overstate Hogan's stardom. And even things like Gremlins, Cyndi Lauper, the end of the sexual revolution, hair metal, the keytar and The Goonies are more synonymous with the 80s.

 

In terms of 80s figures, Michael Jackson is a pop culture icon. Madonna is a pop culture icon. The term should be reserved for people at that level.

[JerryvonKramer]

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.

[JerryvonKramer]

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".

[ohtani's jacket]

Comics are a niche subculture yet Batman, Superman and Spider Man are household names. Hogan's the same.

[Loss]

They wouldn't be without the television shows and movies to accompany them.

[cheapshot]

They wouldn't be without the television shows and movies to accompany them.

Neither would Ringwald.

[Loss]

Of course not. She had a bigger medium supporting her than pro wrestling. I can't figure out if you're disagreeing with me or not.

[ohtani's jacket]

They wouldn't be without the television shows and movies to accompany them.

Neither would Hogan.

[cheapshot]

Of course not. She had a bigger medium supporting her than pro wrestling. I can't figure out if you're disagreeing with me or not.

The medium itself is bigger than Pro Wrestling, agreed. But 33 million people watched Hogan on NBC. I don't think 33 million people saw a Molly Ringwald film in theatres.

[JerryvonKramer]

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.

[Loss]

One time. For one match. It's a big deal. I'm not trying to downplay that. I'm pointing out that it's wrestling. It's a niche. Hogan is the biggest wrestling star of all time. That means very little in the big non-wrestling picture of popular culture. I feel like I'm repeating myself over and over, and people are responding and saying things like "Yeah, but Hogan is a household name" and "Hogan had a mustache and recognizable look", points I never even tried to dispute.

 

78,000 or 93,173 people saw Wrestlemania III live, with many more watching on pay-per-view. Probably more people than saw The Princess Bride at the time. Yet Andre the Giant is more famous for his role in The Princess Bride than anything he did in wrestling.

[Loss]

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.

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.

[ohtani's jacket]

78,000 or 93,173 people saw Wrestlemania III live, with many more watching on pay-per-view. Probably more people than saw The Princess Bride at the time. Yet Andre the Giant is more famous for his role in The Princess Bride than anything he did in wrestling.

Says who?

 

You're acting like people don't know what pro-wrestling is. The average person knows what pro-wrestling is and likely knows a few names synonymous with it. Hogan and Andre are more synonymous with pro-wrestling than Molly Ringwald is with movies.

 

On your greater point, just because there were many bigger stars than Hogan in the 80s doesn't mean he wasn't part of the cultural landscape. I don't really see how he was any less culturally significant than the Goonies or Gremlins. You could lump them all together as far as children were concerned.

[vannaboy]

An aside, but I'd put Macho Man ahead of everybody except Hogan as far as "big star". When TIME magazine does an Obit with a pic and "guest writer", it means you transcended wrestling.

I would put Slaughter higher on the list. Where? I have no ideal but just seems like he should be up there.

 

I love Savage, but I can't see an argument for him above Andre. In terms of how I would define a star I would put him safely behind Bruno, Austin and as much as I hate to admit it, The Rock as well.

 

This is really tentative, and I could be persuaded otherwise, but my tentative WWE depth chart in terms of overall value to the promotion/stardom/whatever the fuck term you want to use would be something like this:

 

1. Hogan

2. Austin

3. Bruno (I could possibly be convinced to flip Bruno and Austin)

4. Andre (I could see arguments for Andre higher than Bruno and Austin on an overall list not exclusive to WWE)

5. The Rock

6. Savage

7. Cena

8. Taker

9. Backlund (To me maybe the hardest guy to rate and I have the least confidence in his placement)

10. Piper

11. Foley

12. HHH

13. Michaels

14. Bret

15. Misterio

16. Morales

17. Graham

18. Orndorff

19. Slaughter

20. Dibiase

 

This is off the cuff without looking at roster list and it's possible I'm forgetting guys that deserve inclusion. There are other guys like Angle, Eddie, Batista, Edge, Jeff Hardy, Valentine, Patera, and others who I could see on that latter portion of this list. Maybe if I get bored I could try and draw it further.

 

[Loss]

Because pro wrestling fans watch pro wrestling and everyone watches movies and television. Knowing who Hogan is doesn't really mean anything more than simply knowing who he is. I think you are underrating the stigma associated with watching wrestling, and overestimating how many people watch or care about pro wrestling.

[El-P]

Comics are a niche subculture yet Batman, Superman and Spider Man are household names. Hogan's the same.

This.

I have never read any comics whatsoever. Yet I always knew about Batman, Superman and Spiderman.

[JerryvonKramer]

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.

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.

[Loss]

I don't disagree with any of that, Jerry.

[Yo-Yo's Roomie]

Because pro wrestling fans watch pro wrestling and everyone watches movies and television. Knowing who Hogan is doesn't really mean anything more than simply knowing who he is. I think you are underrating the stigma associated with watching wrestling, and overestimating how many people watch or care about pro wrestling.

I think you're underestimating how people can seap into the public conciousness. For example, I've never watched a game of basketball in my life, but I always knew who Shaq was. And basketball was very much a niche in England when I was growing up. If you think Shaq is too big a star to be a fair comparison, let's try another. I know who 'New York' is, and I never watched her show. Honestly. You don't have to directly consume a medium to be aware of people associated with it.

 

None of which answers the question of whether Hogan was bigger than Ringwald at their 80s height. Without trusting the testimony of those that were present for those heights (I'm a little too young), how can we really know? Just for fun, who would be Hogan's equivalent in the current pop culture climate? Honey Boo Boo? Or is that a bit unfair on the Hulkster? Who would Ringwald's equivalent be? K-Stew? Maybe Emma Watson for someone more closely associated with a specific series of films- 'the Brat Pack films', 'the Potter films'?

[S.L.L.]

Comics are a niche subculture yet Batman, Superman and Spider Man are household names. Hogan's the same.

They wouldn't be without the television shows and movies to accompany them.

 

Is there a reason people disagreeing with Loss are ignoring this point? I mean, other than the most obvious and cynical ones? Because there are people posting responses patting OJ on the back for his insight, and acting like Loss didn't have anything to come back with, and that's weird to me. Do you guys think Loss' point here doesn't merit rebuttal? If so, why?

 

I mean, I think if you asked most people who, say, The Joker was, I'm sure most of them would tell you he's a comic book supervillian. They know that much. But if you asked them to describe something specific that The Joker had done, how many people would talk about him beating Jason Todd to death with a crowbar, and how many people would start in on "Did I ever tell you how I got these scars?" or "I'm gonna make this pencil disappear" or, on the outside, "Did you ever dance with the devil in the pale moonlight?"? Would Jason Todd's violent and incredibly well-known amongst comic book fandom death have more traction amongst the general public than Cesar Romero painting over his mustache?

 

How many of those people would even know who Jason Todd is?

 

There's a difference between being able to successfully identify what medium a celebrity or character originates from and actually knowing who they are in any sort of meaningful way. If I'm reading Loss correctly, the big thing he's saying is that people know Hulk Hogan as the definitive professional wrestler...and that's it.