|
Post by RadcapRadsley on Mar 19, 2015 14:58:09 GMT -5
Name one Hulk Hogan movie as profitable as Marine 3 or 4 or that was a must see record breaking hit for cable like Christmas Bounty I have no idea how to answer this since I can't tell if you're serious or not. It is serious Hulk Hogan may be a bigger icon of the sport but The Miz is a bonafied money earning leading man. Every film with Hulk Hogan in the lead was a bonafied flop.
|
|
|
Post by MichaelMartini on Mar 19, 2015 16:28:10 GMT -5
I have no idea how to answer this since I can't tell if you're serious or not. It is serious Hulk Hogan may be a bigger icon of the sport but The Miz is a bonafied money earning leading man. Every film with Hulk Hogan in the lead was a bonafied flop. Omg, you're serious? Hogan never conquered Hollywood but at least his movies made it to theaters whereas Miz's are straight to video. No Holds Barred made over 16 million in '89 dollars (which would equal over 30 million adjusting for inflation). Marine 4 made less than 2 million.
|
|
percymania
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Percymania will live forever! Oh yeah!
Posts: 17,296
|
Post by percymania on Mar 19, 2015 20:08:04 GMT -5
I say LT. Miz deserved it certainly. Moreso than Reigns.
|
|
|
Post by Starshine on Mar 19, 2015 20:19:03 GMT -5
I have no idea how to answer this since I can't tell if you're serious or not. It is serious Hulk Hogan may be a bigger icon of the sport but The Miz is a bonafied money earning leading man. Every film with Hulk Hogan in the lead was a bonafied flop. Being a movie star ≠ being a wrestling star. Outside of The Rock, there's no real correlation between the two. Just because someone in wrestling stars in a successful movie doesn't automatically mean people want to pay to see them wrestle.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Mar 19, 2015 21:37:06 GMT -5
It is serious Hulk Hogan may be a bigger icon of the sport but The Miz is a bonafied money earning leading man. Every film with Hulk Hogan in the lead was a bonafied flop. Omg, you're serious? Hogan never conquered Hollywood but at least his movies made it to theaters whereas Miz's are straight to video. No Holds Barred made over 16 million in '89 dollars (which would equal over 30 million adjusting for inflation). Marine 4 made less than 2 million. Technically, including distribution fees, No Holds Barred only just about broke even. Both Vince and Hogan have admitted there was next to no profit - and that's two guys who never admit to failing. Since that was Hogan's biggest "hit", looks like Miz (whose movies have all made a modest profit) is in fact a more bankable actor.
|
|
|
Post by Saul Goodman on Mar 20, 2015 7:44:49 GMT -5
Easter was before Wrestlemania 11, I remember riding with my parents to my grandmothers house for Easter that year. The trip took around three hours and we listened to a sports radio program in the three hour trip. Anyways, the radio program hyped the shit out of Wrestlemania 11, they mention it around 10 times in three hours. The only match they mention was LT VS Bam Bam Bigelow. WWF had no true stars during that time, LT was by far the biggest name on the card. LT was the reason why Wrestlemania 11 had a decent buy rate. The match was also talked about on the news, sports networks and talk shows. It was the first time I heard the WWF getting media coverage. LT deserved to be in the main event. The main event at Wrestlemania is a match that the WWE feels that they can get the best buy rate from. It doesn't matter if the match would suck or not.
The only person who I feel did not "deserve" the main event at Wrestlemania was Hogan at WM 9. If the WWF would have hyped Hogan VS Yokozuna before the card took place then he would have deserved it. Since the WWF told us that the main event is Hart VS Yokozuna people bought the event thinking that is the main event, Hogan was scheduled.
|
|
|
Post by Slingshot Suplay on Mar 20, 2015 10:15:09 GMT -5
Miz did not deserve it. He was another guy who was chosen by the office because he was liked, not because he was the best performer in the WWE. Miz was a good talker, but his ring work and match quality didn't equal his talking ability. To be a Main evener, you need to be able to take your work to another level to back up the hype, and while the WWE had a lot of faith in the miz, he ultimately didn't do it which is why he rightfully fell out of the picture soon after. Miz was booked to be a tough guy, which was laughable because his ring style and aggressiveness didn't really change from when he was a mid carder. I don't buy into the WWE-fed line that Miz "worked harder than anyone else, which is why he deserved it". CM Punk was way better on the mic and in the ring, even with the New Nexus. Cody was doing some tremendous work in the ring and on the mic as "Disfigured" Cody Rhodes. Del Rio was better than Miz but was in a feud with Edge, and he was hot until he lost to Edge at the same Wrestlemania in question. Morrison was killing it night in and night out at that time as well with Ziggler, and while neither were great talkers, they delivered in the ring, which ultimately matters at a show as big as Maina. I'd argue that Punk, Morrison, Ziggler, Cody Rhodes, and Del Rio were much more deserving than Miz because they worked harder and consistently delivered more quality in that span than the Miz did.
|
|
|
Post by MichaelMartini on Mar 20, 2015 11:47:27 GMT -5
Omg, you're serious? Hogan never conquered Hollywood but at least his movies made it to theaters whereas Miz's are straight to video. No Holds Barred made over 16 million in '89 dollars (which would equal over 30 million adjusting for inflation). Marine 4 made less than 2 million. Technically, including distribution fees, No Holds Barred only just about broke even. Both Vince and Hogan have admitted there was next to no profit - and that's two guys who never admit to failing. Since that was Hogan's biggest "hit", looks like Miz (whose movies have all made a modest profit) is in fact a more bankable actor. You're talking about business. This is about the bigger star. Since more people saw No Holds Barred, Suburban Commando, Rocky 3, and he was the star of two tv shows I would say that makes him more of a star. I can't see how much of a profit Marine 3 could've made only grossing two million. What was the budget? What did the actors get paid? 2 million is peanuts these days. I think them claiming it was profitable had to be spin for the shareholders. Besides, if WWE films are profitable it would make HHH, Kane, Orton and Cena bigger movie stars than Miz.
|
|
|
Post by audiencewatching on Mar 20, 2015 11:56:22 GMT -5
Roman Reigns.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Mar 20, 2015 13:26:14 GMT -5
Technically, including distribution fees, No Holds Barred only just about broke even. Both Vince and Hogan have admitted there was next to no profit - and that's two guys who never admit to failing. Since that was Hogan's biggest "hit", looks like Miz (whose movies have all made a modest profit) is in fact a more bankable actor. You're talking about business. This is about the bigger star. Since more people saw No Holds Barred, Suburban Commando, Rocky 3, and he was the star of two tv shows I would say that makes him more of a star. I can't see how much of a profit Marine 3 could've made only grossing two million. What was the budget? What did the actors get paid? 2 million is peanuts these days. I think them claiming it was profitable had to be spin for the shareholders. Besides, if WWE films are profitable it would make HHH, Kane, Orton and Cena bigger movie stars than Miz. Well duh, of course Hogan is the bigger star, but you're the one who brought business into the conversation, and business-wise Hogan was death on film. According to figures independent of WWE (negating your "spin" claim), Marine 3's budget was $1.5m and grossed $3.5m domestic DVD/BD sales in the first two months after release (worldwide figures add another $1-1.5m on top of that). That's more of a profit than Hogan's films, which broke even or made a slight loss (No Holds Barred), lost $5m+ (Suburban Commando), and lost $6m+ (Mr. Nanny). Hell, even none of his direct-to-video releases broke $250k. Austin, Kane, and Cena's movies made a bigger profit than Miz's, this is true, but Marine 3 the most-profitable WWE film with a wrestler in the lead role since The Marine (including HHH and Orton's movies).
|
|
|
Post by Stuart Baggs The Brand on Mar 20, 2015 14:16:53 GMT -5
Came to say Lawrence Taylor. Couldn't be arsed to check seven pages. Soz.
|
|
|
Post by MichaelMartini on Mar 20, 2015 15:03:55 GMT -5
You're talking about business. This is about the bigger star. Since more people saw No Holds Barred, Suburban Commando, Rocky 3, and he was the star of two tv shows I would say that makes him more of a star. I can't see how much of a profit Marine 3 could've made only grossing two million. What was the budget? What did the actors get paid? 2 million is peanuts these days. I think them claiming it was profitable had to be spin for the shareholders. Besides, if WWE films are profitable it would make HHH, Kane, Orton and Cena bigger movie stars than Miz. Well duh, of course Hogan is the bigger star, but you're the one who brought business into the conversation, and business-wise Hogan was death on film. According to figures independent of WWE (negating your "spin" claim), Marine 3's budget was $1.5m and grossed $3.5m domestic DVD/BD sales in the first two months after release (worldwide figures add another $1-1.5m on top of that). That's more of a profit than Hogan's films, which broke even or made a slight loss (No Holds Barred), lost $5m+ (Suburban Commando), and lost $6m+ (Mr. Nanny). Hell, even none of his direct-to-video releases broke $250k. Austin, Kane, and Cena's movies made a bigger profit than Miz's, this is true, but Marine 3 the most-profitable WWE film with a wrestler in the lead role since The Marine (including HHH and Orton's movies). I didn't bring business into it. I mentioned box office because it related to how many people paid to see the movie (NHB), which is obviously more than Marine 3. More people paid to see Hogan than Miz in a movie, making him a bigger star. You brought business into it when you mentioned profitability. If NHB didn't make a profit at 30 million that's a business failing, not Hogans since that's a decent sized hit in 89. Btw, I'm using IMDB for my figures. Where are you getting yours from?
|
|
|
Post by Heinz Doofenschmirtz on Mar 20, 2015 16:50:52 GMT -5
You're talking about business. This is about the bigger star. Since more people saw No Holds Barred, Suburban Commando, Rocky 3, and he was the star of two tv shows I would say that makes him more of a star. I can't see how much of a profit Marine 3 could've made only grossing two million. What was the budget? What did the actors get paid? 2 million is peanuts these days. I think them claiming it was profitable had to be spin for the shareholders. Besides, if WWE films are profitable it would make HHH, Kane, Orton and Cena bigger movie stars than Miz. Well duh, of course Hogan is the bigger star, but you're the one who brought business into the conversation, and business-wise Hogan was death on film. According to figures independent of WWE (negating your "spin" claim), Marine 3's budget was $1.5m and grossed $3.5m domestic DVD/BD sales in the first two months after release (worldwide figures add another $1-1.5m on top of that). That's more of a profit than Hogan's films, which broke even or made a slight loss (No Holds Barred), lost $5m+ (Suburban Commando), and lost $6m+ (Mr. Nanny). Hell, even none of his direct-to-video releases broke $250k. Austin, Kane, and Cena's movies made a bigger profit than Miz's, this is true, but Marine 3 the most-profitable WWE film with a wrestler in the lead role since The Marine (including HHH and Orton's movies). There's no way the budgets for the Marine movies are accurate. That's what they cost to produce. That's not what was spent on them. You need to double budget to include PR. I'm not arguing that Hogan is the bigger star but I'll guarantee the budget to BO numbers of the Marine movies are victims of creative accounting.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Mar 21, 2015 8:19:32 GMT -5
I didn't bring business into it. I mentioned box office because it related to how many people paid to see the movie (NHB), which is obviously more than Marine 3. More people paid to see Hogan than Miz in a movie, making him a bigger star. You brought business into it when you mentioned profitability. If NHB didn't make a profit at 30 million that's a business failing, not Hogans since that's a decent sized hit in 89. That's a fair point, and no argument that more people paid to see Hogan's movies. Box Office Mojo, The-Numbers.com, European home video sales chart archives, and WWE investor reports. IMDb is only as good as the number of people who take the time to contribute to it, and most of WWE's films fall under the radar when it comes to up-to-date budgets, grosses, etc. For No Holds Barred I'll admit I'm going on anecdotal evidence it didn't profit, but since Vince and Hogan are the two who said it didn't I'm more likely to take them at their word on their failures than I am on their successes. There's no way the budgets for the Marine movies are accurate. That's what they cost to produce. That's not what was spent on them. You need to double budget to include PR. What PR? Literally all of WWE's in-house films since they stopped putting them in theatres are promoted on WWE programming and social media outlets. They're not buying TV spots during Monday Night Football or anything. After that the only real cost is the physical copies that ship to stores, which isn't eating up the cost of the sales.
|
|
Push R Truth
Patti Mayonnaise
Unique and Special Snowflake, and a pants-less heathen.
Perpetually Constipated
Posts: 39,329
|
Post by Push R Truth on Mar 21, 2015 8:23:36 GMT -5
Was the Miz in Gremlins 2?
No. That means he's not in the same league as Hogan.
|
|
|
Post by Kay Faban on Mar 21, 2015 9:56:32 GMT -5
Put hogan in some low budget staging to DVD movies and he would have done the same or better.
This is silly.
|
|
khali
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,675
|
Post by khali on Mar 21, 2015 10:27:13 GMT -5
It's easily Hogan at Wrestlemania IX. He made the two guys in the actual title match look like complete dweebs just so he could have a pointless run with the title.
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Mar 21, 2015 12:56:03 GMT -5
Came to say Lawrence Taylor. Couldn't be arsed to check seven pages. Soz. Avatar and post work so well together.
|
|