Someone intelligently refute this logic

[Shadowmancer]

I love the misconception that Andre made Hogan. "Mr. Wonderful" Paul Orndorff, "Rowdy" Roddy Piper and to some degree Nick Bockwinkle made Hogan.

 

[Papa Shango]

Seriously, who the fuck is this Hulk Hogan you guys keep talking about?

 

[Slyfox696]

Whilst the logic that a wrestler is there to draw fans/money is sound; judging a wrestler's material worth exclusively on how highly he draws is flawed, and dare I say it, slightly naive.

You see the problem with your logic is that it's the same as saying that Dannial Radcliff (that kid who plays Harry Potter in the films) is the greatest actor of all time because all of his films (to which he was the 'top face' if you will) drew exceptional amounts of money.

It depends on for what reason he was hired. If all actors are hired to make the most money and the actor continues to do it for decades, then yeah, I guess he has a claim.

And, since all wrestlers are hired for the sole purpose of making their employer money, the wrestler who does their job the best is the best wrestler.

Booking: A wrestler who wins a lot will draw far batter than one who doesn't. To use your man Hogan as an example, then Hulkster was given a win/loss record not seen since Ed Louis, and to deny that this assisted him to get, and stay, over; is to kid ones self.
Similarly, a main eventer will pretty much always outdraw a mid carder. Since one has had the benefit of the push, and one hasn't. That doesn't instinctively mean that every main eventer is better then every mid carder. (If they'd given Batista's push to... I dunno... Snitsky, the ratings would have stayed more or less the same)

Yes, but WHY was Hogan given that record? WHY was he in the main-event? Because he drew. There have been many guys all over the country in various companies that have been main-eventers that didn't draw like Hogan.

I guess you could say it's a chicken vs. egg argument, but I think the fact that other people have been in Hogan's place and not done as well lends more credit to WHY Hogan was in the main-event.

Gimmick: A small factor, but none the less noteworthy. A wrestler given a good gimmick is going to get over faster, and draw higher, than one with a bad gimmick. Since I used Hogan as my example in the last section, I'll call him up again. Hogan was an all conquering superhero and "real American". Do you think he'd have succeeded and become such an icon if he'd been given then gimmick of... "foot fetishist" or "man with bad teeth".

And, again, there have been PLENTY of wrestlers with that gimmick. How come none of them were successful? Hogan also played heel during the WCW, and led the second great boom of his career. How come nobody drew like him then when his character was heel? It's not like he was the first face to turn his back on the fans.

Market Variables: I don't know shit about how the market affects TV ratings or show attendance or the shifting of merchandise. But I'll bet my right arm that it does.

And Hogan boomed wrestling during good times and bad.

Product Quality: Year, I've gotten bored of my list so I'm jumping right ahead to the big one. A well written and produced show will draw higher than a crap one, regardless of talent. You could compile a roster of the greatest names throughout history, in there prime. And then hand complete creative control of the product over to... ... Snitsky; and your product would bomb. Probably.

But, product quality can ONLY be measured by one thing...number of fans who pay for your shows. And, since more people payed for Hogans shows than anyone else, using your own argument, that must mean he is of the highest quality.

4: Well with 3 chopped up into little pieces, and my attention span officially depleted, I don't much feel like going to town on 4 as well, so I'll just say that there is more a wrestler can do for a company than simply draw. He can for example, not be a dick backstage. A wrestler who draws to the moon is great, but not if he gets in the way of others and sabotages "their" ability to draw.

Talent that is there to make others look better are only jobbers because they are not good enough to main-event. I mean, if The Brooklyn Brawler had actually gotten over with the fans and had drawn money, don't you think he would have been pushed up the card?

The best wrestler is the one who does what he is hired to do, and does it better than anyone else.

To continue with what a few of the other people were saying, the amount of money a wrestler draws depends on a lot of things, not just raw entertainment power. I bet if that the great depression happened to be during the 1980s, then Hogan wouldn't have drawn a fraction of what he did.

Actually, there was a depression in the 80s, and wrestling still did well with Hulk Hogan in the lead. Thanks for proving my point.

Additionally, if say...Billy Graham had been a few years younger, or if Ultimate Warrior or Randy Savage would have been a few years older, they could have theoretically been 'Hulk Hogan.' they needed a big charasmatic guy to be their 'god' character babyface. Realistically Kevin Nash could have been Hulk Hogan if he was older.

That's called burying your head in the sand. You're saying that Hulk Hogan was lucky to do what he did. That's not true. And we know it's not true because Hogan was main-evented in 4 completely different promotions in his career and drew good money for all of them.

Also what if Andre the Giant wouldnt have had gigantism or just never got discovered by a wrestling promoter. Hogan would have never faced him at WM III. Arguably, WM III MADE Hulk Hogan who he became. Beating someone who was, by nature of his physical presence, seemingly unbeatable, Hogan was made into a mega star. No Andre, no Hulk Hogan (as we know him today)

No offense, but that's silly. Hulk Hogan had already been World Champion for 4 continuous years when he faced Andre. Hulkamania had already been major, and wrestling was already booming with Hogan in the lead.

That's a terrible myth.



I don't want to get bogged down talking about Hulk Hogan, although I understand that him as an example is the best example there is. But, every wrestler is hired to make money, and the best make more money than anyone else.

 

[Shocky]

Daniel Radcliffe isn't the draw, Harry Potter is the draw. It depends on how strong the character is. Nobody would have paid to see Terry Bollea strut his stuff in the ring, but Terry Bollea playing Hulk Hogan, now thats something to see. Very rarely do you get a situation where people pay almost exclusively to see the person playing the character. Most people pay because they are invested in the character, not the actor.

 

[Papa Shango]

I'd also like to argue the claim that "Hogan got lucky". Yes, Vince McMahon essentially hand-picked Hogan to be "the top guy" to carry the WWF. He wanted a big guy, lots of muscles, an "Real American". But it's not like he saw Terry Bollea in the streets and said "That guy's enourmous, I bet he'll draw loads of money." He picked Hulk Hogan because he had already proven to way over with the fans in Japan and the AWA. Vince chose him because he was already proven to be a star, and knew that he could turn him into a Megastar, a legend. A fair argue could be made that Vince made Hulk Hogan an immortal legend, but before that, Hogan was already a contemporary star.

 

[Shocky]

And one could also make the argument that if it weren't for Hulk Hogan, Vince McMahon would still be relegated to the Northeast, but that's a topic for another thread.

 

[Slim Pickns]

What does "actual wrestlers" even mean? They know twenty different kinds of suplexes? They're really really good at applying armbars?

Not only are the really good at arm drags, but they are good at having their opponents immediately arm drag them, in which they will counter with a go behind into an ankle pick which they transition into a side headlock in which their opponent will counter with a go behind into a hammerlock in which they will counter with another arm drag into a rest hold for five minutes. That is real WRESTLING.

 

[Papa Shango]

Oh, I'm so sorry, Slim, I dozed off at ankle pick. Please continue. You were saying something about arm drags and hammerlo-

 

[Slim Pickns]

Sorry, Danielson vs Joe must have put me in a coma.

 

[Papa Shango]

Samoa Joe iz awsum.

MUSCLE BUSTER!!

 

[Shadowmancer]

It is able to be debated logically. I just can't be bothered

 

[Kyphael]

Don't forget to catch Hulk Hogan vs. Galactus II next year, only on PPV and it's sure to be a wrasslin' classic! It might go something like this...

Galactus and Hulk Hogan engage in a test of strength. Galactus beats down Hulk Hogan, pisses on the American flag and calls him poopy! Hogan draws from the ruckus crowd, gets up, and gives Galactus the fingerpoint warning! Galactus dares punch The Immortal, to which Hogan responds with punches to the head! Galactus staggers, Hogan Irish whips him to the ropes and nails him with the big boot! Hogan listens in on the crowd, bounces off the ropes, drops a leg across Galactus' chest and pins him for the victory!

Afterwards, Hogan will assemble us all on his red and yellow bandwagon and backpeddle us to safety as the arena collapses! Coincidently, the bandwagon will be full of marks wearing Hulk Still Rules t-shirts and children who are the most easiest creatures to entertain on this free Earth and know next to nothing about anything!

Of course, that is wrestling, as provided by the very best and it hasn't changed in over 20 years! Can't argue facts.

 

[The Big Gunnzbowski]

I knew I should have put this in a non-spam forum.

And, what it leads me to is that Hulk Hogan is the greatest ever.



Anyways, I'm waiting for someone to defeat that logic.

Actually, if I recall correctly, Stone Cold Steve Austin made more in merchandise than Hogan did in a single year....

 

[Slyfox696]

Actually, if I recall correctly, Stone Cold Steve Austin made more in merchandise than Hogan did in a single year....

That's because Austin benefited from the merchandising machine that Hogan created.

But, if you want to talk merch, I believe that the nWo shirt is still the most highly bought shirt in wrestling history.


Oh yeah, and let's not forget that Hogan did it for 20 years...Austin did it for 4.

 

[The Big Gunnzbowski]

That's because Austin benefited from the merchandising machine that Hogan created.

But, if you want to talk merch, I believe that the nWo shirt is still the most highly bought shirt in wrestling history.


Oh yeah, and let's not forget that Hogan did it for 20 years...Austin did it for 4.

Good Point.

 

[FlairFan2003]

Hulk Hogan fans have it rough, especially these days.

Anyway, a great wrestler is someone who consistently entertains both on the mic and in the ring despite not always having great opponents or storylines.

No doubt Hogan was very successful. Anybody however who disputes Vince McMahon's promotional genius and the role it played in Hogan's initial success is delusional. Yes, Vince took pillaged other promotions for established stars to boast his product (Piper, Orndorf, Steamboat, Savage, DiBiase, etc). He also did very well with marginally talented performers like Brutus Beefcake and Ultimate Warrior giving them great gimmicks. Alas, there relative lack of talent eventually contributed to their downfall but they never would have done as well as they did without McMahon.

Brett Hart has a lot of the qualities of a great wrestler although his ability to draw big money has always been questioned. Of course, Brett had the difficult job of carrying the company after so many of it's biggest stars had either been pushed out due to the steroid investigation (Hogan) or simply gotten old without many new faces good enough to replace them. Hart was a solid performer on the mic and fabulous in the ring. The worst Brett Hart match is twice as good as Hogan's best although he doesn't match Hogan's charisma or mic skills.

Shawn Michaels is always in this discussion because he has the mic skills, the in ring skills, and the charismatic flamboyance to entertain no matter how weak his opponent or lousy his story is. However, as a draw Michaels is best remembered as the guy who was carrying the company when WCW was kicking their butts. Perhaps is Michaels had not injured his back in 1998 and missed 4 yrs maybe he would have been a bigger part of WWE's last boom period.

Savage always is remembered as the guy who constantly put Hogan over. Savage had a lot to do with making Hogan a star, as did Piper, Andre, and Bockwinkle. Fact is, Savage had all the traits and drew good money. If not for Hogan's backstage politics he might figure better in this discussion.

Steve Austin had a terrific run, one of the best ever, but the premature end to his career means it was well too short to really enter him into this conversation. He's like Terrel Davis in football, a great but SHORT run of dominance that ended too soon due to injury. He'll never figure as high in conversations about the best running backs ever as Payton, Brown, Harris, Sanders, Smith do.

HHH may be in this conversation when his career is done but he'll have to "give back" the way Michaels has (at least lately, his reputation earlier in his career wasn't very good). Otherwise, fair or not, he'll always be marked as the guy who married into the company's top spot.

Undertaker deserves consideration too although the fact he's always been the company's No 2 or No 3 guy (behind Hart, Michaels, Austin, Rock, now HHH) hurts him. He doesn't have the long run as the top guy but he's definately sold his share of merchandise and his biggest feuds have drawn money. A longer time at the very top would have elevated him in this discussion. He's kinda like Dusty Rhodes, extremely charismatic and talented in the ring and on the mic but usually the guy right underneath the top spot (for him it was Race and Flair).

Hogan fans hate the fact Flair gets more respect in this discussion than he does. Fact is Flair excelled at every facet even if Hogan with the mammoth McMahon promotional machine got more mainstream press. The fact that Flair helped elevate the careers of guys like Sting and Luger (as well as Batista and Randy Orton) while Hogan is roundly criticized as holding back anyone who might one day rival him in popularity is always what seals the deal for Hogan bashers. Flair always ranks above Hogan in this conversation for the perception he gave something back by helping other ppl become superstars, guys who could draw, sell merchandise, and make promotions a lot of money. He did it all and made other ppl look good. If Hogan had "given back" more maybe he'd get more respect. Hogan deserves credit for excelling with McMahon's help, instead of being a short term wonder like more marginal Beefcake types. It proves he did have considerable talent overall, even if he's lacking in certain areas.

Of course, I understand Hogan's stance. Wrestling is a tough business where guys don't have unions to negotiate for them, don't have health insurance, and don't have pensions. Brett Hart took a kick the wrong way against Goldberg and never wrestled again. Austin fell the wrong way on his neck at a house show against Owen Hart and never fully recovered. Now he's done. Arn Anderson wrestled Luger hundreds of times over 10 years but one missed spot left him partially paralyzed in his left arm. Michaels sacrificed his body constantly for big spots in matches and sat out 4 yrs in his prime rehabbing the injuries. Flair's lucky all those big falls he used to take on concrete floors in the 80's didn't kill him or leave him crippled. Imagine if one guy one night dropped him on his head instead of his back on those concrete floors. If Hogan had the clout to make money and do what was best for him god bless him. He could have been killed out there. How many times did Sting fall from the rafters without incident as opposed to Owen Hart ?

Still, Hogan's lackluster ring work and bad reputation have hurt him in this argument. Nobody has this hands down. The perception that McMahon didn't want to book more talented in ring performers against Hogan to protect him from being overshadowed doesn't help. Hogan has his arguments. Other guys have better ones.

 

[Slyfox696]

Hulk Hogan fans have it rough, especially these days.

Anyway, a great wrestler is someone who consistently entertains both on the mic and in the ring despite not always having great opponents or storylines.

False.

A wrestler is hired to make money. Thus, the best wrestler is the one that fulfills his job requirement the best. End of story.

No doubt Hogan was very successful. Anybody however who disputes Vince McMahon's promotional genius and the role it played in Hogan's initial success is delusional.

I dispute it.

Why? Because Hulk Hogan was already main-eventing in the AWA, and should have been their champion. And you and I both know that the AWA was far more about "wrestling" than the NWA ever was at the time.

Brett Hart has a lot of the qualities of a great wrestler although his ability to draw big money has always been questioned. Of course, Brett had the difficult job of carrying the company after so many of it's biggest stars had either been pushed out due to the steroid investigation (Hogan) or simply gotten old without many new faces good enough to replace them. Hart was a solid performer on the mic and fabulous in the ring. The worst Brett Hart match is twice as good as Hogan's best although he doesn't match Hogan's charisma or mic skills.

But Bret Hart isn't in Hogan's league, because Bret Hart was never as entertaining as Hulk Hogan.

You talk about a subjective quality to matches. Watch this. "The worst Hulk Hogan match is twice as good as Hart's best". See how easy that is? How are you going to dispute it? You can't. Why? Because you statement is entirely subjective, not to mention the fact that they are comparing two completely different eras of wrestling.

Shawn Michaels is always in this discussion because he has the mic skills, the in ring skills, and the charismatic flamboyance to entertain no matter how weak his opponent or lousy his story is. However, as a draw Michaels is best remembered as the guy who was carrying the company when WCW was kicking their butts. Perhaps is Michaels had not injured his back in 1998 and missed 4 yrs maybe he would have been a bigger part of WWE's last boom period.

Maybe he would have. But, you and I both know, that it was still Hulk Hogan who created that boom period. Even before HBK got hurt, it was obvious that Austin was the WWF's answer, not HBK.

Savage always is remembered as the guy who constantly put Hogan over. Savage had a lot to do with making Hogan a star, as did Piper, Andre, and Bockwinkle. Fact is, Savage had all the traits and drew good money. If not for Hogan's backstage politics he might figure better in this discussion.

Backstage politics? Randy Savage had two separate title runs. One was for a full year and was completely overshadowed because fans wanted Hulk Hogan, not Randy Savage. And the second one, Hogan wasn't even around.

What are these backstage politics?

Steve Austin had a terrific run, one of the best ever, but the premature end to his career means it was well too short to really enter him into this conversation. He's like Terrel Davis in football, a great but SHORT run of dominance that ended too soon due to injury. He'll never figure as high in conversations about the best running backs ever as Payton, Brown, Harris, Sanders, Smith do.

Good point, BUT...Steve Austin was nearly 35 years old as well when he finally hit his stride. Yes, injuries shortened his career, but he was older, and was already beginning to be upstaged by The Rock. Also, try as they did, they could never really find another character for Austin to play that worked as well as his mega character. But, at the same time, that character began to be played out.

There's no telling what would have happened if Austin would have remained healthy. BUT, it is just as likely that nothing would have changed as it is that he would have continued like he was.

HHH may be in this conversation when his career is done but he'll have to "give back" the way Michaels has (at least lately, his reputation earlier in his career wasn't very good). Otherwise, fair or not, he'll always be marked as the guy who married into the company's top spot.

HHH will never be in this conversation. HHH has NEVER shown the ability to successfully carry the company on his own. The only time he was made THE primetime player, the WWE went into a tailspin. He's never shown the ability. When both of their careers are finished, HHH will fall behind John Cena in the greatness list.

Hogan fans hate the fact Flair gets more respect in this discussion than he does.

Not really, because most Hogan fans know that Flair only gets more respect because HHH and HBK suck his proverbial penis. Let's put it this way. Ric Flair accomplished NOTHING of importance since his return to the WWE in 2001. And that's fine. He was used to get guys over, just like many people are. I'm not criticizing him for that. However, everyone knows his legacy is not built on his services from 2001 until his retirement. Which means that people place him on a high pedestal because of his work, pre-1996.

That's important, because when WCW went out of business in 2001, Flair's legacy was in shambles. Flair wasn't respected as the greatest of all time, just an old man who couldn't let go, who was broke and needed money. We all know that. However, since he's good buddies with HHH and HBK, and those two guys have a lot of power and influence, the WWE treated him like he was the greatest of all time, despite everyone originally knowing it to be false. However, over time, it just became ingrained in people to believe it.

Hogan fans don't get upset, because we know that Flair's legacy is 100% what anti-Hogan fans try to claim Hogans is. Flair's legacy is totally credited to the WWE promotion machine. The difference between Hogan and Flair? Hogan was successful regardless of McMahon. Flair only became "the greatest" again because of McMahon.

Fact is Flair excelled at every facet even if Hogan with the mammoth McMahon promotional machine got more mainstream press. The fact that Flair helped elevate the careers of guys like Sting and Luger (as well as Batista and Randy Orton) while Hogan is roundly criticized as holding back anyone who might one day rival him in popularity is always what seals the deal for Hogan bashers.

Yeah...

...all we have to rest our hats on is Orndorff, Savage, Warrior, The Giant Paul Wight, the re-birth of both Luger and Sting, Bill Goldberg, Hall, Nash, Angle, and Brock Lesnar.

Damn we feel bad.


In the end, let's not make this a Hogan vs. Flair argument, because Lord knows there are plenty of threads for that. However, let's put it this way.

People against Hulk Hogan always want to talk about the great McMahon promotional machine. Well, tell me. What wrestler of any kind of success HASN'T worked for McMahon's promotional machine? Flair did, Hart did, HBK did, Savage did, Piper did, Race did, Dusty did...they ALL have, at some point, worked for McMahon's supposedly incredible promotional machine. How come none of them ever was as successful in it?

Furthermore, if it was just McMahon's hype machine, how come Hulk Hogan was over in the AWA (and should have been a champion), BEFORE he ever worked for McMahon? The AWA, as mentioned before, was much more "wrestling" than the NWA was, and Hulk Hogan was still the guy the fans demanded to be champion. Also, if it was just McMahon, how come Hulk Hogan went to Japan and sold out shows over there, main-eventing with Andre and Antonio Inoki? Was that McMahon too?

Finally, if it was just McMahon, how come Hulk Hogan went to WCW, and almost IMMEDIATELY turned the company around and had it making money? Ric Flair got arguably the biggest push in WWF history and flopped on his face. He went back to WCW and it changed basically NOTHING. Hogan went to Flair's company and WCW began turning a profit almost immediately.

In the end, it all comes down to one thing. No matter what anyone wants to say, Hulk Hogan drew money, and he drew money no matter where he was.


And, following the logic presented at the beginning of the thread, since Hogan drew the most money, which was the reason he was hired, that makes Hulk Hogan the best wrestler.

 

[Uncle Sam]

Well, judging a wrestler by the money he makes... It's objective. However, you can't use it to say Wrestler X is better than Wrestler Y. You have to be more specific. You can say Wrestler X made more money and was more successful than Wrestler Y. You can say he won more titles and spent more time in the main event. You can say he performed a higher moonsault, or a more convincing clothesline. However, who's better than who will always be down to personal preference, hence why it can't be objectively argued. Somebody will always find Wrestler X better than Wrestler Y and vice versa. You can't argue that objectively, because it's all about the subject.

 

[Slyfox696]

Well, judging a wrestler by the money he makes... It's objective. However, you can't use it to say Wrestler X is better than Wrestler Y. You have to be more specific. You can say Wrestler X made more money and was more successful than Wrestler Y. You can say he won more titles and spent more time in the main event. You can say he performed a higher moonsault, or a more convincing clothesline. However, who's better than who will always be down to personal preference, hence why it can't be objectively argued. Somebody will always find Wrestler X better than Wrestler Y and vice versa. You can't argue that objectively, because it's all about the subject.

I understand what you are saying. But why was Wrestler X hired? Why was wrestler Y hired?

Let's say you are a car salesman. Who is the better car salesman is completely dependent upon who sells the most cars right? Let's say you are a security expert. The best security expert is the one who provides the best security, right? Let's say are a golfer. The golfer who wins the most tournaments or finishes closest to the top is the best golfer.

In the end, in ANY organized occupation, the best employee is the one who does the job for which he was hired the best. In wrestling, employees are called wrestlers, and the best wrestler is the one who makes the promoter the most money. Just like any other occupation.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

I understand what you are saying. But why was Wrestler X hired? Why was wrestler Y hired?

Everyone knows wrestlers are hired based on the tightness of their trunks.

 

[Uncle Sam]

I understand what you are saying. But why was Wrestler X hired? Why was wrestler Y hired?

In the end, in ANY organized occupation, the best employee is the one who does the job for which he was hired the best. In wrestling, employees are called wrestlers, and the best wrestler is the one who makes the promoter the most money. Just like any other occupation.

I think the entertainment industry is a better comparison. After all, wrestling is really part of the entertainment industry. You can say Film A made more than Film B, but that doesn't make Film A better than Film B - at least in the eyes of every film critic who ever lived. I mean, if it did, there wouldn't be need for critics. And the goal of films, and thus why actors are hired, is to make money. Sure, they've got their own motivations - as I'm sure do many wrestlers and promoters - but the ultimate goal of the film industry is to make money.

Same goes with the music industry. Artists are often given free reign with their whole creative processes and whatnot, but the ultimate goal of the record company is to use them to make money, just like the WWE employs wrestlers to make money. People would go nuts if you went into the music section and told them the best artist was the one who made the most money, just because that was the job he was hired to do.

 

[Slyfox696]

I think the entertainment industry is a better comparison. After all, wrestling is really part of the entertainment industry. You can say Film A made more than Film B, but that doesn't make Film A better than Film B - at least in the eyes of every film critic who ever lived. I mean, if it did, there wouldn't be need for critics. And the goal of films, and thus why actors are hired, is to make money. Sure, they've got their own motivations - as I'm sure do many wrestlers and promoters - but the ultimate goal of the film industry is to make money.

Same goes with the music industry. Artists are often given free reign with their whole creative processes and whatnot, but the ultimate goal of the record company is to use them to make money, just like the WWE employs wrestlers to make money. People would go nuts if you went into the music section and told them the best artist was the one who made the most money, just because that was the job he was hired to do.

The difference between the film and music industry compared to the wrestling industry is the way it's structured. For the music industry to be able to be compared to wrestling, a record company would have to go out, hire a group of individuals, put them in a recording studio, write an album, and tell the group to perform it in order to make the record company the most money possible. And they would have to do that for EVERY music band they hire.

That's not how it works. You can apply the same logic to movies.


However, if you DO want to look at it from the movie standpoint, let's look at it from the viewpoint of the movie theater. Why does a movie theater buy rights to certain movies? Because they think the movie will make them the most money in tickets and concessions. Thus, the best movie from the theater perspective, is the one that sells the most tickets.

The wrestling industry and the music/movie industry cannot be compared because the organizational structure is entirely different.

 

[Uncle Sam]

That's not how it works. You can apply the same logic to movies.

I will. A movie studio hires a director, a writer and any other staff they need. They assemble a script and storylines. They then hire people to play out this script and these storylines on screen. Seems pretty similar to me.

In fact, I'd say that wrestling is damn near structurally identical to TV shows.

However, if you DO want to look at it from the movie standpoint, let's look at it from the viewpoint of the movie theater. Why does a movie theater buy rights to certain movies? Because they think the movie will make them the most money in tickets and concessions. Thus, the best movie from the theater perspective, is the one that sells the most tickets.

Why say this...

The wrestling industry and the music/movie industry cannot be compared because the organizational structure is entirely different.

When you follow it up with this?

 

[Slyfox696]

I will. A movie studio hires a director, a writer and any other staff they need. They assemble a script and storylines. They then hire people to play out this script and these storylines on screen. Seems pretty similar to me.

Except thats not what the movie studio does. Movie studios are presented with scripts that they may or may not take, from producers or directors they may or may not hire.

Why say this...

When you follow it up with this?

Because a theater purchasing rights to a movie is different than the structure that exists in movie making.

 

[Uncle Sam]

Except thats not what the movie studio does. Movie studios are presented with scripts that they may or may not take, from producers or directors they may or may not hire.

That's a very minor difference. Just because the WWE hires scriptwriters instead of being presented with a script, what happens afterwards is incredibly similar.