Yakashi Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 Apologies if this has already been mentioned but to be fair, it looks like HIAC actually drew more this year than last year. Â This year had fuck all going for it apart from Cena coming back after a about 6 weeks and after some seriously awful shows and buy rates I'm stunned they hit that number. Due to Cena barely being gone as usual, I think that it is the Cell gimmick that draws. Â Not saying Ryback didn't contribute last year, but I think maybe punk and orton would have drawn similair for instance. But what cant be argued is that they've absolutely fucked someone who had a shot at being a serious star. Again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted December 22, 2013 Paid Members Share Posted December 22, 2013 (edited) Because people had to pay for it in their second biggest market, unlike last year. Domestically, Hell in a Cell didn't beat 2012. And that was with the return of John Cena (which was heavily hyped and he wasn't on TV in the build to it) and a Shawn Michaels appearance. Â Anyone who thinks Ryback's push, popularity and momentum in the weeks leading up to HIAC last year wasn't a large reason why that shit show did so well cant be seriously. Punk and Orton dont draw with anyone who isn't John Cena. Not even Brock. They are Judge Reinhold. Not Eddie Murphy. Edited December 22, 2013 by IANdrewDiceClay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Maestro Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 When people talk about someone being a "draw", does that still apply these days? With live events like house-shows, names will bring punters in, but I just can't imagine people paying $50 for a three-hour event just to see a certain wrestler on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted December 22, 2013 Paid Members Share Posted December 22, 2013 (edited) If they create enough interest, of course. They arent paying to see R-Truth or Brodus. That's why people pay to see certain shows and not others. Its the same people on every show and you see them for free on Monday. Maybe you just are interested enough to want to part with your money. Raw was 30 minutes longer than Survivor Series the other week. That might be your problem. There's to much over exposure. So if something really gets the fancy of the punters (like Ryback, or Roman Reigns or a return) people get up for it and part with their money. Now more than ever I imagine its easier to see a trend in why people bought a certain show. Â We may have just seen our last B-PPV. Elimination Chamber might be on the Network in February. B-PPVs may be dead. Edited December 22, 2013 by IANdrewDiceClay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Maestro Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 That's how I see it. No-one's paying to watch a film just because Brad Pitt's in it, but it adds to the appeal of the movie. Sayng that, I'm sure that The Rock didn't really do much for ratings and numbers upon his return last year, but I could be wrong on that one. If the storylines across the board are interesting enough, especially the ones at the top of the card, people are more inclined to purchase an event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShowOff Posted December 23, 2013 Share Posted December 23, 2013 No-one's paying to watch a film just because Brad Pitt's in it, but it adds to the appeal of the movie. Â You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members PunkStep Posted December 23, 2013 Paid Members Share Posted December 23, 2013 No-ones paying to see a movie just to see Brad Pitt in it?! You are kidding, right? People go to see movies a lot of the time purely based on who stars in it, rather than what it's Rotten Tomatoes score is. And there are few draws bigger than Brad in Hollywood. Terrible example to use there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSF Posted December 23, 2013 Share Posted December 23, 2013 Adam Sandler is the best example. His films are usually terrible, but they are a success because his fans go to watch them. If anyone else was in Jack and Jill, do you think anyone would have paid money to see it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Maestro Posted December 23, 2013 Share Posted December 23, 2013 Adam Sandler is the best example. His films are usually terrible, but they are a success because his fans go to watch them. If anyone else was in Jack and Jill, do you think anyone would have paid money to see it? Â Surely those who go to watch Sandler films do so because his films all have the same humour in it? There's not much difference in the low brow comedy in the majority of his movies so people know what to expect from watching one of his usually dreadful films. Â And there are people who would go watch a film purely based on the main star of the film? I don't buy that at all. The same sort of people who went to watch Mr and Mrs Smith are not the same type of audience who would watch Tree Of Life. Or maybe I'm just making an assumption on that one. As I said, Brad Pitt is part of the appeal of a film, not the sole reason someone would watch a film. Unless the people paying to watch are very peculiar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Dammer Posted December 23, 2013 Share Posted December 23, 2013 Adam Sandler is the best example. His films are usually terrible, but they are a success because his fans go to watch them. If anyone else was in Jack and Jill, do you think anyone would have paid money to see it? Â Surely those who go to watch Sandler films do so because his films all have the same humour in it? There's not much difference in the low brow comedy in the majority of his movies so people know what to expect from watching one of his usually dreadful films. Â And there are people who would go watch a film purely based on the main star of the film? I don't buy that at all. The same sort of people who went to watch Mr and Mrs Smith are not the same type of audience who would watch Tree Of Life. Or maybe I'm just making an assumption on that one. As I said, Brad Pitt is part of the appeal of a film, not the sole reason someone would watch a film. Unless the people paying to watch are very peculiar. Â Erm, yes, precisely! All of his films are practically the same and his fans love it, thats why they go to see a film purely because hes in it and a role has usually been written just for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Maestro Posted December 23, 2013 Share Posted December 23, 2013 But Sandler produces a lot of those movies with his Happy Madison film company. All his films have the same shitty humour so people know what to expect from them. The fact he stars in them isn't the sole reason people go to watch them. If that was the case, Spanglish and Reign Over Me would have been more successful at the box office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Duke Posted December 23, 2013 Paid Members Share Posted December 23, 2013 Of course people go to films because of who is in it. Box office draws have been a thing for ages and there are articles about the thing. Why on earth is this being debated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members PunkStep Posted December 23, 2013 Paid Members Share Posted December 23, 2013 Because Maestro is having a moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Maestro Posted December 23, 2013 Share Posted December 23, 2013 I said that an actor/actress appearing in a film isn't the sole reason a movie will do well at the box office. Pretty valid thing to say I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted December 23, 2013 Paid Members Share Posted December 23, 2013 (edited) Well it is, though. Do you think Stop Or My Mom Will Shoot would have draw $70 million worldwide if it had the same cast besides Sylvester Stallone? He dragged that shower into the black. Star power drives the entertainment business. Edited December 23, 2013 by IANdrewDiceClay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts