HELLO DOLLY!

Wonder if they'll noise reduce and otherwise mangle the sound before releasing it, like they did the DVD.

:-(

With its being a Todd-AO production, I'm sure it would look spectacular if done correctly. I hope we get a chance to see for ourselves in the not so distant future.

Let's get The King and I, Oklahoma! and State Fair first, completing the Rodgers & Hammerstein hits. While personally I liked Hello, Dolly!, it flopped at the box office and doesn't hold a candle to the the R&H shows.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Thompson 

Let's get The King and I, Oklahoma! and State Fair first, completing the Rodgers & Hammerstein hits. While personally I liked Hello, Dolly!, it flopped at the box office and doesn't hold a candle to the the R&H shows.

I am all for The King and I, Oklahoma! (done right), State Fair, and Carousel on Blu-ray. But, Hello Dolly! grossed 56 million at theaters in 1969 & 1970 and has grossed over 100 million to date.  The tale of it being a flop is an urban legend and it appeared to flop since it did not gross the dollars that The Sound Of Music did, which it was expected to do.  Fox should but out one of these movies every three months or so along with the true flops, Star, and Dr. Doolittle. Perhapes under a Roadshow Collection.
 

Hello Dolly was filmed in Todd-AO (70MM) and looks spectacular on the big screen.  Dolly was actually the 5th highest grossing film the year it opened (So it didn't flop - it just didn't make back it's cost which was unusally high)

The R&H films are good, but they will not look as good "Dolly" (although the DVD set which contains all R&H films looks pretty good on my plasma set 52") Don't forget "Carousel"

I actually prefer Dolly to the other films you mentioned which are stagey and have seen all these films in a theater none hold a candle to Todd-AO version of  "Hello Dolly" as far as picture quality is concerned

Hello, Dolly! did indeed flop at the box office in it's initial run.  The grosses are irrelevent because any film that does not NOT make back it's cost is in the red, and therefore a flop.  It has since moved into the black, but that does not change the fact that it was a failure in it's initial theatrical release, no matter how much money it grossed.

Would LOVE to see it on Blu, and with Star! and the R&H films.

It's hard to consider the 5th highest grossing film of a year a flop, much like "Cleopatra" which was the number one film of 1963 and yet it was also considered a flop. The highest grossing film of the year was a flop!

Quote:

Originally Posted by GMpasqua 

It's hard to consider the 5th highest grossing film of a year a flop, much like "Cleopatra" which was the number one film of 1963 and yet it was also considered a flop. The highest grossing film of the year was a flop!

Cleopatra had a production cost of $44 million (that would be $305 million today). With boxoffice grosses of $57 million yes it was the number one movie of the year, but when you add in advertising and distribution costs, it was not profitable in its original release.

If a film doesn't make back its production cost, plus some profit, it is indeed a flop financially. Halloween only made 47 million at the boxoffice, but it cost $300,000 to make so it was a huge hit. If it had cost what Avatar cost to make it would have been a flop.

Doug

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnMor 

Hello, Dolly! did indeed flop at the box office in it's initial run.  The grosses are irrelevent because any film that does not NOT make back it's cost is in the red, and therefore a flop.  It has since moved into the black, but that does not change the fact that it was a failure in it's initial theatrical release, no matter how much money it grossed.

 

Would LOVE to see it on Blu, and with Star! and the R&H films.

It made 56 million in its initial release on a cost of 25 million for film and another 15 million for promotion for a total +/- of 40 million.  It was barely in the black at the end of that run but it was in the black.  It was not a flop.

Interesting in that it was initially budgeted at 10 million but quickly went up to the 25 million including 2 million for the New York set alone.
 

Had the musicals been hits -- and Lord knows I liked them, including Dolly -- studios would have made more, instead of bringing production to a halt. Musicals are being produced again because of Chicago, but after the low grosses of Phantom of the Opera, The Producers and Nine, among others, look for the musical productions to be shut down again. They're big ticket items for the studios, and have to be worth the risk. Chicago aside, sad to say they haven't been.

Don't forget "Mama Mia" was a huge hit and "Dreamgirls" and "Hairspray" did very well too.

I believe "Mama Mia" is now the highest grossing musical film of all time. The studios will still make musicals if they can keep the costs down (as with "Chicago") but musicals are a niche market until you get the cross-over blockbuster like "Mama Mia" (Which I didn't like)

Quite a few musical films were hits well after the "The Sound of Music": including: "Thoroughly Modern Millie" "Funny Girl" "Oliver" "Fiddler on the Roof" "Cabaret" "Jesus Christ Superstar" "Tommy" "Grease" "All That Jazz" "Best LIttle Whorehouse in Texas" "Flashdance" "Footloose"

I always thought a flop was a film that didn't do good business (low ticket sales)

While other films did very well (sold tons of tickets) but failed to get into the black were labled moderate successes. Of course when compared to the block busters - if a film did good, returned it's investment but did not live up to expectations is was also considered a flop

Dolly was a flop with respect to the studio and its hopes for a profitable movie. The result of Dolly, and a few other films that didn't do well around 68, 69, 70 was Fox selling off huge parts of its backlot, becoming what is now known as Century City. It also cost Richard Zanuck his job as chairman.

The success of a film is always measured by its cost. But in the case of Dolly, other studio issues come in to play, not unlike the situation with Cleopatra.

A film that doesn't make back its production cost is never considered a moderate success. This is a business after all and that requires profit.

Doug

Quote:

Originally Posted by ahollis 

 

It made 56 million in its initial release on a cost of 25 million for film and another 15 million for promotion for a total +/- of 40 million.  It was barely in the black at the end of that run but it was in the black.  It was not a flop.

 

Interesting in that it was initially budgeted at 10 million but quickly went up to the 25 million including 2 million for the New York set alone.
 

The figures I've seen on participation statements are much smaller.  Are you sure you're not talking about taking in 56 million at the boxoffice?  Because that money goes to the theaters, not the studio.  It's the money paid from the theaters to the studios that determines studio grosses, and that is subject to several different mathematical formulas. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by GMpasqua 

Quite a few musical films were hits well after the "The Sound of Music": including: "Thoroughly Modern Millie" "Funny Girl" "Oliver" "Fiddler on the Roof" "Cabaret" "Jesus Christ Superstar" "Tommy" "Grease" "All That Jazz" "Best LIttle Whorehouse in Texas" "Flashdance" "Footloose"

True, but quite a few were unsuccessful as well: "Doctor Doolittle" "Star!" "Camelot" "Paint Your Wagon" "Darling Lili" "At Long Last Love" "Goodbye Mr. Chips" "Lost Horizon" "Song Of Norway" among others. 
 

Yep, hits and flops, just like with every other genre out there.

Many films which didn't earn a profit in their theatrical run, have made more money in their tv/video sales. Many classic films (some considered the best of the best) did not earn a profit at the boxoffice but over the years have earned more money then some of the success stories.

Really, the "Wizard of Oz" was a flop in it's first release (as was "Gone With the Wind") but these film have made more money that most and will contine to make money.

Surpisingly some films that failed at the box-office are the winners on Video, while other boxoffice successes did not do well on video. You can not just look at the profit/loss margin in determing a hit/flop, many folder films continue to make money today making them more than profitable assets to a studio.

Also international sales make more than half of a films revenue, some hits do not do well overseas, while others do better overseas. Film grosses were just for USA and Canada and are not a true reflection of a films actual revenue. Most films which flopped in the USA were profitable when international sales were factored in (but the studios want the shareholders/IRS to believe the a did not make a profit so they won't have to pay out additional monies.)

For a while if a films didn't do "Sound of Music" business (esp a musical) it was considered a flop (Which is just about ever film released until "the Godfather") But those expectations were unreasonable, most films released after "Sound of Music" did respectable business when compared to the other hits of the year.

If you believe studios and producers, no film has ever turned a profit:

http://www.cinematical.com/2009/04/03/return-of-the-jedi-never-turned-a-profit/

It is well reported that HELLO DOLLY's negative cost was somewhere in the neighborhood of $25m and it only earned back rentals of $16m.  It did not come close to making back its cost and was not nearly as successful with the movie going public as Streisand's film debut FUNNY GIRL ($24m in rentals.)  

I'm not sure of the value in this revisionism, but DOLLY was considered an expensive misfire no matter how you slice it.  Now, considering the state of the road-show musical in 1969, Fox felt almost LUCKY that they got away with only a $9m or so loss, as it could have been much much worse (ie; DARLING LILI or STAR!).  

GMpasqua mentions earlier classic films  that were not financially successful upon initial release.  He has it right in regard to WIZARD OF OZ (no road show pricing and a full third of admissions at children's prices) in which record box office attendance still translated into a nearly $1m loss, but GWTW was a big money maker from the get go.  Road Show pricing and over a year in its first run put it well in the black before it was even released at popular prices in neighborhood theaters (this on a near record budget of $4.25m) 

With the exception of maybe MASH, Patton and Woodstock, Hello, Dolly! Still sells better than the other top grossing hits of 69-70:

Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice, Cactus Flower, Catch-22

On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, The Reivers, The Adventures

Beneath The Planet of the Apes, The Out-Of-Towners, Z, They Shoot Horses, Don’t They?

Anne Of a Thousand Days, A Boy Named Charlie Brown, Chisum

It has aged very well, new generations like it (they don't see Streisand as being miscast) and the stage show keeps it alive.

When I worked for FOX Home Video the R&H titles, Star Wars and Alien films were among the top sellers

The Top grosses from 69-70 do not sell nearly as well today as when they were in the theaters

Top grossing film 1969: The LOVE Bug (Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid sells much better)

Top grossing film 1970: Airport (Patton, Mash sell better)

Top grossing film 1971: Love Story (Fiddler on the Roof, A Clockwork Orange sell better)

under performer "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" only made $2 Million in 1971 (Well near the bottom of the list) it is now one of the top selling films of the1970s on video and a child favorite)

By the way, the flop "Song of Norway" was made for $2 Million and earned $4 Million in the US alone, so it wouldn't be regarded as a flop - even thought the critics trashed it (ironic isn't it)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnMor 

The figures I've seen on participation statements are much smaller.  Are you sure you're not talking about taking in 56 million at the boxoffice?  Because that money goes to the theaters, not the studio.  It's the money paid from the theaters to the studios that determines studio grosses, and that is subject to several different mathematical formulas. 

I very much aware of the split between theatres and studios.  If the 56 million is the box office then the studio split back then on a roadshow and general release would be somewhere in the 60% range and that is not including guarantees that were put up for the bids.  Back in those days, theatres would bid on each individual film and the film rental could reach quite a high figure.  If the 56 was box office then Fox would have taken in around 33 million and it would have covered the initial costs. 

The 16 million that is talked about as the film rental, is the rental from the Roadshow release.  The Roadshow of Dolly was a huge disappointment to Fox, who was looking to emulate The Sound Of Music.  The General release, on the other hand, was much better received across the land.  There were some engagements that lasted well over six weeks in smaller towns.  The General release was also the exact same as the Roadshow right down to the intermission if the theatre wanted to use it.

Disappointing initial box office aside, I'm surprised no one has mentioned its presence in Wall-E as being a plus in getting it released. I'm sure many of the people who would buy a theoretical Blu-Ray may not have heard of Hello Dolly without it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnMor 

The figures I've seen on participation statements are much smaller.  Are you sure you're not talking about taking in 56 million at the boxoffice?  Because that money goes to the theaters, not the studio.  It's the money paid from the theaters to the studios that determines studio grosses, and that is subject to several different mathematical formulas. 

Almost none of the boxoffice take goes to the theaters. Theaters make about 90% of their money from selling popcorn and candy.

Doug

The Roadshow of "Hello Dolly" actually did very well. Only Funny Girl, Oliver and Fiddler on the Roof had longer runs (and none of those films came close to "Sound of Music" numbers) Dolly played for 8 months as a Roadshow in NYC, most other roadshows only played 4 months or less (Finian's Rainbow, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, Star!, Half a Sixpence, Sweet Charity, Goodbye Mr Chips, Happiest Millionaire)  Other films weren't even released as roadshows even though they were planned to be (On a Clear Day, Darling Lili, 1776)

earlier Doctor Dolittle and Camelot had respectable roadshow runs in 1967 from 8 - 9 months

Thoroughly Modern Millie also ran for a year as a roadshow and was Universal Pictures top grossing film until "Airport"

Quote:

Originally Posted by GMpasqua 

Many films which didn't earn a profit in their theatrical run, have made more money in their tv/video sales. Many classic films (some considered the best of the best) did not earn a profit at the boxoffice but over the years have earned more money then some of the success stories.

Really, the "Wizard of Oz" was a flop in it's first release (as was "Gone With the Wind") but these film have made more money that most and will contine to make money.

 

Surpisingly some films that failed at the box-office are the winners on Video, while other boxoffice successes did not do well on video. You can not just look at the profit/loss margin in determing a hit/flop, many folder films continue to make money today making them more than profitable assets to a studio.

 

Also international sales make more than half of a films revenue, some hits do not do well overseas, while others do better overseas. Film grosses were just for USA and Canada and are not a true reflection of a films actual revenue. Most films which flopped in the USA were profitable when international sales were factored in (but the studios want the shareholders/IRS to believe the a did not make a profit so they won't have to pay out additional monies.)

 

For a while if a films didn't do "Sound of Music" business (esp a musical) it was considered a flop (Which is just about ever film released until "the Godfather") But those expectations were unreasonable, most films released after "Sound of Music" did respectable business when compared to the other hits of the year.

 

You are correct that many films have been come money makers after failing in their first release IE Its A Wonderful Life, but The Wizard of Oz, and Gone with the Wind are not among them.

Wizard cost about $2.4 million to make, and earned $16 million at the box office. Gone with the Wind cost around $3 million to make, and took in around $25 million in its original release. They couldn't be considered a flop by anyone's measure.

Doug

Edit: Sorry got the wrong figures on OZ. It did in fact only make about $3 million in its original release, and did not become profitable until 1949.

Not to mention West Side Story. But I have a feeling we'll have to wait until MGM shakes out before we see that one. 

No, it is the total take returned to the studio.

Why do you feel so determined to revise history to convince everyone DOLLY was initially profitable?  It doesn't change the movie or have anything to do with our affection for it, nor does it change the fact that most people who are posting on this thread would snap up a blu-ray release in a heartbeat.  It didn't make back its cost and was a very expensive flop for Fox, end of story.  It doesn't mean we can't still enjoy the hell out of it.

Dolly did not make back it's cost in it's theatrical run, but it is far from the disaster history seems to lead us to believe. Same with Cleopatra, which never could have made back it's cost in 1963 no matter how good it was (it was just too expensive and at 4 hours too long) Even though it was the highest grossing film of 1963 (Beating out "It's a Mad Mad World" and "The Great Escape" in ticket sales)

But these films were very popular in their day. History just looks at the numbers and people think - it flopped, it must be pretty bad. People thought "Thoroughly Modern Millie" was a flop because they consfuse it with "Star". Authors often write it bombed when in fact it ran for over a year as a roadshow engagement and was Universal Pictures Top grossing film up to 1970. (some bomb)

The reviews for "Hello Dolly" were far better than those for "The Sound of Music" but the film did not make back it's cost, but it was the 5th highest grossing film of 1970. Not a bad achievement for any film. To call it a flop shines a negative light on it, when it fact it wasn't poorly received, it was just "too expensive" and no film in that era ever made back it's cost if it was "too expensive" Most of FOX's hits were low cost films like MASH while the expensive films like Tora Tora Tora were expensive risks that shouldn't have cost what they cost. THere are Flops and then there are "Flops"

Most Disney films were not the top grossing film the year they were released. Those figures are added on from multible re-releases (and at higher ticket prices) so they do not give you an acurate account of how well a film did the year it was first released. Granted mutilble re-releases prove a film has earning power, but to say it was the top film of the year is incorrect.

Film studios also hid studio costs in expensive films hoping they could take the tax write-off

so even profitable films have shakey accounting. "Butch Cassidy" also used the $2 Million dollar set from "Hello Dolly" yet it isn't recorded as being part of that film's budget (though it should have been, so "Butch" made a profit were Dolly didn't, tax results were still the same)

To label a film a flop, esp one like "It's a Wonderful Life" or "The Wizard of OZ" makes no sense in 2010, IAWL and OZ have made more money in the tv/video market than most films and have proven to be  hits. If a film has made back it's cost over time and become a classic the "Flop" label can no longer apply. Flop is really a distributor term and one that does not reflect the value of any given film in today's world.

There were many factors to Hello Dolly's troubles. First the release date could not be set until the closing of the Broadway show. Then an all black version (the great Pearl Bailey)

opened on Broadway, so Fox had to wait for it to close. But it was a hit! At that time most roadshow theatres were big 2000 seat houses & up, in big city

downtowns. I saw the hardticket showing 3 times @ the NEW theatre Balto. Md.. After the 1968 riots less people would go downtown @ night.

Anyway add this to not so good  films(Sweet Charity,K.East of Java,Finigan's Rainbow,Paint Your Wagon,Chitty ,Chitty BB, Ice Station Zebra). 

Compair this with the year before-Charly,Funny Girl,Gone With The Wind 70mm,2,001,Romeo & J.,The Lion in Winter, Easy Rider all big hits!

I worked downtown @ the Mayfair theatre until it closed,they all closed within a month of each other.

BTW the opening nite aud. hated The Lion in Winter! the crowd wanted their money back, it was a chairity & they asked us to give  refunds of course it

was reserved seating & the tickets had all been sold months before! I had seen it the week before @ a press screening, & it got a standing ovation of

about 2,000.

lol

 It also had The Sound of Music RS.