Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Blu-ray and UHD' started by trajan, Apr 15, 2010.
Sound of Music comes out this year. Could Hello Dolly be far behind?
Far, far, far ...far behind
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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:
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)