HELLO DOLLY! (1 Viewer)

[MatthewA]

Originally Posted by GMpasqua /forum/thread/299826/hello-dolly/30#post_3765709

 

[robbiesreels]

When Hello, Dolly! opened in December of 1969, the grosses were huge. At the Chinese Theatre in Hollywood, and the Rivoli Theatre in N.Y.C. Dolly’s boxoffice was at capacity for it’s first 2 and ½ months. In fact through most of the winter of 1970 Dolly was running 18 percent ahead of the Sound of Music in the same 49 roadshow play dates that Music played at several years before. Unlike S.O.M. Dolly’s boxoffice started to fall off by the end of March. By 1970 with the Vietnam War raging and the hippie counter-culture influencing entertainment, "the movie-going audience was comprised of mostly under-30s, and young people just weren't impressed with lavish musicals. Hello, Dolly! could not hope to make a profit despite being a well-produced and prestigious musical entertainment. . 1970 was was pretty much near the end of the road show era.


There were only two successful roadshows after Dolly, Patton and “Fiddler On The Roof”. “Man Of La Mancha” costing 12, million and making only 3.800.000 in the U.S.,pretty much killed what was left of the roadshow.


Well anyway here are the final “Hello,Dolly!” boxoffice results

Budget- 25.335.000,

U.S.gross- 33,208,099, Foreign Gross- 22,300.000, Worldwide gross- 55,506,099

U.S.rentals- 15.300.000, Foreign rentals-10,700,000, Worldwide rentals- 26,000,000

 

[GMpasqua]

Actually "Patton" which won the Oscar for Best Picture had a shorter roadshow run than "Hello Dolly" Patton of course was a war film at a time when they were popular, musicals were no longer popular


Since Dolly was one of the top 5 grossing films of the year it did comparativly well with the other top grossers (Fox, foolishly was hoping to duplcate the success of the Sound of Music - no other film did that well until Star Wars)


betting Dolittle, Star and Dolly would do Sound of Music business was unrealistic no matter how good the films may have been. Fox never learned their lesson from "Cleopatra" and put too much money in these films - money that never would realisticly be generated -


Maybe FOX needed more tax write offs due to Sound of Music's success - so Dolly was actually a suceess for the Studio!

 

[MatthewA]

Originally Posted by GMpasqua

Actually "Patton" which won the Oscar for Best Picture had a shorter roadshow run than "Hello Dolly" Patton of course was a war film at a time when they were popular, musicals were no longer popular


Since Dolly was one of the top 5 grossing films of the year it did comparativly well with the other top grossers (Fox, foolishly was hoping to duplcate the success of the Sound of Music - no other film did that well until Star Wars)


betting Dolittle, Star and Dolly would do Sound of Music business was unrealistic no matter how good the films may have been. Fox never learned their lesson from "Cleopatra" and put too much money in these films - money that never would realisticly be generated -


Maybe FOX needed more tax write offs due to Sound of Music's success - so Dolly was actually a suceess for the Studio!

There's a book called "The Fox that Got Away" that discusses the financial problems of Darryl F. Zanuck's final years at Fox in-depth with budget charts. 1965, the year of "Sound of Music", is the only profitable year of the studio for the 1960s. He pointed out that Doolittle and Dolly made profits by the time they were released on video in the Magnetic Video era (although fans of the films may wish he had kept his opinions on them to himself), although if Bob's above figures on Dolly are accurate, then they would contradict this book.


Nonetheless, the sad thing about the decline of film musicals is that the genre itself was blamed for studios' reluctance to invest in them under new management, not the lack of fiscal discipline exercised by studios which affected not only musicals but other genres as well. Many of the post-Sound of Music musicals topped the box office charts of their respective years of release, and had they cost less, they would have been considerable hits. The few that were considered hits were the ones that cost less (IIRC, Columbia's "Oliver!" only cost $10 million). Even today, in the era of Chicago, Dreamgirls, and Hairspray, the studios can't keep budgets under control on anything, and musicals, as the most niche genre/form are usually the first to suffer.

 

[robbiesreels]

Even though Hello Dolly brought in about $26.000,000 in worldwide rentals to Fox, on a budget OF $25,355,000,

Fox still lost alot of money on Dolly, because they put in another 8 to 10 million dollars on top of the budget to

promote the film before and after it's release. Which means the film probably lost about $10 million. Your right, that
the film did finally go into profit with the release of the video.

 

[ahollis]

Originally Posted by robbiesreels

Even though Hello Dolly brought in about $26.000,000 in worldwide rentals to Fox, on a budget OF $25,355,000,

Fox still lost alot of money on Dolly, because they put in another 8 to 10 million dollars on top of the budget to

promote the film before and after it's release. Which means the film probably lost about $10 million. Your right, that
the film did finally go into profit with the release of the video.

Back in the late 60's the marketing costs were not that great. They were only around 10% which would make that around 2.5 to 3 million. Since the films were roadshowed and not saturated they used local advertising and that was mostly newspaper of which the theatres paid a portion of also. By the time it hit the regular run markets again it was mostly newspaper with some radio. National TV was not a factor and there could have been some local TV for the roadshow run, but not for the general release.

 

[Will Krupp]

You can give Greg and Allen all of the facts and figures in the world and talk until you are blue in the face, but it will have zero impact. They are both bound and determined (as they have been for three pages of posts over the last nine months) to revise history in hopes of convincing everyone that HELLO DOLLY! was a success at the time of its release. Every post by any member pointing to the fact that DOLLY! was a financial stinker is met with a "whistling in the dark" attitude of no, no, no history is wrong, urban legend, etc etc. I still don't know WHY they feel the need to justify their love of it by changing the well documented past, but there you have it. Guys, it's OKAY to love a movie that didn't make any money when it was released!

It was not "considered" a flop "just because" it didn't match the grosses of SOUND OF MUSIC. It also couldn't come close to matching the grosses of Stresiand's FUNNY GIRL and the roadshow era was breathing its last. It lost nearly ten million dollars for Fox. I repeat, it lost nearly ten million 1969/1970 dollars for Fox. One more time, it lost a lot of money.


Breathe, relax, breathe again. It's reception in 1969 has NOTHING to do with our affection for the film or what each of us considers its merits (or, for some, its lack of merit.)


Do I think, objectively, that DOLLY! is a great movie? No I don't. I find it overproduced, miscast, and mechanical.

Do I love it anyway? Yes, yes, yes I do.
Would I love a blu-ray? Please, Fox, take my money!


This revisionism has gotten old. I'm sure you are both great guys and I applaud your love of the musical, but enough already....PLEASE!

 

[ahollis]

Originally Posted by Will Krupp

You can give Greg and Allen all of the facts and figures in the world and talk until you are blue in the face, but it will have zero impact. They are both bound and determined (as they have been for three pages of posts over the last nine months) to revise history in hopes of convincing everyone that HELLO DOLLY! was a success at the time of its release. Every post by any member pointing to the fact that DOLLY! was a financial stinker is met with a "whistling in the dark" attitude of no, no, no history is wrong, urban legend, etc etc. I still don't know WHY they feel the need to justify their love of it by changing the well documented past, but there you have it. Guys, it's OKAY to love a movie that didn't make any money when it was released!

It was not "considered" a flop "just because" it didn't match the grosses of SOUND OF MUSIC. It also couldn't come close to matching the grosses of Stresiand's FUNNY GIRL and the roadshow era was breathing its last. It lost nearly ten million dollars for Fox. I repeat, it lost nearly ten million 1969/1970 dollars for Fox. One more time, it lost a lot of money.


Breathe, relax, breathe again. It's reception in 1969 has NOTHING to do with our affection for the film or what each of us considers its merits (or, for some, its lack of merit.)


Do I think, objectively, that DOLLY! is a great movie? No I don't. I find it overproduced, miscast, and mechanical.

Do I love it anyway? Yes, yes, yes I do.
Would I love a blu-ray? Please, Fox, take my money!


This revisionism has gotten old. I'm sure you are both great guys and I applaud your love of the musical, but enough already....PLEASE!

Will - Please re-read my posts before you put words in my mouth. I have never said Hello Dolly was a success, I have just said that it was not a huge flop and that it pretty much broke even on its initial run. It certainly was not a flop in the way Star! and Doctor Doolittle were, and for that fact also Tora, Tora, Tora.

I think you are the one that needs to stop and take a deep breath. None of this is personal so please don't make it so for it is not important. I always thought a forum was the exchange of ideas, thoughts and knowledge, not to call someone out and belittle them. I have read your posts in other threads and took your advice on not throwing away the original The Ghost Breakers disk for the transfer in the Bob Hope Collection was inferior. You never have seem to be one to personally call someone out.

I was then and still am in the exhibition business and I am fortunate enough, since the release of Cocoon, to know Richard Zanuck and I knew David Brown. I have talked to Dick about Hello Dolly at dinner honoring David Brown about nine years ago in Atlantic City. I have only stated what I know and have been told and not trying to justify the love of the film for I have no need to justify any film that I love or dislike, again just trying to offer my personal knowledge on the matter


We do agree that the movie is enjoyable, miscast, and we both want it on Blu-ray. So we have common ground.

 

[GMpasqua]

I never said the film was a financial success, it lost money (add the advertising and distribution costs in and the price tag goes up)


Re: Maybe FOX needed more tax write offs due to Sound of Music's success - so Dolly was actually a success for the Studio!


That's sarcasm



By the way Will Krupp - for years I worked as a Financial analyst at FOX so if you want to discuss money..come on down!

I'm sure you know way more then I do!

 

[GMpasqua]

[SIZE= 14px]Actually it wasn’t the Musical that died as a genre it was the Roadshow that died. (though musicals get the blame)[/SIZE]

[SIZE= 14px]Other film musicals were successful in the 70’s: “Cabaret” “Tommy” “Grease” and even today “Chicago” “Dreamgirls” “Momma Mia”[/SIZE]

[SIZE= 14px] [/SIZE]

[SIZE= 14px]Roadshows were very expensive to make, they were “Big Event” films. Tons of money was poured into them to make them technically better then the average film. [/SIZE]

[SIZE= 14px] [/SIZE]

[SIZE= 14px]There were some successful Roadshow films after “The Sound of Music”[/SIZE]

[SIZE= 14px] [/SIZE]

[SIZE= 14px]2001 a Space Odyssey[/SIZE]

[SIZE= 14px]Funny Girl[/SIZE]

[SIZE= 14px]Oliver[/SIZE]

[SIZE= 14px]Patton[/SIZE]

[SIZE= 14px]Fiddler on the Roof[/SIZE]

[SIZE= 14px] [/SIZE]

[SIZE= 14px](notice 3 of 5 are musicals)[/SIZE]

[SIZE= 14px] [/SIZE]

[SIZE= 14px]Most Musical Roadshow films were not financially successful, But, most Non Musical Roadshow films were also Not financially successful:[/SIZE]

[SIZE= 14px] [/SIZE]

[SIZE= 14px]The Bible[/SIZE]

[SIZE= 14px]The Blue Max[/SIZE]

[SIZE= 14px]Far From the Madding Crowd[/SIZE]

[SIZE= 14px]Ice Station Zebra[/SIZE]

[SIZE= 14px]Marooned[/SIZE]

[SIZE= 14px]Charge of the Light Brigade[/SIZE]

[SIZE= 14px]Krakatowa “East” of Java[/SIZE]

[SIZE= 14px]Nicholas and Alexandra[/SIZE]

[SIZE= 14px]Tora, Tora, Tora[/SIZE]

[SIZE= 14px]Ryan’s Daughter[/SIZE]

[SIZE= 14px] [/SIZE]

[SIZE= 14px]It was really the Roadshow that Died.[/SIZE]

[SIZE= 14px]When was the last time you saw a Roadshow (the last was released in 1973)[/SIZE]

[SIZE= 14px]When was the last time you saw a musical “Chicago”? “Dreamgirls”? “Momma Mia”? (which has become the highest grossing musical film)[/SIZE]

[SIZE= 14px] [/SIZE]

[SIZE= 14px]Hollywood learned the could make the same amount of money releasing a cheaply made film “Easy Rider” "MASH" “Woodstock” “The Graduate” as they could from an expensive Roadshow. So the Roadshow died. [/SIZE]

 

[robbiesreels]

Speaking of successes and flops, here are the top 30 Box-office money making Roadshows

with their domestic rentals and their cost

U.S. Rentals Cost


[COLOR= black] 1- The Sound Of Music- Fox, 1965- $68.748.000, 70 mm, $8,200,000[/COLOR]

[COLOR= black] 2- Dr. Zhivago[/COLOR][COLOR= black]- 1965, [/COLOR][COLOR= black]MGM[/COLOR][COLOR= black], 47.253.000, 11,900,000[/COLOR]

[COLOR= black] 3- Fiddler On The Roof[/COLOR][COLOR= black]- 1971, U.A.,38,261,000, 9.000.000[/COLOR]

[COLOR= black] 4- Ben Hur[/COLOR][COLOR= black]- 1959, [/COLOR][COLOR= black]MGM[/COLOR][COLOR= black], 36.992.000, 70 mm, 15,000,000[/COLOR]

[COLOR= black] 5- My Fair Lady-[/COLOR][COLOR= black] W.B.,1964 , 34.000.000, 70 mm, 18,000,000[/COLOR]

[COLOR= black] 6- The Ten Commandments[/COLOR][COLOR= black]- Par.,1956, 32.500.000, 13,500,000 [/COLOR]

[COLOR= black] 7- Gone With The Wind[/COLOR][COLOR= black]- [/COLOR][COLOR= black]MGM[/COLOR][COLOR= black], 30.500.000, 1968 release only [/COLOR]

[COLOR= black] 8- Patton- Fox, 1970, 28.100.000, 70 mm, 12,000,000[/COLOR]

[COLOR= black] 9- Funny Girl[/COLOR][COLOR= black]- Col.,1968, 26.325.000, 14,100,000[/COLOR]

[COLOR= black]10- 2001, A Space Odyssey[/COLOR][COLOR= black]- [/COLOR][COLOR= black]MGM[/COLOR][COLOR= black], 1968, 25,522,000, 70mm, 10,500,000[/COLOR]

[COLOR= black]11- Cleopatra[/COLOR][COLOR= black]- 1963, Fox, 23.500.000, 70 mm, 33,115,000 [/COLOR]

[COLOR= black]12- Around The World In 80 Days[/COLOR][COLOR= black]- U.A.,1956,23,120.000, 70mm, 6,000,000 [/COLOR]

[COLOR= black]13- How The West Was Won[/COLOR][COLOR= black]- [/COLOR][COLOR= black]MGM[/COLOR][COLOR= black], Cin.,1963,20,932,883, 12,500,000[/COLOR]

[COLOR= black]14- It's A Mad, Mad, World[/COLOR][COLOR= black]- U.A.,1963, 20,849,786, 70mm, 9,400,000 [/COLOR]

[COLOR= black]15- Lawrence Of Arabia[/COLOR][COLOR= black]- Col., 1962,20.310.000 70mm, 13,500,000[/COLOR]

[COLOR= black]16- West Side Story[/COLOR][COLOR= black]- U.A.,1961, 19.645.570, 70mm, 6,000,000[/COLOR]

[COLOR= black]17- The Longest Day[/COLOR][COLOR= black]- Fox, 1962, 17.600.000, 10,000,000[/COLOR]

[COLOR= black]18- Oliver[/COLOR][COLOR= black]- Col., 1968, 16.800.000, 10,000,000[/COLOR]

[COLOR= black]19- South Pacific- [/COLOR][COLOR= black]Fox, Magna, 1958, 16.600,000, 70mm, 6,000,000[/COLOR]

[COLOR= black]20- Thoroughly Modern Millie-[/COLOR][COLOR= black]Un.1967, 16.100.000, 6,000,000[/COLOR]

[COLOR= black]21- Hawaii[/COLOR][COLOR= black]- U.A.,1967, 15.553,018 , 15.000.000[/COLOR]

[COLOR= black]22- This Is Cinerama-[/COLOR][COLOR= black]1952, 15.400.000, 512,000[/COLOR]

[COLOR= black]23- Hello Dolly-[/COLOR][COLOR= black]Fox, 1969, 15.300.000, 70mm, 25,355,000[/COLOR]

[COLOR= black]24- The Bible[/COLOR][COLOR= black]- Fox, 1967, 15.000.000, 70mm, 18,000,000[/COLOR]

[COLOR= black]25- Ryans Daughter- [/COLOR][COLOR= black]1970, 14,600,000, 70mm, 13,300,000 [/COLOR]

[COLOR= black]26- Tora, Tora,Tora- [/COLOR][COLOR= black]Fox, 1970, 14,530,000, 25,000,000[/COLOR]

[COLOR= black]27- Paint Your Wagon[/COLOR][COLOR= black]- Par., 1969, 14.000.000, 22,000,000[/COLOR]

[COLOR= black]28- Those Magnificent Men In Their Flying Machines- [/COLOR][COLOR= black]Fox[/COLOR]

[COLOR= black] 14.000.000, [/COLOR][COLOR= black]70mm, 5,600,000[/COLOR]

[COLOR= black]29- Camelot-[/COLOR][COLOR= black]W.B., 1967,14.000.000, 12,000,000[/COLOR]

[COLOR= black]30- The Sand Pebbles[/COLOR][COLOR= black]- Fox, 1966,13.500.000, 12,000,000[/COLOR]



[COLOR= black]Probably the biggest disaster of the roadshow era was-----[/COLOR]

[COLOR= black]The Fall Of The Roman Empire- Par., 70mm, U.S. Rentals- 1,900,000, Cost- [/COLOR] $18,436,625

This film and Circus World, sank Samuel Bronston's four year Spanish production company and

ended his fairly short career as a film mogul.

 

[john a hunter]

Though of course if you add in the overseas revenues, a lot of those flops become hits save as you say, Roman Empire where even sucess in Europe and elsewhere couldn't put it in the black.!

 

[Garysb]

Originally Posted by GMpasqua
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.

It seems like it depends on how you define a flop. If a flop is a movie that lost money during its first theatrical release than Dolly was a flop. How much you enjoy a movie or how well made it is has nothing to do with whether the movie was a flop. How much ir grossed in theaters ie being a top grossing film doesn't matter if its costs were higher. Dolly was made to make money and be popular. It was not like an old studio prestige picture , say like The Razor's Edge which they didn't think would make money. Its soundtrack album certainly was considered a flop. For many years it was the only record with Barbra Streisand singing that was out of print. The record was in the Sam Goody $1.99 bin with in a year of its release.


Not sure how much money Its A Wonderful Life has made. It only became popular after it went into public domain and began being broadcast on many TV stations during the holidays. It was cheap programming that TV station didn't have to pay for if they obtained a print. The same is true of the cheap VHS tapes of the movie. When it was found the music in the film was not in public domain, Republic was able to stop all but licensed showings of the film. I think the only TV money the film has made for its owners are the showings on NBC the last few years, The video money would come only from the Republic and Paramount editions of the last few years.


I think Dolly was the first film based on a Broadway musical that was released while the Broadway musical was still playing. Up until then it was thought thst a movie version would kill the Broadway show which is why the contract for the film stated it could not open until the Broadway version closed. As has been said the movie's released was delayed waiting for the show to close. Fox had to pay the Broadway producer additional money to allow the film to open. It turned out not to hurt the box office on Broadway. The show played for several more years after the movie's release.

 

[GMpasqua]

So "The Wizard of Oz" and "It's a Wonderful Life" are flops

 

[Garysb]

Its A Wonderful Life yes it was a flop. Wizard of Oz went into the black during its 1949 re release, Both didn't become beloved classics until they were shown on TV. At the time they were made they flopped. Wizard of Oz probably did because most tickets sold were at children's prices.

 

[Will Krupp]

Interesting thing about WIZARD is, since it was considered a "prestige" picture, they never really thought it would make it into the black. One famous mogul (which one I can't remember) said that when he heard the word "prestige" he knew he was going to lose his shirt. At the height of the studio system, especially at a factory like MGM, the occasional prestige picture, that wouldn't necessarily make them any money but would heighten their standing in the industry and with the public, was allowed to be put on the schedule. The overall yearly output was so large that the costs would be offset.


Had MGM really wanted to get their $3+M back, they should have launched WIZARD in the manner that David Selznick launched GWTW a few months later, with reserved seats, inflated pricing, and event status. MGM opened the film all across the country at regular prices and, while it achieved stellar box office attendance figures, this did not translate into profit. And yes, nearly a third of those attendees where children.


The reason that films like DOLLY!, STAR!, etc were so deadly for the studios in the 1960's were because Fox et al didn't have the production output that studios did in the 1930's. They had too much riding on each film so a bomb at the box office could (and did) have a devastating effect on the studio as a whole.


WONDERFUL LIFE, on the other hand, was made for Capra's independent Liberty Films and its box office failure DID have a devastating effect on Capra's company (the curse of the independent producer)

 

[Will Krupp]

Originally Posted by GMpasqua

So "The Wizard of Oz" and "It's a Wonderful Life" are flops

I guess that depends upon your definition of flop. If we define flop as a movie that doesn't make back its cost, then yes, they are both flops. If we define a flop as something that severely under performs from its expectations, then no to WIZARD and still yes to WONDERFUL LIFE.

DOLLY! is considered a flop both because it didn't make back its cost and because it severely underperformed at the box office. MY FAIR LADY, made five years earlier, cost only five million dollars less than DOLLY! and did not flop, so cost alone is not the reason. I think, even at $25M, Fox still thought it was going to have a blockbuster on its hands (or at least a break-even nothing to worry about "prestige" title.) Are there valid reasons for this under performance? Sure, mostly to do with the state of the road show and the road show musical in particular at the time. Can we appreciate it now? Definitely.

 

[GMpasqua]

By your definition all three are flops : Wizard of Oz, Wonderfel Life and Hello Dolly


of course all films have become profitable due to tv sales and home video so it seems you really just have an issue with "Hello Dolly"


Even "Willy Wonka" bombed at the box-office and only became a hit due to TV sales - but then of couse since it didn't break even from the theater revenue it too is a flop (even though it is one of the top grossing home videos of all time - I would love to own a flop like that!)

 

[Will Krupp]

Originally Posted by GMpasqua

By your definition all three are flops : Wizard of Oz, Wonderfel Life and Hello Dolly


of course all films have become profitable due to tv sales and home video so it seems you really just have an issue with "Hello Dolly"

I actually gave two definitions and two different scenarios, neither of which I own. I don't have an issue with DOLLY! (I have mentioned on several occasions that I have great affection for it and would love to own it on blu-ray) just an issue with the revision of history to paint it as something other than what it was. I also love STAR! and DARLING LILI, both of which were flops by any definition and it doesn't change my enjoyment of them a single bit. Times change and yesterday's flop can be today's classic. We are actually on the same side here, we both love the same stuff.

 

[Rob_Ray]

Originally Posted by Will Krupp

By your definition all three are flops : Wizard of Oz, Wonderfel Life and Hello Dolly


of course all films have become profitable due to tv sales and home video so it seems you really just have an issue with "Hello Dolly"

I actually gave two definitions and two different scenarios, neither of which I own. I don't have an issue with DOLLY! (I have mentioned on several occasions that I have great affection for it and would love to own it on blu-ray) just an issue with the revision of history to paint it as something other than what it was. I also love STAR! and DARLING LILI, both of which were flops by any definition and it doesn't change my enjoyment of them a single bit. Times change and yesterday's flop can be today's classic. We are actually on the same side here, we both love the same stuff.

[/QUOTE]

It's an interesting argument, because there are flops and then there are flops. There's no question that STAR! was a flop, by anyone's definition. It played to empty theatres within days of its premiere and is nowhere to be found in any list of Box Office Hits. But look at the chart above. HELLO DOLLY! ranks number 23, grossing over $15 million 1970 dollars. CLEOPATRA is number 11, far outgrossing HOW THE WEST WAS WON, released the same year. Those are not out-and-out flops. They just were saddled with ridiculous production costs which meant they were almost guaranteed to be money losers. Fox was almost literally throwing money at the screen in both cases and they thought that automatically would mean SOUND OF MUSIC grosses, which it didn't.


HELLO DOLLY! was certainly a disappointment, but I wouldn't call it a flop. And I wouldn't call OZ a flop either. MGM never called it that, even in 1939.