HELLO DOLLY! (1 Viewer)

[ahollis]

Also what one person considers a flop is not necessarily what another person thinks. Rob_Ray has about the most sensible response I have seen.

 

[john a hunter]

I would guess that the return for HTWWW shown is that only to MGM. They had a 50 % profit share with Cinerama so in effect the return was twice the amount shown. Does anyone know the source of the figures quoted?

Originally Posted by Rob_Ray




CLEOPATRA is number 11, far outgrossing HOW THE WEST WAS WON, released the same year.

[/QUOTE]

 

[MatthewA]

Originally Posted by Rob_Ray

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.


I guess the word "flop" depends on what sources you use for its income. If you only include domestic rentals, Dolly! didn't do that great in relation to its budget. But most of the figures that have been made public has not included the foreign income, the sale to TV (it aired on CBS in the 1973-1974 TV season), the home video sales (the Magnetic Video release alone sold almost as well as The Sound of Music, not to mention the laserdiscs and the DVD, or the huge boost the latter got because of Wall*E). It certainly didn't do badly enough to be called a commercial disaster. If done right, the Blu-Ray should do very well.


Star!, on the other hand (which is also welcome on BD, and hopefully will not have the problems the DVD had), is probably still posting a loss. Halliwell's Film Guide says it cost $14 million and grossed $4 million.


My, how Hollywood is changed in 40 years. Today, $25 million is considered "low budget".

 

[robbiesreels]

The Roadshow chart I compiled above was from boxoffices results from Variety and National Exhibitor


MGM and Cinerama most likely split the cost of How The West Was Won 50/50
and split the worldwide rental figure below 50/50

How The West Was Won

Budget- 14.483.000,

Complete U.S. rentals- 20,932,883 , Foreign rentals- 14,900,000

the total Worldwide rentals were approximately 35,832,883


Here are the financial figures from Cleopatra

Budget- 33,115.000, worldwide distribution and advertising- 11,000,000, Total- 44,115,000

3 year U.S. rentals- 23.500.000, Foreign rentals- 14,542,000, Worldwide rentals- 38,042,000


In 1966, ABC-TV paid 20th Century-Fox a record $5 million for two showings of Cleopatra, a deal that finally put the picture into the black. When the film finally broke even (due to the sale to TV), 20th Century-Fox "closed the books" on "Cleopatra", therefore keeping secret all future profits from the film to avoid paying those who might have been promised a percentage of the net profits. Among Elizabeth Taylor's demands were the requirement that the film be shot in the large format Todd-AO system. She owned the rights to the system as the widow of Michael Todd. This meant even more money being paid to Ms. Taylor.

 

[ahollis]

While Ms Taylor profited by the use of TODD-AO I'm not sure she insisted, Fox had obtained a financial interest in 1958 of the TODD-AO format with CAN-CAN (1960) being the first and CLEOPATRA (1963) the second. STATE FAIR (1962) was scheduled for TODD-AO, but switched to CinemaScope as the picture started to unravel with director and cast changes. By 1965 all of Fox's roadshow films were using TODD-AO, THE AGONY AND THE ECSTASY, THE SOUND OF MUSIC, and THOSE MAGNIFICENT MEN AND THEIR FLYING MACHINES were from that year. Followed by DOCTOR DOLITTLE, STAR!, and of course HELLO DOLLY. Of all the large formats of that era, my opinion is that TODD-AO was the best.


Also Dimension 150 was a product of the TODD-AO company and only two films were filmed in that process, Fox's THE BIBLE, and PATTON. Fox had always been in bed with TODD-AO from almost the beginning (even though they had one foot on the floor) and tried to emulate it with CinemaScope 55, but came to the realization that TODD-AO was the better format and made the 1958 deal.

 

[GMpasqua]

There are Flops and then there are FLops



"The Wizard of Oz" didn't make it's money back in it's first run - But it got very good reviews all around so it certainly wasn't a critcal flop, and really it was never flop, it just didn't get in the black in it's first run (But then studios could re-release a film over and over again and generate more revenue) this stopped in the early 1970's when films went to TV and later to home video


"Hello Dolly" did respectable business (3 times the business "Star!" did) But Dolly recieved mixed review - there were good ones, but there were also mixed reviews (but then "The Sound of Music" recieve a trashing by many critics of the time)


"Star!" Flopped on all acounts, financially, critically and artisticly



While "Song of Norway" flopped Big time with critic and audiences - it managed to clear a meager $4 Million in Domestic rentals and since it was made for under $3 Million Dollars it actual made a profit - still it wasn't a hit - just because a film makes a profit doesn't make it a hit - just a profitiable film


I believe for a film to be a Hit has to do very well at the box-office (no matter the cost) then again many "hits" didn't make much of a profit but they covered their costs (less expesnive films had a better profit to cost ratio so they were much more profitiable - but they weren't expesnive to make



"Hello Dolly" wasn't a Flop and it also wasn't a hit - a disappointment - to many yes, to some no, to the Studio - Yes! but it did respectable - especially when compared to the other films released at the time



Many people wrongly believe "Thoroughly Modern Millie" was a flop - due to the reputation of "Star"! and "Darling Lili" - but Millie did very well - audiences loved it and until "Airport" was released in 1970 it was Universal's top grossing film. The people involved in the making of Millie - were disappointed - the film was to be a little comedy with only the title song - but Universal wanted to release it as a big Roadshow and charge inflated ticket prices, so all those numbers that stop the film dead were filmed (the "Jewish wedding song", Carol Channing's "Do it Again") Julie Andrews and Director George Roy Hill considered the film a disapointment in that respect - but again it was a hit - and didn't cost too much to make

 

[GMpasqua]

"Finian's Rainbow" did 5.5 Million in domestic rentals - but it cost 3.5 Million to make (and Director Francis Ford Coppla brought it in under budget) so "FR" actually did very well as an investment. Advertsiing wasn't as high as some other films at the time and it was a modest success (though, it wasn't a hit and it too received mixed reviews) it also didn't cost $20 million so expectations weren't as high

 

[GMpasqua]

Even though "Can-Can" was filmed in Todd-AO I believe it was never screened in Todd-AO (even though some theaters "The Rivoli in NYC" advertised it as Todd-AO) - it was only shown in 35mm

 

[Vern Dias]

Even though "Can-Can" was filmed in Todd-AO I believe it was never screened in Todd-AO (even though some theaters "The Rivoli in NYC" advertised it as Todd-AO) - it was only shown in 35mm

I saw it several times at the Kuhio Theatre in Waikiki, HI and it was definitely projected in 70mm there.


Vern

 

[Will Krupp]

Originally Posted by ahollis

While Ms Taylor profited by the use of TODD-AO I'm not sure she insisted, Fox had obtained a financial interest in 1958 of the TODD-AO format with CAN-CAN (1960) being the first and CLEOPATRA (1963) the second.

I tend to agree with your assessment. The idea that Elizabeth insisted on Todd-AO as the format was (to my knowledge) first put forth in the brilliant behind the scenes documentary of CLEOPATRA. I had never heard it before and haven't heard it anywhere since so, who knows? It wouldn't be the first time otherwise stellar documentaries contain a factual error.

 

[Will Krupp]

Originally Posted by GMpasqua

"Hello Dolly" wasn't a Flop and it also wasn't a hit - a disappointment - to many yes, to some no, to the Studio - Yes! but it did respectable - especially when compared to the other films released at the time

Although entirely unrelated, when I read this I was reminded of what the author Coyne Saunders wrote about Lucille Ball's film career at MGM: "not exactly a failure but certainly not a success."


Do you think that sums it up?


By the way, just so you know Greg, even tho I got snarky with you and Allen about whether or not this flopped in 1969 (and it WAS wrong to shoot it directly at the two of you and for that I am sorry) I honestly do love this movie. It's always been my partner's favorite Streisand movie and whenever he needs cheering up I always use "Put On Your Sunday Clothes" and it never fails to do the trick (he also loves MAME but that's a totally different thread!)


Just when I thought I couldn't possibly get any gayer, I nearly got into a slap fight on a HELLO DOLLY! message board!


I hope you'll both accept my apology as (as Allen said) we have a lot of common ground and are really all on the same side.

 

[ahollis]

Originally Posted by Will Krupp
Quote:
I hope you'll both accept my apology as (as Allen said) we have a lot of common ground and are really all on the same side.

We have no problem. We just need to put on our Sunday Clothes and go to town Thanks.

 

[GMpasqua]

Quote: Originally Posted by Will Krupp /forum/thread/299826/hello-dolly/90#post_3770989

 

[john a hunter]

And it certainly premiered in the U.K in 70mm

Originally Posted by Vern Dias

Even though "Can-Can" was filmed in Todd-AO I believe it was never screened in Todd-AO (even though some theaters "The Rivoli in NYC" advertised it as Todd-AO) - it was only shown in 35mm

I saw it several times at the Kuhio Theatre in Waikiki, HI and it was definitely projected in 70mm there.


Vern

 

[john a hunter]

Originally Posted by Will Krupp

While Ms Taylor profited by the use of TODD-AO I'm not sure she insisted, Fox had obtained a financial interest in 1958 of the TODD-AO format with CAN-CAN (1960) being the first and CLEOPATRA (1963) the second.

I tend to agree with your assessment. The idea that Elizabeth insisted on Todd-AO as the format was (to my knowledge) first put forth in the brilliant behind the scenes documentary of CLEOPATRA. I had never heard it before and haven't heard it anywhere since so, who knows? It wouldn't be the first time otherwise stellar documentaries contain a factual error.

[/QUOTE]

Yes,a great doco but still with a few mistakes such as omitting completely any reference to special 3 hour 40 minute version that opened at the Dominion Theatre in London when discussing the film's cutting.

 

[MatthewA]

Originally Posted by Will Krupp

Although entirely unrelated, when I read this I was reminded of what the author Coyne Saunders wrote about Lucille Ball's film career at MGM: "not exactly a failure but certainly not a success."


Do you think that sums it up?


By the way, just so you know Greg, even tho I got snarky with you and Allen about whether or not this flopped in 1969 (and it WAS wrong to shoot it directly at the two of you and for that I am sorry) I honestly do love this movie. It's always been my partner's favorite Streisand movie and whenever he needs cheering up I always use "Put On Your Sunday Clothes" and it never fails to do the trick (he also loves MAME but that's a totally different thread!)


Just when I thought I couldn't possibly get any gayer, I nearly got into a slap fight on a HELLO DOLLY! message board!

You win the thread with that last comment.


Mame is in the "fascinating flop" category for me, at least artistically. I agree Lucy is miscast, and she could barely breathe let alone sing (thank I Love Lucy's former sponsor for that); perhaps the reviews might have been more magnanimous had she allowed to be dubbed. There were rumors they considered using Lisa Kirk, who dubbed Rosalind Russell in Gypsy, to do so, but Lucy nixed them, even though she apparently allowed them to provide a dubber for some episodes of Here's Lucy. I also found Gene Saks' direction to be somewhat sluggish. Compare it to Morton Da Costa's Auntie Mame, which is about 20 minutes longer but doesn't seem that way because it's much better-paced. But there's still Bea Arthur, Jane Connell, and Robert Preston to redeem the film.


As for when Dolly will finally climb aboard the Blu-Ray train, I have heard that Streisand is in talks to re-remake Gypsy, so if that comes through they may be saving her biggest titles to tie in with it.

 

[Joe Caps]

I just saw Mame again for the first time in years. Sadly, it's not even a fascinating flop, just damn boring.

 

[Matt Hough]

As someone who saw the Broadway version of Mame twice, I can say that all of the electricity and vivacity from the stage version is completely gone in the film version, and that's with two Broadway originators brought in for the film. Lucy is so completely terrible that it's tragic to watch her flailing around trying to be entertaining when she can neither sing well enough nor dance well enough to do the score and show justice. The biggest disappointment, though, is that the music is so ill-served. The orchestra sounds so flat and unengaging. The only remotely musical moment in the whole piece is Robert Preston's performance and the beautiful ballad "Loving You," neither of which were a part of the original show and maybe that's why they're so welcome here. They're fresh while everything else is so stale and unremarkably banal.



With the recent announcement that Barbra Streisand wants to direct and star in a new version of Gypsy, I was dismayed. Gypsy has a fine movie version and a fine made-for-TV version. It doesn't NEED remaking. Mame does. I'm not saying Barbra would be right for the title role, but we don't need another Gypsy. We do need a decent Mame.

 

[ahollis]

Originally Posted by MattH.
With the recent announcement that Barbra Streisand wants to direct and star in a new version of Gypsy, I was dismayed. Gypsy has a fine movie version and a fine made-for-TV version. It doesn't NEED remaking. Mame does. I'm not saying Barbra would be right for the title role, but we don't need another Gypsy. We do need a decent Mame.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. I know that I am going to be ridden out on the rails for saying this, but I think Barbra is a little to old to play Mama Rose. But then she was too young to play Dolly (trying to keep this on topic). Wonder if she can do Sunset Boulevard? And at least let's get a decent if not good TV version of Mame and my vote is with Bernadette Peters.

 

[Garysb]

There really aren't any lead roles for 70 year old women in musicals. If Ms Streisand took any lead role her actual age would be greater than the character. Remember Norma Desmond is 50 in Sunset Blvd, If people are OK with her playing a character 20 years younger than herself, why not Mama Rose . Everyone who has played the role on stage on Broadway has been older than the character at the beginning of the play. If Ms Streisand makes another musical to bookend with Funny Girl, unless it is an original, she will be older than the character. One exception I can think of is "Dear World" where the lead was about 80.


Though she was in her 20's when she made Hello Dolly, I don't think she looked like a 27 year old in the film. She certainly looked older than Michael Crawford and the rest of the younger cast even though they were actually about the same age. It didn't seem strange that she was teaching and giving advice to the younger cast.


Lucille Ball looked older than she was when she made Mame. She also could neither sing or dance. She had broken her leg the year before so she really couldn't move well. I don't think you can compare Streisand to Ball as far as being too old for a role.