and they didn't make any mistake. The characters are totally unsympathetic --- except for the big cat! I was hoping he'd eat Grant and Hepburn.
Sometime in the 1950s a French film journal named Cahiers du Cinema decided Howard Hawks is an "auteur" and everything he did was art. Lots of people have been stupid enough to believe it, and Bringing Up Baby was reclassified from a flop to a masterpiece.
bttt
shareThe Wizard of Oz was a flop upon it's initial release...
God you can have Megan Fox...Give us back Vivien Leigh
The Wizard of Oz was not a flop on it's initial release. Because of it's incredibly huge budget, it only made a small profit. It was and has ALWAYS been hugely popular.
shareThe Wizard of Oz was not a flop on it's initial release. Because of it's incredibly huge budget, it only made a small profit.
Sorry, but The Wizard Of Oz made NO profit in its initial release. The film cost $2,777,000 to produce and grossed $3,017,000, but don't let those numbers fool you; not factored into the production budget were costs for distribution, prints and advertising. When the books were closed on the film's initial release, it had lost around a million dollars. The box office figures are fairly easy to access; you can find them in Aljean Harmetz's comprehensive book The Making of The Wizard Of Oz, or you can simply click on the link below (from Turner Classic Movies) -
http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/852/The-Wizard-of-Oz/notes.html
The Wizard Of Oz would eventually become very profitable, but its fortunes wouldn't really begin to turn until a major rerelease in the late 40s.
The Wizard Of Oz, Citizen Kane and Bringing Up Baby - they're all recognized film classics, and none of them made a profit when they were initially released. Box office returns alone have never been a reliable indicator of filmmaking quality (something the OP should keep in mind).
I don't think you are factoring in Wizard of Oz merchandise, which increases the over-all profitability of it's initial release.
In 1939, $2,777,000 was the largest budget to that time in Hollywood. I am confident in saying that. And a gross of $3,017,000 was a FANTASTIC gross.
The point I was making was that the Wizard of Oz was NEVER a flop. It was hugely popular in it's day. If it hadn't been so popular, MGM would never have thought to re-release it at later dates.
It was not a flop!
But you stated The Wizard of Oz "made a small profit" in its initial release - and that never happened.
I think it's one of the greatest films ever made. However, it was not considered profitable by MGM when it was first released; that's a widely accepted fact. And yes, films are considered "flops" when they lose money; that's why it's called "show business" and not "show art."
Similarly, Disney films like Fantasia, Alice In Wonderland and Sleeping Beauty were all considered financial flops because they were (initially) unprofitable; of course, subsequent re-releases put them all into the black.
No one is disputing the fact that many people saw The Wizard of Oz when it first opened, or that it received some excellent reviews, or that it won Oscars; it was considered successful in every way, except financially. All of the links below will tell you the same thing; the film lost money when it was first released -
http://www.filmsite.org/wiza.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/the-wizard-of-oz-1939-film
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wizard_of_Oz_(1939_film)
But if you can produce evidence that it actually made a profit in 1939, please supply a link; I'd like to see it (I'm sure MGM would have wanted to see it, too).
So you don't think the 1939 sales of products related to the Wizard Oz should be counted in the profitability of the picture? The Dorothy dolls? The scarecrow dolls? The hundreds of thousands of dollars they made off of the picture?
The Wizard of Oz was not a flop. It was an example in Hollywood over-spending on a picture.
If you want to split hairs, then you can split hairs. The original poster compared Bringing Up Baby being UNPOPULAR to the Wizard of Oz. It was a dysfunctional comparison. That's all I'm saying.
Another question I have is are you counting only Domestic Gross? Because the Wizard of Oz was released elsewhere as well.
There is no comparison between the flop of Bringing up Baby, to the Wizard of Oz.
Once again, where is your evidence that The Wizard Of Oz made a profit in 1939? You talk about merchandising and overseas markets, yet you don't back them up with verifiable facts. Every possible source of revenue (and that includes merchandising) was factored into the books kept by MGM accountants. Are you unaware of the fact that, due to World War II, most of the overseas markets were closed? Are you also unaware of the fact that domestic grosses were kept down because a large segment of the audience were children who'd paid reduced admissions? Even when it was playing to full houses, the film was making less money than it would have with regular paying customers. It's all here -
http://www.allmusic.com/album/the-wizard-of-oz-original-soundtrack-r25 232
http://www.suite101.com/content/the-many-accidents-of-the-wizard-of-oz -a62899
Records kept by MGM have confirmed the studio lost money on the film's initial release; from a financial standpoint, it was a flop. You keep saying it wasn't as big a flop as Bringing Up Baby, but once again the facts don't support your claim. RKO reported that Bringing Up Baby lost more than $350,000 in its initial release-
http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/568/Bringing-Up-Baby/notes.html
Hepburn herself put Baby's losses at around $365,000 -
http://books.google.com/books?id=gwc3FYlODrcC&pg=PA119&lpg=PA1 19&dq=bringing+up+baby+lost+money&source=bl&ots=JJMGlkHM0a &sig=flxNl9sKsUsTF1Q-mm7cOzmFDyU&hl=en&ei=6hNGTtj9HYr1gAfA oKXUBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&sqi= 2&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=bringing%20up%20baby%20lost%20mo ney&f=false
As reported (and repeatedly linked), The Wizard Of Oz lost MGM around a million dollars in 1939, which actually means Wizard was just as big a flop as Baby, if not a bigger one.
You can continue living in an "Oz" dreamworld regarding Wizard's finances, but - no matter how much you choose to deny them - the facts have been reported and they're irrefutable. However, if you'd like to join us in the real world, just close your eyes, tap your heels together three times and think to yourself, "There's no place like home."
You just can't be wrong, can you? You are right, and that is all there is to it?
I'll say it again! Bringing up Baby was scathed by critics and patrons alike. It bombed. It was the film that famously assigned Hepburn as "Box Office Poison" because it was so ill-received. By everyone involved.
On the other hand, EVERYONE has always loved the Wizard of Oz. From beginning to end. From 1939 till today.
Can you not understand this? The original poster was trying to make a correlation between Baby being hated, and then loved (by sycophants) to the Wizard of Oz supposedly going through some kind of similar journey. When clearly this was not the case.
In 1938, Bringing up Baby was not well thought of.
In 1939, The Wizard of Oz was LOVED.
Kapish?
You just can't be wrong, can you?
Wrong? I'm just quoting (and linking) the facts.
If someone can't accept being "wrong," it appears to be you. You've been telling everyone The Wizard Of Oz wasn't a box office flop in its initial release, yet you haven't been able to produce a single piece of evidence that supports your claim the film "made a small profit" in 1939. Is The Wizard Of Oz a wonderful and well-loved film? Of course it is. Is it a classic? Unquestionably. But did it lose money when it was first released? Sorry, but the answer to that question is also "yes" - and there isn't a film historian (or MGM accountant) who will tell you otherwise.
In 1938, Bringing up Baby was not well thought of.
In 1939, The Wizard of Oz was LOVED.
Is this your idea of hard evidence?
It's fine as far as personal opinions go, but I'm afraid it tells us nothing about the respective box office performances - and losses - of both films.
The Wizard of Oz was the second biggest film of 1939 after Gone with the wind.
shareThe Wizard of Oz was the second biggest film of 1939 after Gone with the wind.
And Cleopatra was the top box office attraction of 1963, but it was still a flop.
The cool thing about The Wizard Of Oz is how it went from box-office disappointment to financial gold mine (and became an undisputed film classic as well).
So let me get this straight--your argument is that a film's initial theatrical box-office take indicates its quality and relevance to all future audiences? And you're using The Wizard of Oz to prove a point about Bringing Up Baby? And you have to fabricate "facts" about The Wizard of Oz to prove this point about Bringing Up Baby? Wow.
No, The Wizard of Oz was not a success upon initial release, or upon the late '40s rerelease. It didn't gain widespread popularity or acclaim until it was broadcast on TV every year.
No, merchandising wasn't a big money-making factor for The Wizard of Oz in 1939. There weren't any McDonalds happy-meal tie-ins, or spin-off Nickleodeon cartoons. It was 1939, something had to be popular ON ITS OWN to be merchandised.
Even if you were right about The Wizard of Oz (which you aren't), it wouldn't prove anything about Bringing Up Baby. They're two different films.
Wow.
HomerParrish wrote:
I'll say it again! Bringing up Baby was scathed by critics and patrons alike. It bombed. It was the film that famously assigned Hepburn as "Box Office Poison" because it was so ill-received. By everyone involved.And you will be wrong again. That Bringing Up Baby was a total flop on its initial release is an urban legend. Its reception, by both critics and audiences, varied widely.
POPULAR LEGEND SAYS that Howard Hawks' Bringing Up Baby was a critical and commercial disaster on its first release--a reception that makes for a neatly ironic contrast to the film's subsequent status as Golden Age classic. But as Todd McCarthy's biography of Hawks documents, Baby was enthusiastically received by preview audiences, West Coast critics and film-goers alike; it was only because expectations ran so high that the fizzling expansion into other regional markets seemed so disappointing; and it was only because the release hit rock bottom in New York, the city best able to determine long-term perceptions, that Baby has since been regarded as a flop.altscreen.com/06/20/2011/howard-hawks-bringing-up-baby-film-forum/
Despite having a reputation of being an enormous flop, it was actually very successful in certain parts of the country. It first premiered on Valentine's Day, February 14, 1938 at the Golden Gate Theater in San Francisco, where it was a hit. It was also a hit in such cities as Los Angeles, Portland, Denver, Cincinnati, and Washington D. C. However it was a financial disappointment in the midwest and most other cities in the U.S. To the surprise of RKO, when it premiered in New York on March 3, 1938 at Radio City Music Hall it only made $70,000 and was pulled after only one week[39] to make way for Jezebel starring Bette Davis.[40] On its initial run the film recorded a loss of $365,000[41] if Hawks' additional fee of $40,000 is added to the film's budget.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bringing_Up_BabyPeter Bogdanovich says the same thing in his commentary on the DVD.The idea that the initial evaluation of a work is somehow going to be more accurate than later evaluations is, of course, ludicrous.P.S.
On its first run Bringing Up Baby made $715,000 in the U.S. and $394,000 in foreign markets, with a total of $1,109,000.[32] When it was re-issued in 1940 and 1941 it made an additional $95,000 domestically and $55,000 in foreign markets.[39] After its second run the film had made a profit of $163,000.[32]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bringing_up_babyAccording to these figures, the movie made money on its first release if you count foreign revenues. A lot of the problem was Frank Nugent's infamous negative review in the New York Times, and then the film got pulled in New York before there was any chance for word-of-mouth to counteract it.For easy markup in Firefox & Opera, see http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/42255 share
I don't care what the critics say, it's a very entertaining movie.
shareSame here. I always get a kick out of this one. It's always featured in a Cary Grant tribute on TCM.
Perry: "You, stop multiplying!"
I find myself always enjoying a movie with Grant in it. Granted I do tend to associate him with Doris Day (and I really like them together). And I like Hepburn,-I found this comedic turn of hers quite surprising and entertaining.
I like TCM. A lot. It's pretty much the only television I opt to watch.
______________________________________
Sic vis pacem para bellum.
[deleted]
[deleted]
doug7347 said
Sometime in the 1950s a French film journal named Cahiers du Cinema decided Howard Hawks is an "auteur" and everything he did was art. Lots of people have been stupid enough to believe it, and Bringing Up Baby was reclassified from a flop to a masterpiece.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I first saw this film I had never heard of the Cahiers du Cinema or of Howard Hawks. I just saw it one time flipping through the tv channels and I stopped to watch it because it was funny. So that blows that theory out of the water.
Even if it was a flop what does that prove? Sometimes when a film comes out the audience at the time just doesn't appreciate it. For instance, It's A Wonderful Life was a flop when it came out because the audience at the time didn't want to see a film with such dark themes so close after WWII.
Most people find this film funny because it is funny despite what your personal thoughts may be or even what the audience in its day may have thought.