Hairspray is now the 4th most successful movie musical of all times- Page 2

[WickedBoy2]

Posted: 8/28/07 at 9:35am

Roninjoey 'Hairspray' has already had the sing-a-long treatment

[Brave Sir Robin2]

Posted: 8/28/07 at 10:09am

"Hairspray for Best Picture at the Oscars. YES!!!!!!!"
Maybe not THAT, but the technical categories and song have a chance. And Michelle Pfeiffer.

[JP2]

Posted: 8/28/07 at 11:21am

I don't understand adjusted numbers. I mean, there is no way they can be all that accurate. I pay $11 for a movie, while my friends in Texas pay $6-$8.

[me2]

Posted: 8/28/07 at 11:24am

Has anyone noticed that it will probably pass CHUCK AND LARRY? The gap is closing.

All the "non-theatre" people I know who have seen HAIRSPRAY thought it was great and raved and raved.
Broadway Blog: Toward the Future, From the Past AND 50 Amazing Broadway Performers . . .

Posted: 8/28/07 at 11:38am

The real adjustment is not the regional difference of a few dolalrs but rather the historical difference. When Singing In the Rain premiered in 1952, the average cost of a movie ticket was about 50 cents. So if it grossed $10 Million- that means about 20 million people paid to see it. If a movie grosses $100 Million now, that means about 14 million people paid to see it.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 8/28/07 at 11:40am

I think people are misguided at trying to downplay Hairpray's success by employing the inflation argument. The problem is we live in a completely different time. While $100 million today is not what it was in the 60s, that doesn't change the fact that Hairspray made over $100 million, even thouigh ticket prices are higher. There is so much competition for people's money today, that it is an unfair comparison. Do any of you honestly believe that any of those earlier musicals, had they been released in today's conditions (increased competition among entertainment ventures), would have done comparable business to what they actually did? If you think yes, then you are extremely delusional. If today's market conditions existed in the the days of Rodgers and Hammerstein, then I doubt those movies would have done any better than movies like Phantom or RENT. So while technically you can argue that more people flocked to musicals in the 60s, you can't adjust for today's increased market competition. And in that respect, Hairspray and Chicago are just as successful as The Sound of Music and My Fair Lady, etc.

[LoringsGuy]

Posted: 8/28/07 at 11:55am

Very good observation, Fosse76.

Back in the day, there were far fewer movies being produced, fewer TV stations, no video games, no internet, no iPods, no DVDs coming out mere months after a film's theatrical release. There are so many things vying for our attention these days. Let's face it, we have attention spans of approximately four nanoseconds, and we're quick to move on to the next big thing. In the days of the Rodgers & Hammerstein film musicals, it was an "event" that would frequently stay at a theatre for months and months, if not years. Think of it being comparable to the sit-down production of WICKED in Chicago---the film would just play and play and keep extending until business eventually tapered off. People would go see films they loved many, many times because they didn't have the luxury of buying the DVD a few months later. Back then, you didn't know if you'd ever get the chance to see the film again once it was gone.

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 8/28/07 at 11:55am

You also have to remember just a little more than a couple of decades ago there weren't DVD or VCR players which would account for higher attendance in a movie theater. Am I also wrong in thinking that during that time, movies had a longer run in theaters than they do now?

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/28/07 at 11:57am

You're right Fosse76. These aren't the same times.

Even though we have WAY more people living in our country now, movie attendance is far lower than it was in the 1930s-1960s. Many factors play into that, from ticket prices to the lack of alternative options (such as TV and home video).

Which is why NOBODY should be saying it did well or didn't do well in a historical perspective. You shouldn't be crowing "It's the [insert number here] highest grossing movie of all time!" any more than I should be showing you why it's not.

Success is fleeting and relative... and it should be judged entirely on its own playing field, in its own market, and in its own era. ONLY.

So "all time" shouldn't even be mentioned. What we should be looking at is how well it's doing in today's market against the other films being released this year... and stop right there.

The rest of this is inaccurate egotistical crowing, at best.

Updated On: 8/28/07 at 11:57 AM

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/28/07 at 11:59am

"Very good observation, Fosse76.

Back in the day, there were far fewer movies being produced..."

You're joking right? You obviously have NO idea how many films were produced during the studio system's GOLDEN AGE.

MGM alone released a movie per week in their heyday. That's 52 movies in a single year by ONE STUDIO.

Check your facts first!

Updated On: 8/28/07 at 11:59 AM

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 8/28/07 at 12:03pm

LoringsGuy, great minds think alike!! We were posting the exact same thing at the same time!

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/28/07 at 12:42pm

Actually, I "amend" what I said before...

A film's success shouldn't be based on box office figures at all. It's actually the only medium I can think of that is more concerned about the dollar than it is about the number of people it is reaching with its "art."

The music, publishing, TV, and even stage mediums all use exposure rather than profit to judge success. For music and publishing, it's number of copies sold, for theatre, it's attendance records, and for TV it's viewing audience.

Why shouldn't movies be the same? Granted, in the Golden Age there wasn't pay-per-view, video rentals or downloadables. So, in my opinion, that's exactly what should be going on now. Include them. Music is sold to the public now in many formats, so are films. We should be able to count how many people attended Hairspray, how many copies were sold on home video and how many paid for it on pay-per-view, and that would be the ideal way of measuring success against an era that didn't have those options and forced people to by more movie theatre tickets or to attend re-releases if they wanted to see it.

It's the ONLY way I can think of fairly judging how wide an audience any film has.

But don't you find it odd that it's currently the only "art medium" that is judged strictly on profit alone? It says everything about where the industry's priorities are today.

[avab802]

Posted: 8/28/07 at 1:44pm

best12, that's a very interesting observation and something I never thought about before. You never hear movie studios report on the number of DVDs sold of their films. When you think of the number of ways we can access films now, it seems silly to only count the dollars earned in theatrical release towards the film's success.

Live theater is really the only entertainment medium left that has only one way to access it - by going to the theater.