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

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

---

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 . . .

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.

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?

---

"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

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.

---