Sergio Leone Web Board
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 12, 2017, 03:13:31 AM
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
News:


+  Sergio Leone Web Board
|-+  Films of Sergio Leone
| |-+  The Good, The Bad and The Ugly (Moderators: cigar joe, moviesceleton, Dust Devil)
| | |-+  Box office dollars
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Box office dollars  (Read 9211 times)
Cal
Site Administrator
Administrator
Bandido
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 141



View Profile WWW
« on: November 11, 2002, 07:18:19 PM »

Since this is a brand new board, I figured I'd start some posts.


Does anyone know how much money this film made at the box office?

Logged

Sabbath
Road Apple
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


I'm a dead ringer for Paul Naschy


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: November 11, 2002, 08:28:27 PM »

Since this is a brand new board, I figured I'd start some posts.


Does anyone know how much money this film made at the box office?


Frayling reports the exact figure.

Logged
Brendan
Road Apple
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 23


One of the best.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: November 11, 2002, 09:41:58 PM »

According to The Movie Times (http://www.the-movie-times.com) it only brought in about $6.1 million U.S.

Here's Clint's page on that site:

http://www.the-movie-times.com/thrsdir/actors/ceastwood.html

Logged

You ever think how the most minor decision can change the entire direction of your life?
KC
Bandido
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 67



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: November 11, 2002, 10:45:23 PM »

"Only," Nightwing? That was a HUGE success in 1968!

According to Frayling, GBU grossed $4.3 million in Italy (a slight come-down from its two predescessors), and $6 million in the U.S. (where it was the most successful of the three). (Sergio Leone: Something to Do with Death, p. 245-246.)

Logged
visitor
Bandido
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 144



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: November 12, 2002, 01:21:26 PM »

I'm not sure $6 million was HUGE when you consider  the JAMES BOND films were grossing over $100 million at the time(THUNDERBALL $140 million worldwide in '66 according to dvd ) In fact, OHMSS was considered a failure in '69 when it did around $70 million.
Since these are the films that often times get compared to the Leone films as cultural milestones of the '60's...well there was a big difference in take at the turnstile. In fact, I'm sure more people know of GBU from the music than ever having seen the film.
The return on investment may have been higher for the SW's since the Leone films were so cheaply made, but the box office dollar volume was not  high for it's time.

Logged
Cal
Site Administrator
Administrator
Bandido
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 141



View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: November 12, 2002, 07:35:56 PM »

6 million in 1966 had to be be huge though. I cant believe a james bond film could do that much back then. That is about the same as what they did in the early-mid nineties.

Logged

visitor
Bandido
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 144



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: November 12, 2002, 08:46:27 PM »

That's what it said on the dvd or laserdisc(can't recall right now)But I do remember that post-GOLDFINGER the franchise was so big, the BEATLES came to watch Connery film scenes for THUNDERBALL.

Logged
Sabbath
Road Apple
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


I'm a dead ringer for Paul Naschy


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: November 12, 2002, 09:07:52 PM »

Thunderball is still the biggest grossing Bond film according to an article I just read. What's the biggest grossing Italian western? How much did DJANGO make? It wasn't even releasedin the US, was it?

Logged
visitor
Bandido
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 144



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: November 12, 2002, 09:20:18 PM »

That might be true when adjusted for inflation, but  GOLDENEYE and TOMORROW NEVER DIES both did around $350 mill worldwide.
When you consider that BUTCH CASSIDY made over $100 mill in the USA in '69 you realize how far down the boxoffice scale the LEONE pictures were. Of course, I can't sit through 30 seconds of RAINDROPS KEEP FALLIN' and half the so called action directors of today are trying to be Sergio...
Most of the sw's were financially successful because they were a low cost genre product. Even the ones considered flops(ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST and DUCK YOU SUCKER among them) made money.
I would guess less than a quarter of the Italian westerns made were released in the United States.

Logged
Sabbath
Road Apple
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


I'm a dead ringer for Paul Naschy


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: November 12, 2002, 09:43:25 PM »

I would say even less than a quarter of the 500 plus SWs were released in the US theatrically. TV, cable, is where a lot of them first got shown here. I remember seeing THE BIG GUNDOWN at a drive in.

Logged
Brendan
Road Apple
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 23


One of the best.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 12, 2002, 10:31:24 PM »

According to boxofficemojo.com Goldfinger brought in $51,081,062 (domestically) back in 1964. Adjusted for inflation it has brought in $378,573,000.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/jamesbond/

And also, according to boxofficemojo.com, The Good The Bad & the Ugly brought in $25,100,000 domestically not $6,100,000 as originally thought. BUT, there is a note on the bottom of the page that says Grosses prior to 1976 are awaiting studio confirmation, and should not yet be considered accurate.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/actors/clinteastwood/

Logged

You ever think how the most minor decision can change the entire direction of your life?
KC
Bandido
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 67



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: November 13, 2002, 10:41:33 PM »

There's probably some confusion here between grosses (what the theaters take in), which is how movie money is always reported these days because the figures are so nice and big, and rentals (the amount actually returned to the distributor), which is how Variety, for one, always used to report the figures in its annual listings of the box office champs.

The figure of $6 million was undoubtedly for rentals ... see Zmijewsky and Pfeiffer's The Films of Clint Eastwood (1993 ed.), which has a report of how Eastwood films fared in Variety's "All Time Rental Champs" listings. That also gives a figure of slightly over $6 million for GBU ... $6,111,962, to be precise, and it's specified that these are "Rental dollars."

The figure of $25,100,000 sounds like an approximation of GBU's grosses on its original U.S. release. On the other hand, $140,000,000 for Thunderball sounds way too high even for grosses, for the 1960s. I wonder if it's either an attempt to adjust for inflation ... or if subsequent revenue streams (video and DVD) are being factored in here?

The Variety website (for paying subscribers only) currently has a list of the so-called "Top 250 Films of All Time." The figures are "box office receipts," i.e. grosses, and they are not inflation-adjusted. The 250th film on that list is Hercules, which grossed $99,112,101 in 1997. Thunderball is not on the list—the only sixties films that made the cut are The Sound of Music ('65, $158,671,368) and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid ('69, $102,118,287).

Logged
visitor
Bandido
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 144



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: November 14, 2002, 03:56:19 PM »

KC, check and see if that's the "domestic" gross(meaning North American) The numbers you quote seem like they are close to the ones I've seen elsewhere for US box office. The worldwide grosses are much higher. Check the "box office mojo" board that was posted above. So far it's the best online source I've come across.

Logged
Cusser
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1562


Remember, I always see the job through !


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: November 14, 2002, 05:08:04 PM »

"There was no dollars in them days."   OK, wrong film, but the point is that one CANNOT compare dollars from different eras, due to inflationand pricing.  The industry should rank by number of 9paid) admissions, to get over this, but nooooooooooooo, tooooooooo stoooooooooooooopid !

Logged
KC
Bandido
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 67



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: November 14, 2002, 09:58:44 PM »

KC, check and see if that's the "domestic" gross(meaning North American) The numbers you quote seem like they are close to the ones I've seen elsewhere for US box office. The worldwide grosses are much higher. Check the "box office mojo" board that was posted above. So far it's the best online source I've come across.
The Variety figures are clearly for "domestic" (North American) grosses.

Going back to my post about Frayling's figures, he did mistakenly use the word "grossed" when what he evidently meant was "returned in rentals" .... In any event, if we add his U.S. and Italian figures, we get more than $10.5 million (presumably) returned to the distributors in those two countries alone, for a picture that was budgeted at something over a tenth that amount.  

KC

Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  



Visit FISTFUL-OF-LEONE.COM

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.028 seconds with 18 queries.