Threaded Order Chronological Order
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Posted by: dbdbdb 05:27 pm EST 12/29/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - AlanScott 02:13 pm EST 12/29/22 | |
|
|
|
| I think the figures listed on Wikipedia may reflect long-term sales, such as video, while the Variety figures may not be so up-to-date. That's just a guess. It would explain the startingly high figure (for 1971) for The Boatniks, which, being a Disney film, was possibly subject to multiple re-releases and DVDs, etc. Anyway, I think it's fair to say that, by the time of Sugar, Morse's star had faded considerably. He was, I'm sure, still a name to contend with on Broadway, however. And, to your earlier point, the combination of him, Champion, Merrick, plus Ritchard, and even Roberts -- not to mention the Billy Wilder association -- surely explains Sugar's healthy presale. | |
| reply to this message |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 07:58 pm EST 12/29/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - dbdbdb 05:27 pm EST 12/29/22 | |
|
|
|
| Actually, if we trust Variety, the figure for The Boatniks is low. The 1977 reissue, mentioned on Wiki but the additional grosses were not included, led to a rental figure of $8.9 million by January 1978, after it had been listed in January 1976 at $6.6 million. I'm not sure the explanation is long-term sales for the differences where the source on Wiki is not Variety. I mean, do we think that Where Were You When the Lights Went Out? has been that popular on video? Perhaps it was reissued and did well, although I don't recall a reissue. As I recall, it turned up on television pretty quickly. I do think that the Variety figures are often on the low side. If my understanding is correct, and I’m not sure it is, this is because it represents the rentals to the studio or distributor rather than the actual gross. This is why comparing numbers found in different places can be misleading because some sources will give the total gross and some will give the rentals. Anyway, after searching around for some explanation, I think that may explain the big discrepancy on Lights. But then I wonder how Variety gets those figures. Are the studios really that forthcoming with them? And have they been that forthcoming for all this time? As opposed to Broadway, where, at least until the 2009 change, we have a better idea of grosses if we look back at Variety (although even there we know that at times figures have been reported that were higher than the truth, but that seems, surprisingly, to have been quite rare). As for The Boatniks, I guess Disney films just tended to do well, but that one seems to have done better than some others that are now better-known titles. If anything, its relative success — not a smash but a solid performer — on its first release suggests that Morse's name may have had pretty good currency at the time of Sugar. In 1971, he also showed up on Night Gallery, Alias Smith and Jones, and Love, American Style so I think his name meant something in 1972, although hardly a superstar. Am I the only one who has no memory at all of The Boatniks? Wotta title. I fear this is a confusing post, and I should probably give it a rewrite before posting, but this has been enough for one day. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Posted by: Ann 02:10 am EST 12/30/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - AlanScott 07:58 pm EST 12/29/22 | |
|
|
|
| I have no memory of The Boatniks. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Posted by: dbdbdb 12:37 pm EST 12/30/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - Ann 02:10 am EST 12/30/22 | |
|
|
|
| Well, it was a Disney picture, and, depending on one's age, it might have slipped by one's notice altogether. I was only dimly aware of it myself, having cycled out of Disney pictures at that point. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Posted by: Ann 02:16 pm EST 12/30/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - dbdbdb 12:37 pm EST 12/30/22 | |
|
|
|
| Right. I saw a number of good films that year, but definitely not Disney fare. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 05:04 pm EST 12/30/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - Ann 02:16 pm EST 12/30/22 | |
|
|
|
| Although I was not seeing Disney fare at that time — not even Bedknobs and Broomsticks — I feel like I at least remember hearing about the others, seeing ads. I must have seen ads for this one, I probably saw reviews in at least one paper, even if I didn't read any, but the title seems totally unfamiliar, which is odd because it clearly did pretty well at the box office. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.030781 seconds.