Anything about Elvis
More than 30 Million visitors can't be wrong

Re: Elvis Movie Statistics

Thu Mar 01, 2012 12:38 am

HoneyTalkNelson wrote:December 1, 1956

NICE! Thanks for sharing and all your hard work in the information you provide.

Re: Elvis Movie Statistics

Thu Mar 01, 2012 2:43 am

greystoke wrote:
ColinB wrote:But the box-office takings you quote are only for the US, aren't they ?
These films were popular all round the globe !
Yes, that's only the North American box office I'm discussing -- hence, mentioning "domestic" takings previously and Variety's lists.
I do have international figures, too -- and top-ten lists for UK films dating back to the 1940s.
Although, box office numbers don't always apply to the latter, as weekly charts weren't wholly appreciated until 1969 in Britain.
Whilst, in some markets, tickets sold were the measure, as opposed to money earned or gross.
But, the US market was the best recorded of all with regards to box office earnings/takings, thus is fit for easy discussion sans speculation.


Yes, I can see that the US has the easiest figures to access, but when judging how well a film did, compared to the production costs, the overseas box office has to be considered.

Re: Elvis Movie Statistics

Thu Mar 01, 2012 3:01 am

Absolutely. But, further to that, international distribution costs and marketing must also be considered. As should dollar figures and comparable monetary values. The entire picture may not be appreciable from domestic rentals alone, but such is indicative of a large portion of many films' earnings. Not every film, of course -- but domestic rentals were/are most valuable to Hollywood studios. Or, in the same respect, domestic earnings for a British, Japanese, French film etc.

Re: Elvis Movie Statistics

Thu Mar 01, 2012 5:11 am

Just speculating here Greystoke, but do you think Parker had any clue or knowledge about overseas receipts or how to count them? It seems to me he probably didn't have much of an idea of what they should be getting overseas. I think is especial evident from the buyout agreement.

What I thought though was really sad about Viva Las Vegas was that Parker didn't take its better than pace grosses as an opening to bigger opportunities, but instead saw it as an end. One of the things that is very telling about the box attraction lists that Elvis appeared on in the early 1960s is that year in, year out, Elvis is basically the only figure that never appeared with another star on the list. The exception was VLV where he appeared with A/M and we saw the returns were great. It's always frustrated me that all he saw was the higher overhead, but if he could have gotten Elvis and one of those major stars in one of those project that grossed say $20 million to $40 million, they would have been way ahead of the games. But in terms of Elvis his mind didn't think that way. Even cutting Elvis' percentage would have led to more money if the movies had made the mints that the super blockbusters made.

Re: Elvis Movie Statistics

Thu Mar 01, 2012 11:50 am

I would think that Parker had an appreciation of international markets, and would be surprised if a certain amount of money wasn't garnered from such. But this isn't reflected in any information I've seen regarding contracts or earnings -- bearing in mind that Elvis's own production company was never established. Whilst, travelling to promote a film was never undertaken -- not that such was as oft done in 1964 as it is now, but on occasion, studios asked this of their stars.

On reflection, with regards to Viva Las Vegas, I believe we may be of a similar mind, LTB -- the film done great business and could have served as a springboard for Elvis to reach higher or press his influence on the strength of such a hit. Not take a step back into cheaper vehicles. This, taking into consideration that a new, three picture deal with MGM was inked in December of 1964 -- this, over four months after Viva Las Vegas had been on release and had earned the bulk of its gross. Whilst, a further four picture deal was agreed with MGM in January of 1966. There was always room for negotiation, and Elvis's hands clearly weren't tied, but it seems as though Parker's insistence on a higher salary - and profit participation - may have come at the expense most everything else. And studio heads weren't naive to Parker's mechanisms -- Elvis was paid more per picture later in the decade, and that's something the Col. undoubtedly sought, but the flip side of that was decreased budgets, flimsy scripts and and a drop in overall production standards. And, this considered, perhaps Parker and Elvis were their own undoing in Hollywood -- Parker, for pushing the bottom line in spite of quality; and Elvis, for taking a back seat.

Re: Elvis Movie Statistics

Thu Mar 01, 2012 10:13 pm

greystoke wrote:...perhaps Parker and Elvis were their own undoing in Hollywood -- Parker, for pushing the bottom line in spite of quality; and Elvis, for taking a back seat.


When Parker told Elvis that if he signed with him, he'd make him a millionaire - and then did that very thing in a short space of time, Elvis was in awe of him, business-wise !

That respect for Parker's business acumen lasted to the very end.

Elvis agreed to a lot of things that he instinctively felt weren't right for him, simply because of his faith in his manager's ability to bring in the $$$$$$$$$$.

Re: Elvis Movie Statistics

Thu Mar 01, 2012 10:47 pm

EPA4368 wrote:Ouch! That hurt! Howard Thompson on his review for Frankie and Johnny.


Might've hurt,but right on the money

Re: Elvis Movie Statistics

Thu Mar 01, 2012 11:08 pm

ColinB wrote:
greystoke wrote:...perhaps Parker and Elvis were their own undoing in Hollywood -- Parker, for pushing the bottom line in spite of quality; and Elvis, for taking a back seat.


When Parker told Elvis that if he signed with him, he'd make him a millionaire - and then did that very thing in a short space of time, Elvis was in awe of him, business-wise !

That respect for Parker's business acumen lasted to the very end.

Elvis agreed to a lot of things that he instinctively felt weren't right for him, simply because of his faith in his manager's ability to bring in the $$$$$$$$$$.


Very true -- and one wonders if Elvis preferred an easy payday over striving to achieve more for himself in Hollywood. I'm sure he did want to act in films of a higher quality, but he was one of the best paid actors in Hollywood and that afforded a certain lifestyle. But that's an entirely different question. As is that of Elvis's own better judgement in spite of obvious script, production and soundtrack degradation.

Re: Elvis Movie Statistics

Fri Mar 02, 2012 2:24 am

...to your point above- I believe Elvis was trapped by the contracts. They called for certain abmount of films and were pretty much governed by the studios and execs that called the shots there. Put him in a film, any film= rake in the money and then put that towards other projects by "legit" actors and stars.

Also, I don't believe Elvis felt he could exert his power over anyone at the studios- possibly even Parker. He pretty much did what he was told. By the time the mid 60's came around he most likely gave up caring. It is well known that he did not want to do CLAMBAKE or its soundtrack at all. He did it to fulfill his obligations. Its seems he just gave up hoping for a good meaty role of some quality.

I look at his films as the last gasp of old Hollywood- him being the successor to the Garland/ Rooney-Hope/ Crosby- Martin/Lewis type routine escapism films for the masses. 1967-68 with Bonnie & Clyde / The Wild Bunch and films such as those Hollywoods iron fist control was beginning to wane. Film makers wanted more control and it took them a while to get it- but with old Hollywood in decline it started to change around that time.

Also, even though some directors/producers sopke well of Elvis- were they really willing to take a shot with him in a different type vehicle? Perhaps he was only seen as that musical comedy star to them,

Re: Elvis Movie Statistics

Fri Mar 02, 2012 3:12 am

Many years ago I read a article on movie stars of the 1960's and it had a list which I believe had individual actors from every year through the 1960's and i can't remember if it was how much each actors movies made, or if it was just their salaries from each movie from that year. The only thing I do remember was Elvis was near the top every year with John Wayne and Rock Hudson. Does anybody on hear have any idea what list that might be and where one might find it? I haven't seen it in maybe 20 years and have tried but never been able to locate it.

Re: Elvis Movie Statistics

Fri Mar 02, 2012 3:45 am

Good points, Greybeard. Elvis, however, kept allowing new contracts to be signed -- as I mentioned above, a new, three picture deal was agreed with MGM in October of 1964 and another in January of 1966, again with MGM, and for four pictures this time. Whilst, the deal with UA that resulted in Clambake and Frankie and Johnny was also inked in October of 1964. So, options were open, yet the self-same projects were the ultimate result. Whilst, there seems to be some sort of misconception that Elvis was tied to movie contracts from the moment he left the army until playing Vegas in '69. . .

And, perhaps - as you've commented, Greybeard - Elvis didn't feel as though he was able to exert much influence on producers, directors and studio top brass; but such is further example of Parker's failure to look after Elvis's better interests. He merely saw the bottom line, yet when results were garnered via a top flight production such as Viva Las Vegas, he balked and sought pliable producers to make films on the cheap and seek to underline profit participation. And I can't see fault with any studio for that, because, if Elvis's own manager undermined his worth, why not afford a cheap, easy-earner that won't hurt the studio but will likely earn a coin -- especially on a scant budget.

I appreciate where you're coming from with regards to Elvis's career in Hollywood reflecting the last remnants of the old studio systems, however, Elvis's films never approached the earnings of Hope and Crosby (or Crosby alone) nor did he find the same variety and Calibre of work as Garland. And although the landscape of Hollywood was altering by 1967/1968, changes were also afoot over a decade prior, with an increasing amount of actors instigating their own production companies, whilst the major stars of the day were finding a greater ability to call more of the shots and self-manage -- Douglas, Wayne, Holden, Taylor, Sinatra, Brando, Lancaster and Grant, to name but a few.

Whilst, it was only fair that profits from Elvis's films benefited any given studio's greater interests -- such has always been the case in Hollywood. And if Elvis wasn't seen to reap his own rewards from such in a creative capacity, again, one's gaze must be directed at Parker, who, quite simply, failed to pursue anything other than the easy money. This, despite no Presley picture of the 1960s profiting to the same degree as Blue Hawaii -- yet, the formula for such (and G.I. Blues) being pursued film-after-film, soundtrack-after-soundtrack to variable and diminishing results.

Re: Elvis Movie Statistics

Fri Mar 02, 2012 4:13 am

I agree. I wouldn't really think to compare the body of wotk that either Crosby or Garland amassed. Both stars were given top quality projects at some point. Rather I see the films of Elvis being the "formula" type films that those stars were in at one point. They were always crowd pleasers and each pairing was replaced by another as tastes changed...Elvis was the natural progression in that list with the family fun films that became the Presley films after Blue Hawaii and G.I. Blues set the mold for an "Elvis" film. Hollywood loved formulas in those days.

Part of the difference was that the stars of the 40's and even the 50's to some extent didn't have their films playing on TV. So the entertainment value for movie goers money could be spent on going to the theater to see other films than the ones starring Elvis eventually. Why pay to see the same old formula when one may be on TV at anytime for free.

Also your point about stars exerting their clout to get projects made is very valid. However, when stars like Wayne or Mitchum put their own name and cash behind films it was a huge gamble. Wayne was stretched to his limits on THE ALAMO. And again, I don't think Hollywood viewed Elvis as a real actor contrary to what some had said.

I also agree that had Elvis put his foot down and asserted himself things could have been different..Colonel made a deal and Elvis followed through as told. I'd bet he may have lamented to Colonel about it but it fell on deaf ears. Colonel was always about the bottom line as has been stated.

One experience I always find amazing is a story I have told on this board before. In 1965 my brother and I went to see Elvis' new film one Saturday night. The place was packed including the balcony. This theater seats about 1300. The film was HARUM SCARUM! Later in 1968 and again in 1972 when I saw CHARRO! and ELVIS ON TOUR the theater was lucky to have 10 people in it. It was seriously depressing. people had obviously grown tired of Elvis films and were unwilling to give them any chance by that time.To save his film career he would have needed a very major film by the late 60's.

Re: Elvis Movie Statistics

Fri Mar 02, 2012 4:39 am

The money men in Hollywood were only interested in Elvis for the musicals simply because that's where the box-office was. There was no point in putting him in more things like Flaming Star because that's not where the money was at. Besides, the studios had the Newmans and McQueens for the drama stuff. In 1969 Hammer films were planning to do what ended up as Taste the Blood of Dracula with Ralph Bates taking over the role of Dracula. When Warner Bros., who were the financial backers of the film, got wind of this scheme they told Hammer in no uncertain terms that they wanted Christopher Lee as Dracula - or they wouldn't bankroll the film. The reason: box office. Christopher Lee as Dracula was the marquee name/box-office draw. Ralph Bates simply was not. It was a similar situation with Elvis and the musicals.

Re: Elvis Movie Statistics

Fri Mar 02, 2012 5:00 am

greystoke wrote:Good points, Greybeard. Elvis, however, kept allowing new contracts to be signed -- as I mentioned above, a new, three picture deal was agreed with MGM in October of 1964 and another in January of 1966, again with MGM, and for four pictures this time. Whilst, the deal with UA that resulted in Clambake and Frankie and Johnny was also inked in October of 1964. So, options were open, yet the self-same projects were the ultimate result. Whilst, there seems to be some sort of misconception that Elvis was tied to movie contracts from the moment he left the army until playing Vegas in '69. . .

And, perhaps - as you've commented, Greybeard - Elvis didn't feel as though he was able to exert much influence on producers, directors and studio top brass; but such is further example of Parker's failure to look after Elvis's better interests. He merely saw the bottom line, yet when results were garnered via a top flight production such as Viva Las Vegas, he balked and sought pliable producers to make films on the cheap and seek to underline profit participation. And I can't see fault with any studio for that, because, if Elvis's own manager undermined his worth, why not afford a cheap, easy-earner that won't hurt the studio but will likely earn a coin -- especially on a scant budget.

I appreciate where you're coming from with regards to Elvis's career in Hollywood reflecting the last remnants of the old studio systems, however, Elvis's films never approached the earnings of Hope and Crosby (or Crosby alone) nor did he find the same variety and Calibre of work as Garland. And although the landscape of Hollywood was altering by 1967/1968, changes were also afoot over a decade prior, with an increasing amount of actors instigating their own production companies, whilst the major stars of the day were finding a greater ability to call more of the shots and self-manage -- Douglas, Wayne, Holden, Taylor, Sinatra, Brando, Lancaster and Grant, to name but a few.

Whilst, it was only fair that profits from Elvis's films benefited any given studio's greater interests -- such has always been the case in Hollywood. And if Elvis wasn't seen to reap his own rewards from such in a creative capacity, again, one's gaze must be directed at Parker, who, quite simply, failed to pursue anything other than the easy money. This, despite no Presley picture of the 1960s profiting to the same degree as Blue Hawaii -- yet, the formula for such (and G.I. Blues) being pursued film-after-film, soundtrack-after-soundtrack to variable and diminishing results.


Good post.

Parker undermined his worth and had little faith in or understanding of Elvis' true talent. It's unfortunate Elvis, his father and probably most people around Elvis didn't realize how much power he had to change the direction Parker was taking. When Elvis pushed back he was alone. Good thing Elvis met Binder in '68.

Re: Elvis Movie Statistics

Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:54 am

I see it somewhat different than you Greybeard. I see it (based on interviews with Elvis like the Lloyd Shearer interview and also based on the box office of the early 1960s films) as less Elvis being trapped but Elvis taking the studios on good faith. He figured if he proved his box office potential then eventually he would get his chance. By the late 1960s, it became clear that was not going to happen or at least not to Elvis' knowledge. Also, in staying with the movies, both Elvis and Parker probably saw their best shot at industry longevity. Look at Doris Day who remained a top box office attraction all throughout the '60s (in a similar formula to Elvis') despite not having a hit record in years. Or look at Elvis' contemporary Fabian who kept working as an actor long after his Bandstand days were over. Not that he was a star, but he kept working. Movie audiences traditionally, are far, far less fickle than the audiences for pop music. And what's more the most money was in Hollywood and until Elvis and the Beatles came along, the biggest stars were movie actors. Again, Elvis helped change that dynamic and I don't think anyone in his organization figured that out until the late 1960s.

A big difference between Elvis and the stars of the factory era was that the studios basically owned those stars and had an interest in making them long-term viable. Elvis was simply talent for hire. It's worth noting that Crosby and Garland had to wait a really long time for the type of roles that Elvis was seeking. The musicals they were in, because they were less cost-effective in house, because the studios knew how to do them, and understood the talents of those better were of a generally a better class than Elvis' musicals. That being said, Crosby was never really asked to stretch himself as an actor until The Country Girl which was when he was 51 years old and in movies for more than two decades. Although he won an Oscar for Going My Way and it was a quality product, he basically played a variation on the general Crosby persona. Garland had to wait until A Star is Born 15 years into her run. Now you could argue that she had some big time stuff to project in Meet Me in St. Louis or The Wizard of Oz but they weren't the sort of stuff Elvis was seeking out.

Greybeard about Elvis competing with himself on TV that's a good point. But it's also worth noting that unlike Crosby and Hope in their 1940s prime, Elvis had to compete with television period. That's another reason why studios didn't want to surrender the proven musical format, because it was something that got people out of their houses and into the seats on a consistent basis. As the debut dates show that happened less often as the decade wore on because Elvis became readily available on television, virtually on a weekly basis in the winter of 1967.

Pete- Your point only goes so far because while Wild in the Country and Flaming Star did not break box office records, they were profitable. They weren't the type of profits that guarantees million dollars salaries but not every project that a DeNiro does today is at his top rate. More importantly there were offers on the table, John Schlesinger has said for instance he wanted Elvis for Midnight Cowboy a biographer of Nicholas Ray alleged that Ray seriously wanted Elvis for his True Story of Jesse James, Mitchum wanted him for Thunder Road. Walter Mirisch toyed with the idea of casting him in West Side Story and of course L&S's stellar lineup for Walk on the Wild Side. Unbeknownst to Elvis, Parker had close to zero interest in seeing Elvis develop as an actor. Save for West Side I don't know if he knew about any of these things.

And while I agree with Greystoke's point that the changes in Hollywood had been playing out over the 1950s and into the early 1960s, I think the fruits of those changes were confined to that era. I think in the mid-1960s, and i haven't written about this before, there was major burnout in mainstream Hollywood. Compare your fave Sinatra Greystoke from 1957 to 1962 to 1963 to 1968. Or better Dean Martin from about the same period to after 1963. Or Tony Curtis. Or Brando. Look at what he did in the mid-1960s even the challenging projects were often stale or bland. Look at the difference in Doris Day's films or Rock Hudson's before and after. The old school studio directors like Michael Curtiz were either dying or coming to the end of their creative ropes. The artistes from that era like Ford or Hitchcock were in the same situation, although Hitch would rebound a bit in the early 1970s. Even the great independent minds like Preminger and Kazan were close to used up. John Huston would rebound but again, he was mostly lost. And what's more the generation that mostly closely understood who Elvis was and what he was about, and what he could maybe do was still in the wings. At the moment that generation emerged, Elvis quit movies. In Brando you can see how he might have benefited from hanging around. Brando was as lost as any actor could be in the mid-1960s and early 1970s, but his big chance to redeem himself was when the younger generation, raised on the aesthetic that he had helped create, decided to use him in their projects. It was kind of like what happened with Elvis and Steve Binder.

One project a lot of fans here see as a decent vehicle for Elvis- The Sons of Katie Elder is kind of indicative of the state Hollywood was in at that time. It's a decent little movie, but for all three of the lead performers it was a step backwards, a friendly nod at previous triumphs. It would have been great for Elvis to appear with those actors but Hollywood was struggling to find what to do with them as well.

A more direct to Elvis comparison would be the two films Rock Hudson made for Universal in 1965 A Very Special Favor and Strange Bedfellows. Basically, they're Pillow Talk version umpteen. Their sole charm today lies in Hudson's casual mastery of the material, but for Hudson it was very familiar material. They're also very tired. Luckily when his manager/agent got an interesting project like Seconds he dived on it, even if it was not commercially viable. I just think it was a bad time to be a Hollywood actor from say 1964 to 1968.

And finally back to Parker, Greystoke your point about Parker's management and going on the cheap is a good one. The one thing even his detractors give him is his ability to turn a buck. As we see here though that ability is mostly limited to the sure cheap buck.

Re: Elvis Movie Statistics

Fri Mar 02, 2012 8:56 am

greystoke wrote:
ColinB wrote:
greystoke wrote:...perhaps Parker and Elvis were their own undoing in Hollywood -- Parker, for pushing the bottom line in spite of quality; and Elvis, for taking a back seat.


When Parker told Elvis that if he signed with him, he'd make him a millionaire - and then did that very thing in a short space of time, Elvis was in awe of him, business-wise !

That respect for Parker's business acumen lasted to the very end.

Elvis agreed to a lot of things that he instinctively felt weren't right for him, simply because of his faith in his manager's ability to bring in the $$$$$$$$$$.


Very true -- and one wonders if Elvis preferred an easy payday over striving to achieve more for himself in Hollywood. I'm sure he did want to act in films of a higher quality, but he was one of the best paid actors in Hollywood and that afforded a certain lifestyle. But that's an entirely different question. As is that of Elvis's own better judgement in spite of obvious script, production and soundtrack degradation.


If he'd banked his earnings & left them there, he could have relaxed a tad in the later years & done a few things that he really wanted to do, even if they weren't great money-spinners.

As it was, he was 'one of the best paid actors in Hollywood' but one of the biggest spenders, too !

He needed Parker's dollar-raising efforts right to the end, just to maintain his lavish lifestyle.

Re: Elvis Movie Statistics

Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:24 am

But, Colin, was he making the dollars he could have made?

Re: Elvis Movie Statistics

Fri Mar 02, 2012 5:30 pm

likethebike wrote:But, Colin, was he making the dollars he could have made?


No way !

But he had blind faith in his management..........................

Re: Elvis Movie Statistics

Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:28 am

Another good post, LTB; although, I do think that some of the changes in '50s Hollywood resonated strongly the following decade. But, one way or another, Hollywood has never stood still and is ever evolving -- adapting to changes in technology, audience expectations, trends and being further permissive of language and content. However, one absolute in Hollywood, is that it has always clung to familiarity. This happened with Elvis, and there was sustenance in doing so for a time; but familiarity can also breed contempt.

And although some of the best and most prolific actors of the 1950s struggled at times during the 1960s, such isn't always accountable to changing times and/or trends -- Brando, for example, made the straw for his own back through both his single-mindedness and the excess of his own star power, i.e. One Eyed Jacks and Mutiny on the Bounty. Films that almost sunk both Paramount and MGM, respectively -- whilst, one wonders if the strain Cleopatra put on Fox had any bearing on them failing to pursue new contracts for Elvis during his most bankable period.

Brando, for a time - as you mentioned, LTB - was out on a limb in Hollywood, and seemed to be, as a rule, either miscast or riffing on the type of persona that was familiar to him a decade prior . . . Yet, for all the umbrage one can muster against Elvis's acting career, being painfully miscast was never really an issue, whilst the major headaches caused to a studio by the likes of a Mutiny, Jacks or Cleopatra never raised its head with Elvis. In that respect, and despite his stock sinking after Viva Las Vegas, I don't think Elvis was ever in much danger of being without a contract or options in Hollywood. He wasn't disliked, disruptive or a liability. Yet, there was no forward thinking with Elvis, or perhaps even BY Elvis -- and, as Hollywood began to explore new freedom in (as mentioned) langauge and content towards the second half of the 1960s, Brando began to furnish new performances in the likes of The Chase, Reflections in a Golden Eye and even Queimada. And, if doing so didn't serve to reestablish him as a box office star, this was Brando once again demonstrating his ability to build a character from the ground up. But he was still hanging on by a thread, despite the aforementioned and, perhaps in spite of such, because the old Brando remained familiar, whilst anything new - or unusual - failed to spark much interest or greater renown. An unfortunate dichotomy one can also attribute to Elvis as a musician during the 1970s.

And Elvis, on the other hand, was stuck in a sort of Never Never Land that was unique to him alone. And had he been either afforded the opportunity to truly break the mould he was set in, or chose to pursue a determined change to his career as an actor, major success may have eluded him until the notion of the everyman singer was wholly abolished by something truly unique, of genuine quality or very special. Again, with regards to Brando, his fortunes and renown were barely altered by the likes of The Chase, or Reflections, despite such offering performances of note and performances wholly distinguishable from most anything else he acted in during the decade. Yet, Sinatra, for example, altered his entire career on the quality and renown of a single performance -- as Maggio, in From Here to Eternity. In respect to such, in what ways would a true change of direction have affected Elvis's career in Hollywood?!

And Sinatra, I think, mostly got it right in Hollywood. You mentioned the years '63 - '68 in your post above, LTB; yet, Sinatra remained a strong box office draw during this period and continued to pursue a variety of material. Come Blow Your Horn, Von Ryan's Express and The Detective -- released in 1963, 1965 and 1968, are responsible for a combined domestic gross in the region of $45 million, whilst Von Ryan and The Detective were very popular internationally. The former having helped to rebuff many of Fox's financial woes after Cleopatra, and the latter wholly in tune with Hollywood's changing climate of 1967/1968. Don't get me wrong, Sinatra missed the mark like everyone else -- 4 for Texas, Marriage on the Rocks and Assault on a Queen offered next to nothing from a creative standpoint, with the latter two floundering at the box office. But, much like Burt Lancaster, Sinatra found a medium between commercially-minded projects and creative offerings that (if discussing 1963 - 1968 alone) ranged from being one of the first to buy the rights to adapt a Neil Simon play (Come Blow Your Horn), to helping establish the first true American/Japanese co-production with None But the Brave and fronting a major international production in Von Ryan's Express.

You also ask the question, LTB, if Elvis's true earning potential was ever found -- but to that, I would contest that he may have been the most overpaid actor in Hollywood. And we know that quick money was Parker's modus operandi, and had achieved for Elvis a million dollar salary in Harum Scarum and a guaranteed $850.000 per film under his four picture deal with MGM in January of 1966. And if Elvis was bound to be cast so narrowly, at least he was onto a financial winner at every turn.

Re: Elvis Movie Statistics

Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:02 am

Deleted due to lack of interest.
Last edited by HoneyTalkNelson on Fri Mar 09, 2012 9:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Elvis Movie Statistics

Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:19 am

The '68 Special was first aired on Tuesday, December 3rd, 1968 and found 42% of the viewing audience. Aloha was first broadcast on Wednesday, April 4th, 1973 and was watched by 57% of the viewing audience.

Good work on the above post, Bob.

Re: Elvis Movie Statistics

Thu Mar 08, 2012 4:51 am

Thanks, Greystoke.

Obviously the BIB ratings are not listed in the same way as the Variety listing of shares.

FUN IN ACAPULCO - 42.6 share, 25.5 rating
GIRLS GIRLS GIRLS - 41.6 share, 25.1 rating
VIVA LAS VEGAS - 43.4 share, 24.2 rating
PARADISE HAWAIIAN STYLE - 36.0 share, 21.8 rating

Can anyone explain the difference between ratings and shares?

Bob

Re: Elvis Movie Statistics

Thu Mar 08, 2012 5:28 am

The share is the percentage of people watching television at that time who happen to be watching the program. Obviously, not everyone is watching TV at any given moment. The rating is the percentage of everyone who could be watching, meaning everyone that has a TV set. So if the rating is 24.1 percent and the share is 42 that roughly means that 24 percent of the total potential television audience watched the show, and the 42 share means that 42 percent of the sets then on were watching that show. For example say we have ten televisions on the block and two of them are set to Mod Squad but there are only five sets that have television on at that time. That means Mod Squad gets a 20 rating and a 40 share.

Re: Elvis Movie Statistics

Thu Mar 08, 2012 10:14 pm

Wow! Just read through this whole thread. Fantastic research and well put together.

Re: Elvis Movie Statistics

Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:26 am

FANTASTIC thread!! some items deleted..could they please be put back up??? Thanks!