Off Topic Messages

Hitchcock and Bogus Information

Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:43 am

In the new Hopkins film, the statement is made, supposedly by Hitchcock to the head of Paramount, that "the last five Martin and Lewis pictures lost money."

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Before this myth becomes fact, I present the following.

Martin and Lewis were the sixth top grossing motion picture stars in 1956, and the seventh top grossing stars in 1955.

Here is where their movies ranked on the top 100 grossing films for each year, according to Daily Variety:

THREE RING CIRCUS - #24, $4,000,000

YOU'RE NEVER TOO YOUNG - #28, $3,400,000

ARTISTS AND MODELS - #21, $3,800,000

PARDNERS - #24, $3,600,000

HOLLYWOOD OR BUST - #23, $3,300,000

As you can see, they ranked among the top third-grossing films for each year.

I HATE mis-information like this!

Re: Hitchcock and Bogus Information

Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:17 am

HoneyTalkNelson wrote:In the new Hopkins film, the statement is made, supposedly by Hitchcock to the head of Paramount, that "the last five Martin and Lewis pictures lost money."

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Before this myth becomes fact, I present the following.

Martin and Lewis were the sixth top grossing motion picture stars in 1956, and the seventh top grossing stars in 1955.

Here is where their movies ranked on the top 100 grossing films for each year, according to Daily Variety:

THREE RING CIRCUS - #24, $4,000,000

YOU'RE NEVER TOO YOUNG - #28, $3,400,000

ARTISTS AND MODELS - #21, $3,800,000

PARDNERS - #24, $3,600,000

HOLLYWOOD OR BUST - #23, $3,300,000

As you can see, they ranked among the top third-grossing films for each year.

I HATE mis-information like this!

What were the investments for each of these? This could tell another story.

Re: Hitchcock and Bogus Information

Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:28 am

ARTISTS AND MODELS was the most lavish M&L production and that was budgeted at roughly 1.5 million.

Re: Hitchcock and Bogus Information

Mon Dec 17, 2012 11:09 am

HoneyTalkNelson wrote:ARTISTS AND MODELS was the most lavish M&L production and that was budgeted at roughly 1.5 million.

Wow Nice profits for the time! Thanks HoneyTalkNelson.

Re: Hitchcock and Bogus Information

Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:12 pm

HoneyTalkNelson wrote:In the new Hopkins film, the statement is made, supposedly by Hitchcock to the head of Paramount, that "the last five Martin and Lewis pictures lost money."

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Before this myth becomes fact, I present the following.

Martin and Lewis were the sixth top grossing motion picture stars in 1956, and the seventh top grossing stars in 1955.

Here is where their movies ranked on the top 100 grossing films for each year, according to Daily Variety:

THREE RING CIRCUS - #24, $4,000,000

YOU'RE NEVER TOO YOUNG - #28, $3,400,000

ARTISTS AND MODELS - #21, $3,800,000

PARDNERS - #24, $3,600,000

HOLLYWOOD OR BUST - #23, $3,300,000

As you can see, they ranked among the top third-grossing films for each year.

I HATE mis-information like this!


promiseland wrote:What were the investments for each of these? This could tell another story.


There's nothing to be concerned about. Sacha Gervasi's "Hitchcock" is a Hollywood drama, not a documentary. The line was serving a specific purpose in the narrative. Few scripts are ever historically accurate, and those that take them at their word are either foolish or naïve.

Certainly, the critics understand:

Todd McCarthy of The Hollywood Reporter ... said, "Hitchcock might be a work of fantasy and speculation as much as it is history and biography, but as an interpretation of a major talent's inner life and imagination, it's undeniably lively and provocative."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchcock_(film)#Critical_response