Gone With the Wind (1939) Box Office:20 million Tickets Sold in the First Year.

[TServo2049]

If it’s not GWTW (i.e., if the commonly accepted lifetime admissions figure for GWTW is too high) then it would be Star Wars (the first one, aka A New Hope). But that’s a big “if” - we’ll never know for sure.

 

That’s domestic only, though. As far as worldwide, we have no way of adjusting properly or getting all the information, but my gut tells me it’s probably Titanic.

Edited May 20, 2019 by TServo2049

[charlie Jatinder]

Finally watched it. Pretty great film for its time and quite grand too. Characters are pretty solid. Love this scene.

And Loved her.

 

Edited June 25, 2020 by charlie Jatinder

[Broshnat]

Right, I've tried to assemble all of the various data from different sources and produced this:

 

 

Rentals, Gross and estimated Admissions.

 

The items in yellow are figures that are confirmed in some of the posts already in this thread and elsewhere.

 

The years represent the re-release version rather than the year of gross which is important (and may be the source of a lot of the missing data). For example - the big release in 1967 was actually still showing through 68, 69, 70, 71 and the same would have been true of earlier releases.

 

A lot of data conflicts (which isn't surprising given lack of accurate tracking etc) so I have often interpolated or estimated where there are gaps etc and tried to fit all of the data together so it works. Ticket prices have been averaged from various sources - the ones in green are the roadshow-dominated runs in which average prices would have been much higher.

 

Let me know any thoughts - I get the total admissions to around 210m - which is in line with what has been used elsewhere and certainly more than the ~150m that some people try to estimate down to.

 

Some of the sources used for this information:

https://www.ultimatemovierankings.com/gone-with-the-wind-1939/
https://www.ultimatemovierankings.com/top-100-time-box-office-hits-1966/

https://www.filmsranked.com/box-office-record-history-domestic/

 

1957:

 

Top movies by rentals as of Dec 1959.

 

 

As of Dec 1967

 

 

As of Dec 1969

 

As of Dec 1973

Edited July 13, 2020 by Broshnat

[charlie Jatinder]

12 hours ago, Broshnat said:

Let me know any thoughts - I get the total admissions to around 210m - which is in line with what has been used elsewhere and certainly more than the ~150m that some people try to estimate down to.

 

Thing is, you used Average Ticket Rates of that year to get the admits, when the numbers which this thread had (you used green color for) show that ATP of that re-release is much more than the normal ATP.

 

And that's the usual as well, a big film ATP is higher than normal ATP mostly. Like 1967, its $2 you took while normal ATP was just $1.2. That's about 65% higher.

 

In 1941, Mojo has $0.25 while admits tell around $0.32, again 30% higher.

 

I guess you should take 25% higher ATP than normal for very least, it could be more as well.

[Broshnat]

4 hours ago, charlie Jatinder said:

Thing is, you used Average Ticket Rates of that year to get the admits, when the numbers which this thread had (you used green color for) show that ATP of that re-release is much more than the normal ATP.

 

And that's the usual as well, a big film ATP is higher than normal ATP mostly. Like 1967, its $2 you took while normal ATP was just $1.2. That's about 65% higher.

 

In 1941, Mojo has $0.25 while admits tell around $0.32, again 30% higher.

 

I guess you should take 25% higher ATP than normal for very least, it could be more as well.

The initial release and 1967 release were major "roadshow" releases in which the ticket prices were generally much higher than normal.

 

I don't think there is any particular evidence that the ticket price was any higher than average during the other runs?

[titanic2187]

On 5/6/2019 at 8:40 PM, BoxOfficeFangrl said:

GWTW is a four hour soap opera, some technically impressive sequences considering it's from 1939, but still primarily a melodrama. As someone who grew up watching soap operas I don't mind that sort of thing, but it's not for everyone. The lead character Scarlett can be divisive, some people like her determination to get what she wants, others find her highly selfish. Here's a trailer, most of the ones online are from re-releases but this is less spoilery than some:

 

 

 

Also found this "teaser" I guess, it must be from before it came out, there is zero movie footage. It's interesting to see how things have changed with trailers and how they haven't, over time:

 

 

 

80 years later, despite hailed as one the greatest, some of the plot have become so much controversial, like its martial rape scene and treatment to slavery. 

 

While we shouldn't expect something from 1930s to have the layer of sensitivity, this still inevitably impacting the film legacy. 

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

On 7/14/2020 at 1:40 PM, titanic2187 said:

80 years later, despite hailed as one the greatest, some of the plot have become so much controversial, like its martial rape scene and treatment to slavery. 

 

While we shouldn't expect something from 1930s to have the layer of sensitivity, this still inevitably impacting the film legacy. 

I watched Jezebel within the last two weeks. WB made it to cash in on the Scarlett Fever of the time, and its depictions of slavery might be even worse than GWTW's in some ways, but there was no warning about "context" on TCM. It’s in black and white, it won some Oscars but nothing earth-shattering, and it's not held up as one of the greatest movies of all time, so no one cares if it's problematic or not.

 

 

 

 

 

[titanic2187]

20 hours ago, BoxOfficeFangrl said:

I watched Jezebel within the last two weeks. WB made it to cash in on the Scarlett Fever of the time, and its depictions of slavery might be even worse than GWTW's in some ways, but there was no warning about "context" on TCM. It’s in black and white, it won some Oscars but nothing earth-shattering, and it's not held up as one of the greatest movies of all time, so no one cares if it's problematic or not.

 

 

 

 

 

So you are suggesting people think GWTW is problematic simply because they already hated the movie?  

[Barnack]

23 hours ago, BoxOfficeFangrl said:

It’s in black and white, it won some Oscars but nothing earth-shattering, and it's not held up as one of the greatest movies of all time, so no one cares if it's problematic or not.

It must have a giant list of movies that would require an introduction if Gone with the wind need one based on the actual content.

 

But Jezebel is a niche product virtually no one will see, Gone With the Winds will be one of the platform most watched movie and used in the platform marketing campaign, there is logically reason to push for a contextualisation of one and not some others, a problematic movie no one see probably do not cause "harms" in their views.

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

7 hours ago, titanic2187 said:

So you are suggesting people think GWTW is problematic simply because they already hated the movie?  

No? Just that many movies from the same era feature cringeworthy and offensive racial (and gender) portrayals, but GWTW is infinitely more popular so it will have a bigger target on its back. You can't get outraged over things you don't know about.

 

It was just interesting with Jezebel because TCM showed it this month, after the whole GWTW/HBOMax controversy, and it's all in the same Warner family, the hosts are all doing their intros/outros via Zoom. So inserting a warning or whatever wouldn't have been that hard. If it was on Tubi I wouldn't expect anything like that.

 

 

 

[dudalb]

On ‎7‎/‎13‎/‎2020 at 11:20 PM, Broshnat said:

The initial release and 1967 release were major "roadshow" releases in which the ticket prices were generally much higher than normal.

 

I don't think there is any particular evidence that the ticket price was any higher than average during the other runs?

This. People don't get how roadshows worked...and there a lot more to it then much higher prices then the normal ticket price.

Roadshows involved just playing in one theater in even the biggest cities, generally one showing a day except for weekends ,reserved seats, almost always an Intermission (Roadshow movies tended to be long) an overture and intermission music and long runs before going into general release. The idea was to make going to a roadshow film a special experience..more like going to see a play then a normal movie.

It died out in the 1970'; last film in the US to get a roadshow presentation was "Gandhi".

James Cameron talks about wanting to go back to the roadshow to make a film a unique event, but is not going to happen. 

BTW, the 1954 release was also a roadshow event. I think every rerelease of GWTW was roadshowed then after a year went into general release;standard pattern.

The 1967 version pretty much is now unavailable, because of a botched conversion to 70mm widescreen, It drained much of the color of the film, and forced many other changes..most notirously the opening credits, where the famous "floating: from Left to Right" of the  words "Gone With The Wind" was replaced by all the words being splashed at once.  It got blasted by the cirtics, and, although it was a successful rerelease, the 1967 prints were withdrawn when the run was over and have not bene seen since.

 

Edited September 21, 2020 by dudalb

[excel1]

On 6/21/2020 at 6:50 AM, charlie Jatinder said:

And Loved her.

 

 

Has any character from old Hollywood aged better than this one? Still everyone's favorite to this day.

[charlie Jatinder]

Based on Variety Lists

 

Total till 1946 - $20M

47-48 - $2M / $22M

49 - $4M / $26M

54- $7.5M / $33.5M

61 - $7.7M / $41.2M

67 - $6.2M / $47.2M

68 - $23.2M / $70.4M

69 - $0.7M / $71.1M

70 - $1.8M / $72.921M

 

@Broshnat

 

Rentals.

 

Gross be $165-170M.

 

Edited November 22, 2021 by charlie Jatinder

[dudalb]

On 7/26/2020 at 9:41 AM, BoxOfficeFangrl said:

I watched Jezebel within the last two weeks. WB made it to cash in on the Scarlett Fever of the time, and its depictions of slavery might be even worse than GWTW's in some ways, but there was no warning about "context" on TCM. It’s in black and white, it won some Oscars but nothing earth-shattering, and it's not held up as one of the greatest movies of all time, so no one cares if it's problematic or not.

 

 

 

 

I also think that "Jezebel" did not take place during the Civil War has a lot to do with the lack of fuss we see nowdays. The Civil War is always a lightning rod for controversy.

 

it's probably best remembered because it's the film Bette Davis won her Best Actress Oscar for.

Other then that it is just a routine melodrama...though I admit the main event being an outbreak of the plague gives it a certain revalancy...

 

[dudalb]

On 7/14/2020 at 10:40 AM, titanic2187 said:

80 years later, despite hailed as one the greatest, some of the plot have become so much controversial, like its martial rape scene and treatment to slavery. 

 

While we shouldn't expect something from 1930s to have the layer of sensitivity, this still inevitably impacting the film legacy. 

Agreed. One of the things they drill into you in advanced History courses it is unfair and distorts reality if you judge people in the past by today's standards.

My biggest quarrel with GWTW as a historian is it's incredlbly distorted view of Reconstruction .

[CaptNathanBrittles]

On 5/6/2019 at 1:40 PM, BoxOfficeFangrl said:

GWTW is a four hour soap opera, some technically impressive sequences considering it's from 1939, but still primarily a melodrama. As someone who grew up watching soap operas I don't mind that sort of thing, but it's not for everyone. The lead character Scarlett can be divisive, some people like her determination to get what she wants, others find her highly selfish. Here's a trailer, most of the ones online are from re-releases but this is less spoilery than some:

 

 

 

Also found this "teaser" I guess, it must be from before it came out, there is zero movie footage. It's interesting to see how things have changed with trailers and how they haven't, over time:

 

 

 

 

This is what makes Scarlett O'Hara a great, compelling character, she has admirable and not-so admirable traits that are significant. She's a three-dimensional character who the audience can never quite pin down. If it was made today no doubt her rough edges would be smoothed out and she would be a bland, uninteresting character. The same with her relationship with Rhett Butler.  I can't remember the last blockbuster that had characters as complex as GWTW.

Edited August 24, 2022 by CaptNathanBrittles

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

On 8/24/2022 at 12:00 PM, CaptNathanBrittles said:

 

This is what makes Scarlett O'Hara a great, compelling character, she has admirable and not-so admirable traits that are significant. She's a three-dimensional character who the audience can never quite pin down. If it was made today no doubt her rough edges would be smoothed out and she would be a bland, uninteresting character. The same with her relationship with Rhett Butler.  I can't remember the last blockbuster that had characters as complex as GWTW.

They'd never remake GWTW now but yeah, people now really have an issue with "complicated" women characters. The "Rose from Titanic is the worst!" people couldn't deal with a Scarlett type.

 

*

In the adjusted numbers arguments, some people will say that movies of the past have unfair advantages: less technology, no home market, fewer movies. About the latter, the historical release schedules of all the big studios are listed on Wikipedia. So I thought, how many other movies were released in December 1939? GWTW played as a "roadshow" for months, other movies also might have been in limited release, but it gives an idea of the competition:

 

Movies released in December 1939, by studio:

20th Century Fox: 7

Columbia: 7

MGM: 7 (includes GWTW)

Paramount: 5

RKO: 4

United Artists: 3

Universal: 5

Warner Bros: 6

 

Some of these other movies were even in color! People had options, even back then.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 6, 2022 by BoxOfficeFangrl

[dudalb]

22 hours ago, BoxOfficeFangrl said:

They'd never remake GWTW now but yeah, people now really have an issue with "complicated" women characters. The "Rose from Titanic is the worst!" people couldn't deal with a Scarlett type.

 

*

In the adjusted numbers arguments, some people will say that movies of the past have unfair advantages: less technology, no home market, fewer movies. About the latter, the historical release schedules of all the big studios are listed on Wikipedia. So I thought, how many other movies were released in December 1939? GWTW played as a "roadshow" for months, other movies also might have been in limited release, but it gives an idea of the competition:

 

Movies released in December 1939, by studio:

20th Century Fox: 7

Columbia: 7

MGM: 7 (includes GWTW)

Paramount: 5

RKO: 4

United Artists: 3

Universal: 5

Warner Bros: 6

 

Some of these other movies were even in color! People had options, even back then.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scareltt is certainly a much more interesting charecter then Rose in Titianic.

Scarlett is a survivor; she will do almost anything to survive. it is not a conindicence that the most compelling parts of the frilm are the last third of the first hald and the first third of the second half, where Scareltt has to survival Sherman's March tne the fall of the COnfederacy.

 

[dudalb]

Just now, dudalb said:

Scareltt is certainly a much more interesting charecter then Rose in Titianic.

Scarlett is a survivor; she will do almost anything to survive. it is not a conindicence that the most compelling parts of the frilm are the last third of the first hald and the first third of the second half, where Scareltt has to survival Sherman's March tne the fall of the COnfederacy.

Margaret Mitchell did borrow a lot of Scarlett from Becky Sharp in Thackery's 'Vanity Fair" who connives and schemes her way through the Regency and the Napoleonic Wars. Reese Witherspoon played her in a film version of "Vanity Fair" a few years ago.