MovieChat Forums > Doctor Dolittle (1967) Discussion > Why was this movie such an enormous flop...

Why was this movie such an enormous flop?

posted 16 years ago by Pamactress
60 replies | jump to latest

The studio obviously expected great things from this movie, and lavished time, money, and talent on it. What went wrong? Rex Harrison's performance was charming and compelling, Samantha Eggar was beautiful and her acting was engaging. Anthony Newley dripped charisma, and his renditions of his musical numbers were fabulous. The costumes and scenery were gorgeous. The score was magical and literate. Richard Attenborough's "Never Seen Anything Like It" number danced joyously across the screen. So what was wrong?

Personally, I think the problem lies in the screenplay. Its roots in an episodic book seem to chop up the story too much, and result in a lack of rising action. Also, the audience is confused by the fact that both Matthew and Dr. Dolittle are attracted to Emma, and don't quite know what to make of that. In addition, I wonder if the audience might be a little uncomfortable with the depiction of the natives; it's not quite politically correct. Other thoughts on this? Thanks.

[–] mkolln 16 years ago

I think the main reason it never caught fire was because of it's length. DOCTOR DOLITTLE was marketed as a children's movie, but lots of kids objected to sitting still in a theatre for close to three hours (plus Intermission!). In addition, musicals were starting to become quite 'old-hat' for movie audiences.

[–] Pamactress 16 years ago

Thanks for your comment. I agree that the length of even the cut-down version of the movie would have been a problem for small children. The question becomes, "What, if anything, could have been left out, without destroying the film, in order to make it a commercial success?". The slashed-up versions which have been shown on television did nothing but render the movie disjointed and confusing, and so were obviously not the correct answer.

As far as musicals becoming "old-hat," "Oliver" won the best picture Oscar the very next year. Therefore, it's unlikely that that explanation carries much weight in regards to the failure of "Dr. Dolittle." Certainly, "Oliver" was even more over-produced than was "Dr. Dolittle."

One approach to "Dr. Dolittle" could have been to retain the deleted songs (and scenes?), let the movie run as long as it ran, and market it as a special event: an epic marathon musical. (There actually are people, including me, who would be interested in such an entertainment.) Of course, that approach likely would have cut down on the lucrative children/family trade, with the loss of much of the resultant marketing tie-ins, so it probably wouldn't have appealed very much to the producers. Also, the inherent child-friendly elements of the story (animals, whimsy, children, spectacle, music, etc.) make it seem perverse to intentionally focus on an other-than-family audience for this particular property.

"Dr. Dolittle" was allowed to open with its obvious problems unresolved. Its creators gambled that butchering a work of art, in the name of retaining the family audience (i.e., greed), would not destroy what they were producing. They lost that wager, big time, and lost their profit as well.

I'm not sure that there is a solution to this problem. I do think that, if there is, it lies in trimming the story and then, of course, re-editing the film. There is an object lesson to be learned here. Keep true to your vision, or risk losing everything.

[–] mikwalen 16 years ago

What a great post! It's funny, one can never quite define EXACTLY why a movie is a hit (SOUND OF MUSIC, OLIVER) or a disappointment (DR DOLITTLE, STAR). I think that the film got so-so reviews when it opened, maybe that did it?

While it's not one of my big favorites, I do enjoy it. I think it has a beautiful (and as you said, literate score). The songs were not cutesy-poo like you would expect in a "children's musical". I think it's beautifully produced, costumed, acted, etc. I would love to see the "pre-edited" version with the cut songs. There are songs on the soundtrack album that (from what I've read) didn't make it to the screen.

[–] ihatestairwaytoheaven 16 years ago

Having not seen Dolittle since youth [I remember nothing about it other than it was awful] I must interject and say that even if the film is almost three hours long, with an intermission, doesn't mean families and young kids won't sit through it. See: The Sound of Music.

In other news, Im not wearing pants. Film at 11.

[–] movieghoul 14 years ago

Also, note that DD was only 8 minutes longer than Mary Poppins which was a huge hit with the family audience.

I think the biggest problem is that it's unclear what sort of film this is supposed to be. Is it a fairy tale for children (of all ages) or a tongue in cheek satire of a fairy tale. And chemistry is definitely missing between Rex Harrison and the rest of the cast. As DD says late in the film "I'm not very good with people". I submit it's difficult to construct a popular hit around a character with that self description.

[–] hifijohn 9 years ago

I agree I love this movie but the singing is just too much and its too overly detailed, you can easily cut one hour out of this movie and loose very little.

[–] artanis65 16 years ago

It was bloated and boring and leaden. It was a spectacle with state of the art special effects, but there was no magic. Also, I agree with your point about Emma and the two men, though I'm not sure if 1967 audiences would been taken aback by the depiction of the natives.

On the other hand, it has a brilliant score. There's five or six songs that ought to be standards. In the late sixties both Bobby Darin and Sammy Davis, Jr. liked the score so much they separately recorded albums of the songs from the movie. The composer, Leslie Bricusse, is one of the great songwriters who did both the music and the really smart lyrics. Perhaps if the movie had been a success, some of the songs might be more familiar to people today.

[–] mikwalen 16 years ago

I agree - wonderful score - the scores that Bricusse wrote for SCROOGE and GOODBYE MR CHIPS were also worthy of being fondly remembered.

[–] shandy8 16 years ago

I don't see what was wrong with the depiction of the natives. They were charming! I didn't realize that this movie flopped. I guess you're right, though. I always thought it was a big hit. Maybe it is because "If I Could Talk to the Animals" was such a ubiquitous song then and in the ensuing years.

"I love corn!"

[–] schmidtkenn11 9 years ago

I agree with you about the natives. William Shakeseare X has a monologue about how educated they all are and he speaks with a very polished "accent" which also indicates his intelligence. What's politically incorrect about THAT??

He carries illegal weapons, drives fast cars, and wears clothes obviously designed by a homosexual.

[–] angelofvic 16 years ago

I grew up loving the Dr. Dolittle books (I was born in 1955), and I found this movie a great disappointment, a travesty even, because it nearly completely lost the books, had very little to do with them, and added all kinds of silly Hollywood crap instead -- romance, women, glitz, glamor, parade- and circus-like junk.

Honestly, the Eddie Murphie movies are far more faithful to the books than this huge behemoth homage to all that is wrong with Hollywood.

I think if you took out the romances and the women and the circus-y elements, it could have stood a chance. Even then, I'm not even sure that this book(s) should ever have become a musical.

. . . . . . . .

[–] inlovewithJC 16 years ago

But the Eddie Murphy movies are so crude, and they have all sorts of unnecessary crap in them. Now, I've never read the book(s), so, I can't say much about that, but I always liked this movie, and found the newer ones rather repulsive.

You give me joy that's unspeakable, Jesus I am so in love with You

[–] sfuller73 15 years ago

read empire magazine feb 09 edition,tells the whole troubled history,includes a bit about a SAS soldier trying to blow part of the set up cant beleive they would kick him out for that.

[–] christopherwright1988 14 years ago

'includes a bit about a SAS soldier trying to blow part of the set up cant beleive they would kick him out for that.'

Does anyone on this thread recall an episode of Top Gear when Sir Ranulph Fiennes was a guest? He mentioned how he was kicked out of the SAS for blowing up part of a set for a big Hollywood movie back in the 50s/60s...

Was it this film?!?

[–] richimorton 13 years ago

@ christopherwright1988 . . . By Jove you've got it Holmes !

That which does not Kill me makes me Stranger . . .

[–] dnlgg 15 years ago

flop doesnt automatically mean bad movie. it is disturbing how much and how often we measure quality by commercial success. i love this movie. the are very few films remotely like itand the music is so good that it should balance out any flaws in the film. dr doolittle has not been done faithfully as a movie yet and it seems unlikely that anyone will attempt it. i always thought that the book was kindof a bizarre fantasy a little bit like a combination of alice in wonderland and journey to the centre of the earth. maybe someday that movie will get made.

[–] mikwalen 16 years ago

I did hear that some coaxing and wheedling was done to get "Dr. Dolittle" a best picture nomination. But what is also interesting is that while this film tanked, other movie musicals about the same time and after did well - FUNNY GIRL, OLIVER!, CHITTY BANG, FIDDLER ON THE ROOF. And, HELLO DOLLY would have been considered a success had it not cost so much. Perhaps it was that people just didn't care for "Dolittle"? I love movie musicals, but I must say that "Dr D" doesn't hold me. I love the score, but I feel the film drags, although it's beautifully produced.

[–] haristas 16 years ago

I just got through watching this film on DVD and went to go look it up on IMDB and found this old thread. Here's my two cents -- for anyone who may read this. I didn't see it as a kid in '67/'68 when I was eight years old, and I've never read the books, so I can only judge it from my present perspective. The story is supposed to be about a man who can talk to animals, but accept that and you still have to get past the fantasy that every animal has a mind equal to man's! I mean, just what would a mouse have to say about anything? OK, so get past that, but then the film turns to other concerns such as how to raise money and an odd sort of May/December romance between the doctor and a much younger woman -- and even that's not well-developed. I think the movie was over-produced and lacked focus. They tried for an entertainment with something for everyone and ended up with little for anyone, little that was interesting, that is. However, looking at it now, I find I'm rather captivated by the stunning photography and the often lovely, lilting score -- and I'm not talking about the songs, I mean the background score. There's much that has merit here, but I think for the most part this is a movie made by committee. A stronger director with a vision might have helped. The film isn't what it should be, yet it's not all that bad, and comparing it two a couple other musicals released around the same time, CAMELOT and HALF A SIXPENCE, I think DOCTOR DOLITTLE is the better film!

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] janburn007 16 years ago

I had no idea this movie was never a box office success, and don't know why this would have been. Whenever I have watched this movie, I have always loved everything about it, including the music/songs, the spectacular scenes, and beautiful colours. I don't think the movie would have failed because musical films were dying out around that time. After all, there were several other children's musicals during that era which were extremely successful - like Mary Poppins, The Sound of Music, Oliver, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang etc. Maybe the film didn't get the good marketing it deserved, which is a shame, because I think it's a great film!

[–] gcarras (2726) 5 years ago

Agreed..I saw it in 1967 at 7 years old...great songs.

[–] wampawoobee 15 years ago

I was eight years old when this film came out. What I recall is that I enjoyed the first part of the film set in England, but did not like at all the whole Pink Snail/floating island portion. What I truly loved most about the film were the wonderful songs. They were played quite often on the radio at that time, late 1960's, so I got to know them well.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]