MovieChat Forums > Paint Your Wagon (1969) Discussion > Why did it flop ? Why was it changed ?

Why did it flop ? Why was it changed ?

posted 18 years ago by WallyB
14 replies | jump to latest

This movie is considered a MAJOR flop.

I guess financially I can't argue about that it, it didn;t make money, but WHY ?

I've always felt it was hilarious.

Yes Clint Eastwood can't sing that well (he has no range or power), his vocals should have been dubbed because his songs should have been nice romantic tunes.

Lee Marvin's songs on the other hand sounded just fine in the rough gravelly
voice of his character.

The photography includes mountain scenery every bit as breathtaking as
"Brokeback Mountain"

This is from the creators of Brigadoon, Gigi and MY FAIR LADY !

One question though,if anyone knows...

Why was the storyline changed so dramatically from the stage play ??

http://www.nodanw.com/shows_p/paint_your_wagon.htm

The IMdB just says "it was too dated" ??

Well, what period piece isnt ?

[–] joekiddlouischama 18 years ago

Actually, Paint Your Wagon was not a flop. Due to the Eastwood/Marvin star power, it grossed $31.7M in North American release and returned $14.5M in domestic theatrical rentals, thus making it the seventh-highest rentals earner among 1969's releases.

http://www.boxofficereport.com/database/1969.shtml

Overall, Paint Your Wagon was one of the biggest hits of the 1969-1970 season, and it might have been Lee Marvin's last real hit.

http://www.the-numbers.com/people/0LMAR.html

The reason why it wasn't considered profitable at the time is because the sprawling outdoor musical went way over-budget with a then-exorbitant production cost of approximately $20M. But Paint Your Wagon made up $14.5M of that cost in domestic release and has probably made up the rest through overseas income and, eventually, television and VHS/DVD. In fact, with the rise of cable television and DVD, it may have now passed into profit.

The reason why the film wasn't more successful is because frankly, it's not that strong. It's an intriguing idea, but it plays too trivially and it ultimately spirals out of control in its second half.

[–] zardoz54 18 years ago

My wife and I watched it last night, on DVD. We saw scenes and musical numbers we have never seen before (on TV). Enjoyed it more than ever before. Just plain fun.

[–] jrregan 16 years ago

I agree. The only reason it was a 'flop' is due to hollywood accounting. Remember the golden business rule, you only pay taxes on profit. :)

Paint Your Wagon is an American classic, like it or not. It sounds great, it's visuals are great. Hell, when's the last you have seen panorama's like that? Unfortunately for me, it's been pavement city for 10+ years.

[–] joekiddlouischama 10 years ago

The reason why the film wasn't more successful is because frankly, it's not that strong. It's an intriguing idea, but it plays too trivially and it ultimately spirals out of control in its second half.

Well, I've viewed Paint Your Wagon twice since offering these comments in 2006, although both screenings occurred in 2007, not since then. (At the time of the 2006 comments, I believe that I'd seen Paint Your Wagon two or three times.)

Based on my 2007 viewings, I now feel that the second half is better; the mood darkens somewhat and increases moral and social tension, there's more intimacy, Eastwood grows into his role and becomes less diffident (and authoritatively sings his best song, "Gold Fever"), and the narrative's irony (such that it exists) rises to the fore. One senses the darker, revisionist tones that attracted Eastwood to Paddy Chayefsky's adaption, which Lerner subsequently gutted in order to create something more conventionally commercial.

But even in the second half, the film doesn't know whether it ultimately wants to be a dark satire or a bawdy comedy.

[–] budikavlan 17 years ago

The movie wasn't a bomb because it didn't make money--it just cost WAY more than it should have. I wouldn't have dubbed Clint's singing, I would have cast someone else. I just don't think he's a "musical comedy kinda guy."

As to the plot, it should be said that the original play wasn't a hit. Some of the songs got some play, but the show itself closed fairly quickly. It's a testament to how keen the studios were to put out musicals that they bought the rights to it in the first place. The conflict in the original had something to do with a Mexican boy in love with the daughter of a miner. It seemed too tame to producers in the late 60s trying to make a hip, "with it" musical--which they had evidently decided was the way to go. So they changed it to two men sharing a wife.

[–] Isaac5855 17 years ago

There were a handful of reasons why I think this film flopped. It was released in 1969, a period in cinema history where very few musicals were being made. The only other musical released that year was HELLO DOLLY! and it flopped too. This was also another film version of a musical where they cast a bunch of actors who can't sing and that never helps when bringing a musical to the screen. I also think the movie was WAY, WAY too long. It should be noted though that this film has a devoted, albeit small fan base. There are a lot of people I know who really love this movie but I can't count myself among them.

[–] preppy-3 17 years ago

I didn't hate it but I'm no a fan of it either. Letting Marvin and Eastwood sing was a mistake, Seberg never was much of an actress and (as other people have said) it's far too long. The raging battles between the director and producer are evident in the final project. Even Eastwood himself later said it wasn't a bad film but there was no reason for the budget to go out of control like it did. Also this was considered pretty adult for its time--it got an M rating (basically the same thing as an R today). That probably didn't help it.

[–] nursewratchet_romanorn 16 years ago

Well if you cant appreciate this movie than you dont have a sense of humor or apprecation of good acting or of actors doing something out of their comfort zone. I think you need to read my comments under the simpson parody. It would not have made any sense to dub their voices. It would have been obvious. I think it makes the film all the better that everones' voice is their own!!!!! It makes the film all the more real and funny at the same time. In fact one of the most quotable lines of all time is from Paint your wagon. Lee marvins character says there are two kinds of people, them that are going somewhere and them that are going nowhere. As far as being too long. No way!!!! In fact I think the end is too abrubt. People nowadays are used to going to a movie for 90 to 100 minutes, and being whisked out. If I am going to pay 25 or 30 bucks for a ticket and food I want a 2 hour plus movie. If they were to re-release this movie, My wife and i would be the first in line!!! You owe it to yourself to see this movie again. Watch it not for the quality of the singing but for the quality of the ensemble cast, and the great performances. I think you might be surprised. Let me know what you think.

[–] AndersonWhitbeck 11 years ago

Peter Bart wrote a book called Infamous Players, a riff on the title Famous Players which was the name of the studio before it became Paramount. Mr. Bart said the story was changed to have a menage a trois and it flopped. Also macho man Lee Marvin did not like Joshua Logan.

Josh Logan's movie career raged from brilliant Bus Stop and Picnic to Good: South Pacific to Fair: Camelot, to Poor: Ensign Pulver. Some of the problems with Logan was his casting choices: He cast Bobby Walker Jr son of Jennifer Jones and Robert Walker and stop son of David Selznick in Ensign Pulver, a misfire. Jack Warner gave Logan the chore of directing Camelot but Logan wanted a flirty Guinvevere and cast Vanessa Redgrave instead of Julie Andrews who created the role on Broadway and was at the time of the filming the #1 Female star in thw world. Logan also cast Italian Franco Nero as Lancelot. Kim Novak who was the 8th wonder of the world in Picnic told Robert Osborne on her TCM Interview that Logan wanted Janice Rule instead of Novak. Kim Novak became the #1 female star in the world after Picnic.

Logan considered Marilyn Monroe a genius and directed MM in Bus Stop to great reviews.

[–] Beau_Buffet (326) 2 years ago

"The only other musical released that year was HELLO DOLLY! and it flopped too."

Fifth highest movie at the box-office that year...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_in_film#Top-grossing_films_(U.S.)

[–] amoscato 10 years ago

Alan Jay Lerner was the subject of my MA Thesis, so I did extensive research into his body of work. From what I read the story was historically authentic but lacked a cohesive script and humor. I read the play and find the storyline does meander before coming to an unsatisfactory ending. A bit "Stagecoach" meets "Romeo & Juliet" and visits "Oklahoma!".

[–] Miinerva 10 years ago

Not appealing enough to females, not a family themed film.
This was no Music Man or Oliver. That may be simplifying it too much but they are pretty important factors.

I heard a rumor, they say you got a broken heart

[–] markedjuan 9 years ago

Actually, Paint Your Wagon's total rentals was just a head below the total rentals of Oliver!(16 million). And it grossed much more than what The Music Man made (8 million).

It was during this period when the success of a movie musical was measured against the blockbuster success of The Sound of Music. After all, these musicals were produced to emulate the grosses of The Sound of Music.

Paint Your Wagon, Camelot and Hello, Dolly! were among the top grossers of the year they were released, but the figures they pegged weren't any close to what The Sound of Music earned. They also failed to break even during their initial domestic release. The only post-Sound of Music musical that achieved blockbuster status was Funny Girl, which pegged 26 million in rentals.

Sadly, because Paint Your Wagon (along with with Dolly! and Camelot) failed to realize its lofty ambition, it was considered a flop, which I think is unfair. It's not as if the public ignored it; 31 million in rentals was a remarkable sum then and it was no Star! or Darling Lily, which earned just 4 million and 2.3 million, respectively.

[–] Jes' Sayin' (5953) 3 months ago

Oh man, the play was so drab before Paddy Chayefsky came along. His ideas and his cynical attitude are what really make the movie.