32 thoughts on “Joan Crawford Top 20 Box Office Hits”
Cogerson
Wonderful! Thank you for all your hard work. A couple of things jumped out at me. My main reaction was to the 1931 and 1947 Possessed. Your adjustment for inflation put them pretty close at 122.3 for 1931 and 122.4 for 1947.
But the profits of these two movies were probably a world apart. There is in depth info on Wikipedia and IMDB on both films–
1931
budget—$378,000
domestic gross—$1,030,000
total gross—$1,522,000
profit—$ 611,000
1947
budget—$2,592,000
domestic gross—$1.970,000 (IMDB) or $2,300,000 (Wiki)
total gross—$3,027,000 (Wiki & IMDB in agreement)
profit—not stated (my guess is this movie actually lost money, although that is only a guess off the very high budget as a percentage of total gross)
Bottom line—My conclusion is that the inflation at the production end outran the inflation of ticket prices. This makes sense as the theater owners are trying to maximize profits at their end. 1000 folks paying $! is better than 400 folks paying $2. Also, theater profits to a large extent depend on sales at the concession counter. A fan who is scared off by high ticket prices won’t be there to buy cokes and hot dogs and popcorn.
So there is problem and I don’t know how you get around it. The production cost is the base and it is not tied to ticket inflation. These two movies really put this in stark relief. The 1931 film was hugely profitable and in the top 10 of its year. Even adjusting for inflation, the 1947 film ends up ahead, but it was only the 59th film of its year, and most likely wasn’t even profitable, and certainly couldn’t have been anywhere near as profitable as the 1931 film.
HELLO MR COGERSON 1 Or perhaps I should say hello BRUCE because we are clearly in such mutual admiration of each other that Christian names are not inappropriate. I was of course pleased that you personally anointed me Queen of the Female Box Office but I always felt that the title was somewhat grandiose as I regard Joan as the true Box Office Champion of both our heydays.
2 I was therefore delighted to see you giving Joan additional coverage on your site and in a worthwhile manner as, although total career overviews are essential, highlighting a performer’s Top 20 gives an important alternative focus as it recognises a star’s GREATEST achievements. I therefore hope that there are Top 20s of a lot of my other contemporaries on the way as with so many fine modern stars currently in evidence the biggest hits of the Greats of the classic era can often be overlooked by today’s observers and audiences.
3 I see that some guy called Bob regularly chides you for giving me too much credence as he sees it. Don’t pay too much attention to him as he is clearly a worshipper of Joan which is OK by me as she has been my dearest friend. Anyway nobody can complain about any personal slant that you choose to give to a star’s achievements as you provide such comprehensive statistical information in ALL your profiles that your viewers always have enough box office facts and estimates to enable them to make up their own minds about a performer’s commercial status. Anyway keep up the good work and best wishes from your heroine and idol MYRNA XXX OOO
Hey The Thin Woman…..thanks for checking our demo page. Seems I picked a good test subject for this new widget. I am amazed how well it is doing so far today. I have shared the link at only one place…..the Joan Crawford Chat Room on Facebook….I was not even sure if i was going to share here at UMR….since all the information is on our Joan page….yet here it is trending in the number 3 position for the day….trailing only the legend Jerry Lewis and our newest page, Pierce Bondsnan. I have always said Joan was one the biggest stars to ever appear in movies. Good feedback.
Hey Bob…. I like the side show…..currently have plans on the next UMR page….coming sometime tomorrow being a slide show and a UMR page….I think they could make a nice combo….one of Steve’s issues with this website….is the lack of visual representation. That slideshow adds in lots of photos.
Hey John….you are correct….it is pretty amazing how closely the two Possessed movies did statistically. I think the big difference in the rankings is that 1947 was one of the most popular years for movies….so even though it was about the same…it fell down the rankings because there were so many popular movies that year. Thanks for breaking down the stats… I know my MGM ledger has those numbers for the first one…..not sure about the second one. Glad you liked our demo page.
Well, the MGM stats I think are from the Mannix ledger. I don’t know where the WB stats come from, but Wiki & IMDB has them, and so does a very in-depth Crawford website called The Best of Everything. Here is a comparison of selected MGM early 1930’s versus 1940’s WB films–
For MGM the average budget is $430,000
The average gross is $1,800,000
The average profit is $726,000
so a Crawford MGM film grossed 420% of its budget, and turned a profit of about 170% of its budget.
For WB the average budget is $1,794,000
The average gross is $3,425,000
I don’t have access to profits
So a Crawford WB film grossed 190% of its budget.
My conclusion, and I am interested in where I might be going wrong, is that Crawford’s MGM films were actually far more profitable to the studio because of the lower budgets. I am of course assuming that these statistics are reasonably accurate. Grossing 420% of budget dwarfs grossing 190% of budget.
What I personally draw from this is that 1947 or other 1940’s years were not that great for the studios because of the devastating effect of production inflation.
*something that is involved is that Crawford was a veteran star by her WB years and so might have commanded a higher salary, which is of course a part of production costs.
Hey John….thanks for the stats….I have been using The Best of Everything for awhile…at one point my Joan column included profits/losses, budgets and profit margin….for space issues I went down to the ones I usually do….but I have been thinking it was time for an update on Joan’s page for awhile….this might be the final push I need.
Your conclusion makes sense to me. Although the budgets were smaller…I imagine Joan’s salary made up a larger percentage of the budget than her later movies….but yes the small budgets had to make the MGM movies more profitable.
I really like that more and more of this information is escaping…..the Warner Ledgers do not offer up profit margins…but they do include budgets. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the power of Joan.
Hey, that was interesting. Only thing – one had to go up to the top to find out what the
PLACE was as it did not fit – pushing NEXT one had to go up to the top to see the next place movie. Perhaps the photos could be somewhat smaller. GOOD THOUGH!!!
PS I did not realize how many movies she made with Clark Gable………………
Hey Bern1960….thanks for checking out our demo page. I will have to see if I can get the place easier to read. She made 9 movies with Gable…and they were all pretty popular….as the 4 that made her Top 20 hit list. Thanks for stopping by and commenting.
Hey Steve….something new….been checking out the widget section in my website providers app section. Unlike my quiz pages….this one seems to be working on all devices. It starts with her 20th biggest hit and works it’s way done to #1. For a first time….I think it turned out decent.
My fault. I had flashblock on and noscript disabled, now I can see it. 🙂
It’s good but a lot of clicking is involved, maybe if the slideshow was automatic, so if you took too long to click it would change by itself? A ‘previous’ as well as ‘next’ button might be useful, in case you want to go back.
Joan Crawford? Nooo! Where’s the UMR’s mascot, Myrna? [wink]
Hey Steve….glad you can see the slideshow. I was freaking out when I saw your comment….I was thinking….damn…another page that nobody can see. A prior button is an excellent suggestion…I will see if I can find that in the widget I started using. Thanks for the feedback, visit and suggestion. Trying to catch up on the comments here and then I will headed to check out your Burt page.
Cogerson
Wonderful! Thank you for all your hard work. A couple of things jumped out at me. My main reaction was to the 1931 and 1947 Possessed. Your adjustment for inflation put them pretty close at 122.3 for 1931 and 122.4 for 1947.
But the profits of these two movies were probably a world apart. There is in depth info on Wikipedia and IMDB on both films–
1931
budget—$378,000
domestic gross—$1,030,000
total gross—$1,522,000
profit—$ 611,000
1947
budget—$2,592,000
domestic gross—$1.970,000 (IMDB) or $2,300,000 (Wiki)
total gross—$3,027,000 (Wiki & IMDB in agreement)
profit—not stated (my guess is this movie actually lost money, although that is only a guess off the very high budget as a percentage of total gross)
Bottom line—My conclusion is that the inflation at the production end outran the inflation of ticket prices. This makes sense as the theater owners are trying to maximize profits at their end. 1000 folks paying $! is better than 400 folks paying $2. Also, theater profits to a large extent depend on sales at the concession counter. A fan who is scared off by high ticket prices won’t be there to buy cokes and hot dogs and popcorn.
So there is problem and I don’t know how you get around it. The production cost is the base and it is not tied to ticket inflation. These two movies really put this in stark relief. The 1931 film was hugely profitable and in the top 10 of its year. Even adjusting for inflation, the 1947 film ends up ahead, but it was only the 59th film of its year, and most likely wasn’t even profitable, and certainly couldn’t have been anywhere near as profitable as the 1931 film.
Anyway, hopefully food for thought.
HELLO MR COGERSON 1 Or perhaps I should say hello BRUCE because we are clearly in such mutual admiration of each other that Christian names are not inappropriate. I was of course pleased that you personally anointed me Queen of the Female Box Office but I always felt that the title was somewhat grandiose as I regard Joan as the true Box Office Champion of both our heydays.
2 I was therefore delighted to see you giving Joan additional coverage on your site and in a worthwhile manner as, although total career overviews are essential, highlighting a performer’s Top 20 gives an important alternative focus as it recognises a star’s GREATEST achievements. I therefore hope that there are Top 20s of a lot of my other contemporaries on the way as with so many fine modern stars currently in evidence the biggest hits of the Greats of the classic era can often be overlooked by today’s observers and audiences.
3 I see that some guy called Bob regularly chides you for giving me too much credence as he sees it. Don’t pay too much attention to him as he is clearly a worshipper of Joan which is OK by me as she has been my dearest friend. Anyway nobody can complain about any personal slant that you choose to give to a star’s achievements as you provide such comprehensive statistical information in ALL your profiles that your viewers always have enough box office facts and estimates to enable them to make up their own minds about a performer’s commercial status. Anyway keep up the good work and best wishes from your heroine and idol MYRNA XXX OOO
Hey The Thin Woman…..thanks for checking our demo page. Seems I picked a good test subject for this new widget. I am amazed how well it is doing so far today. I have shared the link at only one place…..the Joan Crawford Chat Room on Facebook….I was not even sure if i was going to share here at UMR….since all the information is on our Joan page….yet here it is trending in the number 3 position for the day….trailing only the legend Jerry Lewis and our newest page, Pierce Bondsnan. I have always said Joan was one the biggest stars to ever appear in movies. Good feedback.
HI BRUCE
Hope that interest in the Crawford Top 20 encourages you to do more of the same for other artists.
Hey Bob…. I like the side show…..currently have plans on the next UMR page….coming sometime tomorrow being a slide show and a UMR page….I think they could make a nice combo….one of Steve’s issues with this website….is the lack of visual representation. That slideshow adds in lots of photos.
Hey John….you are correct….it is pretty amazing how closely the two Possessed movies did statistically. I think the big difference in the rankings is that 1947 was one of the most popular years for movies….so even though it was about the same…it fell down the rankings because there were so many popular movies that year. Thanks for breaking down the stats… I know my MGM ledger has those numbers for the first one…..not sure about the second one. Glad you liked our demo page.
Cogerson
Well, the MGM stats I think are from the Mannix ledger. I don’t know where the WB stats come from, but Wiki & IMDB has them, and so does a very in-depth Crawford website called The Best of Everything. Here is a comparison of selected MGM early 1930’s versus 1940’s WB films–
MGM early thirties
Our Blushing Brides—Budget $337,000, Gross $1,211,000 Profit $412,000
Dance, Fools, Dance—Budget $234,000, Gross $1,268,000 Profit $512,000
Possessed—Budget $378,000, Gross $1,522,000 Profit $611,000
Grand Hotel—Budget $700,000 Gross $2,594,000 Profit $947,000
Chained–Budget $544,000 Gross $1,988,000 Profit $744,000
Forsaking All Others–Budget $392,000 Gross $2,199,000 Profit $1,132,000
Warners 1940’s
Mildred Pierce—Budget $1,453,000 Gross $5,638,000
Humoresque—Budget $2,164,000 Gross $3,399,000
Possessed—Budget $2,594,000 Gross $3.072,000
Flamingo Road—Budget $1,528,000 Gross $2,896,000
The Damned Don’t Cry—Budget $1,233,000 Gross $2,211,000
For MGM the average budget is $430,000
The average gross is $1,800,000
The average profit is $726,000
so a Crawford MGM film grossed 420% of its budget, and turned a profit of about 170% of its budget.
For WB the average budget is $1,794,000
The average gross is $3,425,000
I don’t have access to profits
So a Crawford WB film grossed 190% of its budget.
My conclusion, and I am interested in where I might be going wrong, is that Crawford’s MGM films were actually far more profitable to the studio because of the lower budgets. I am of course assuming that these statistics are reasonably accurate. Grossing 420% of budget dwarfs grossing 190% of budget.
What I personally draw from this is that 1947 or other 1940’s years were not that great for the studios because of the devastating effect of production inflation.
*something that is involved is that Crawford was a veteran star by her WB years and so might have commanded a higher salary, which is of course a part of production costs.
Hey John….thanks for the stats….I have been using The Best of Everything for awhile…at one point my Joan column included profits/losses, budgets and profit margin….for space issues I went down to the ones I usually do….but I have been thinking it was time for an update on Joan’s page for awhile….this might be the final push I need.
Your conclusion makes sense to me. Although the budgets were smaller…I imagine Joan’s salary made up a larger percentage of the budget than her later movies….but yes the small budgets had to make the MGM movies more profitable.
I really like that more and more of this information is escaping…..the Warner Ledgers do not offer up profit margins…but they do include budgets. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the power of Joan.
Thank you Bruce-I love the new format! Everyone should check out his other Joan site-lots of great info.,it’s been awhile since I’ve pimped it out.
Hey Ricoh. This only shows the box office stats…but I think it is fun Joan countdown….not too bad for my first attempt. Thanks for the kind words.
Hey, that was interesting. Only thing – one had to go up to the top to find out what the
PLACE was as it did not fit – pushing NEXT one had to go up to the top to see the next place movie. Perhaps the photos could be somewhat smaller. GOOD THOUGH!!!
PS I did not realize how many movies she made with Clark Gable………………
Hey Bern1960….thanks for checking out our demo page. I will have to see if I can get the place easier to read. She made 9 movies with Gable…and they were all pretty popular….as the 4 that made her Top 20 hit list. Thanks for stopping by and commenting.
Top 20 Countdown?
Hey Steve….something new….been checking out the widget section in my website providers app section. Unlike my quiz pages….this one seems to be working on all devices. It starts with her 20th biggest hit and works it’s way done to #1. For a first time….I think it turned out decent.
Is it invisible? Where is it? Somewhere on this page? Do I need a magnifying glass? 🙂
Are you being serious you can’t see the slideshow
My fault. I had flashblock on and noscript disabled, now I can see it. 🙂
It’s good but a lot of clicking is involved, maybe if the slideshow was automatic, so if you took too long to click it would change by itself? A ‘previous’ as well as ‘next’ button might be useful, in case you want to go back.
Joan Crawford? Nooo! Where’s the UMR’s mascot, Myrna? [wink]
Hey Steve….glad you can see the slideshow. I was freaking out when I saw your comment….I was thinking….damn…another page that nobody can see. A prior button is an excellent suggestion…I will see if I can find that in the widget I started using. Thanks for the feedback, visit and suggestion. Trying to catch up on the comments here and then I will headed to check out your Burt page.
I like the countdown. Nice format.
Thank you OU812.