Why did "Oliver" and "Funny Girl" get released the same year?

[ChgoTheatreGuy]

Posted: 11/13/22 at 9:44pm

Just wondering, why would Columbia Pictures release two big-budget musicals the same year?  "Funny Girl" became one of the highest grossing films of the year, yet only received one Oscar for Best Actress.  "Oliver", which Columbia mostly financed, received more Oscars, including a special Oscar for its choreography.  The lead in "Oliver", couldn't sing, had to have his voice dubbed, and had very little charisma on screen.  With the exception of a few other performances in some minor cult films and being the Godfather to all three of Michael Jackson's children, he would make a pretty good Jeopardy question.

[hork]

Posted: 11/14/22 at 12:22pm

I don't understand the question. It's like asking why Disney would release two Marvel movies in the same year. The answer is: because people will go see them. It wasn't like today, when musicals are considered a financial risk. The Sound of Music was huge and the musical bubble hadn't burst yet. Musicals were the superhero movies of the '60s.

[MichelleCraig]

Posted: 11/15/22 at 1:58pm

ChgoTheatreGuy wrote: "Funny Girl" became one of the highest grossing films of the year, yet only received one Oscar for Best Actress.  "Oliver", which Columbia mostly financed, received more Oscars, including a special Oscar for its choreography.

Aside from the special Oscar for choreography, OLIVER also won the Academy Award for Best Picture.

[ChgoTheatreGuy]

Posted: 11/15/22 at 7:50pm

Making it the second Best Picture winner to have a lead character's singing dubbed...

[South Florida]

Posted: 11/17/22 at 6:11pm

To piss you off?