WI MASH and Patton bomb?

Say a peace in Vietnam is reached circa 1969; the American public, undergoing a sort of war fatigue in 1970, and so doesn't turn up to see MASH or Patton. In OTL, these films were the third and fourth highest grossing works of the year, and were instrumental in the careers of Robert Altman and Francis Ford Coppola, to say nothing of the TV Series the former launched.

What I'm interested in -- how do these career changes affect American cinema, and what further effects can ripple? For example, how would Lucas' career be different if Coppola's was so negatively affected?
 
I don't necessarily think that Patton would bomb, though I agree that M*A*S*H is doomed without the subtext of the war overseas. But Patton was about the ultimate "just war", and its subject was one of the greatest tacticians who ever lived, realized in one of the screen's finest performances - I would argue that movie has resonance, which is why it remains popular to this day, whereas M*A*S*H dwells in the shadow of the TV adaptation that followed (which evolved into full on melodrama after Alan Alda assumed creative control).

But bombing M*A*S*H means no "M*A*S*H" - simple enough. Which, in turn, means no "Goodbye, Farewell, and Amen", meaning that everyone will use some other yardstick for record viewership numbers (probably Who Shot J.R. or Roots, assuming that they're not butterflied away). Bombing Patton... that's harder to gauge. Maybe George C. Scott not providing the precedent of refusing his Oscar could scuttle Brando's potential plans to do the same, butterflying away the embarrassing "Sacheen Littlefeather" incident. But most importantly, pop culture misses out on an indelible performance, some wonderfully quotable dialogue, and a fascinating character study.
 

Hyperion

Banned
Well if the war is over in 1969, especially early in the year, people might have had a year or longer to rest.

They may not enjoy the OTL success, but I think each one would do fairly good.
 
Here's something else -- Little Big Man would do comparatively better -- becoming somewhere from the 5th to the 3rd highest grossing film of the year. I'd also wager a MASH that disappointed at the BO wouldn't get nearly as much Oscar recognition as OTL, paving the way for butterflies there as well...

Patton would still do well.

Alright, say it only gets half what it got OTL -- range of $20 million, say (not quite making the year's top ten). As long as a butterfly includes Coppola not getting on Evans radar for The Godfather...

Well if the war is over in 1969, especially early in the year, people might have had a year or longer to rest.

I was thinking a deal being reached some time closer to early 1970...
 
Say a peace in Vietnam is reached circa 1969; the American public, undergoing a sort of war fatigue in 1970, and so doesn't turn up to see MASH or Patton. In OTL, these films were the third and fourth highest grossing works of the year, and were instrumental in the careers of Robert Altman and Francis Ford Coppola, to say nothing of the TV Series the former launched.

What I'm interested in -- how do these career changes affect American cinema, and what further effects can ripple? For example, how would Lucas' career be different if Coppola's was so negatively affected?

You been reading Greenfield's "Then Everything Changed," haven't you?
 
I don't necessarily think that Patton would bomb, though I agree that M*A*S*H is doomed without the subtext of the war overseas. But Patton was about the ultimate "just war", and its subject was one of the greatest tacticians who ever lived, realized in one of the screen's finest performances - I would argue that movie has resonance, which is why it remains popular to this day, whereas M*A*S*H dwells in the shadow of the TV adaptation that followed (which evolved into full on melodrama after Alan Alda assumed creative control).

But bombing M*A*S*H means no "M*A*S*H" - simple enough. Which, in turn, means no "Goodbye, Farewell, and Amen", meaning that everyone will use some other yardstick for record viewership numbers (probably Who Shot J.R. or Roots, assuming that they're not butterflied away). Bombing Patton... that's harder to gauge. Maybe George C. Scott not providing the precedent of refusing his Oscar could scuttle Brando's potential plans to do the same, butterflying away the embarrassing "Sacheen Littlefeather" incident. But most importantly, pop culture misses out on an indelible performance, some wonderfully quotable dialogue, and a fascinating character study.
I agree with most of this. Even without 'nam, "Patton" is likely to do well: it honors the "good war" & has George C. Scott as one of the most memorable generals the U.S. ever produced. Crashing that is a bit like crashing "Gone With the Wind" or "Roots"... It might not be #1 for the year, but I don't feature it losing much to "The Aristocats" or "Woodstock" (unless the counterculture is stronger, too--& with no 'nam, that's improbable).

"M*A*S*H" could readily go in the tank, tho, & butterfly a lot of careers.... Even forgetting the influence of the series (which makes Jamie Farr a nobody, & maybe William Christopher, too).
 
Top