Let's pop one bubble here, and I don't mean Glinda's transport

Rating: Null/10 (17 August 2004)

For years now, film reviewers (or those that believe they are) have begun articles bemoaning the "fact" that "Oz" was an initial flop in 1939. That is simply a filmmaking urban legend that is incorrect. While the film DID cost an astounding $2.5 million (plus) - equivalent to about $250 million today, in movie dollars - it sold out in roadshow engagements all over the country. Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland toured the nation, hosting these special showings, and the lines wound around the block EVERYWHERE they went. Granted, the second most expensive film at that time ("Gone With the Wind" placing first) would have to do double-time to make back the budget, but at its escalated cost - and with ticket prices varying between only 10 - 25 cents - it was indeed a success. Remember, this was in an era when films were rereleased numerous times, with studio heads expecting an extended life to recoup money, and make a profit.
Granted, "Oz" didn't achieve "icon" status until its repeated TV showings, starting in the 50s, but even then it was already considered a draw for whatever network aired it.
Unlike 20th Century Fox's Shirley Temple misfire the next year, "The Blue Bird," which was indeed a flop, "Oz" was one of MGM's crown jewels, and successes, of 1939.
John Wayne's "The Alamo" also suffers from similar misinformation. The recent 2004 Disney version, with its $95 million operating budget, and approximately $45 million advertising costs, can indeed be considered a bomb, as it has taken in only approx $25 million (and its next stop is a none-to-promising video future). Wayne's 1960 version, however, cost $12 million (the most expensive at that date), and made nearly $10 million during its first several releases. Losses from that film were due mainly to Wayne's delayed production schedule, and not from a lack of public interest.