Proportionate to the film's cost, I understand Universal did extremely well with the film. There was a book about 8 years ago which argued the reverse, that it somehow stunk up the joint and lost money-- haven't read the book. I remember one comparison in an ancient issue of PHOTON, contrasting the gross income of HOD to that of Paramount's VERTIGO, released about the same time in 1958. VERTIGO made a boatload of money, but when you balance that against what it cost-- something like $2 million at the time, more than ten times what DRACULA cost-- you can see why an executive's eyes would light up when he looked at the balance sheet.

Hammer's first FRANKENSTEIN and DRACULA made enough splash and cash to give the company the reputation of a magic little outfit that minted gold every time out. It wasn't true, as the so-so grosses of some of the next round of films showed-- TERROR OF THE TONGS, MAN WHO COULD CHEAT DEATH, TWO FACES OF DR. JEKYLL, KISS OF THE VAMPIRE. They weren't bad films at all, but they made nowhere near the impression of those first two. Interestingly, PRINCE OF DARKNESS and RASPUTIN were two of about 6 films Fox released in the 1965 season which were actually profitable-- out of about 20 films total. I'd say it was only with the later DRACULA HAS RISEN FROM THE GRAVE and MILLION BC that Hammer hit their second wind.