Here’s behind-the-scenes info given me by an insider on MGM/UA’s Hot Tub Time Machine, which was supposed to open to $20+M and earned only $13.6M:
The film cost $50M to make, which is not really that cheap, especially for a movie that should have been made for $20M. [MGM says it cost $35M] The reason MGM had to get creditor approval for its P&A spend, which I was told is $47M by the way, is because the creditors stand to lose even more money if HTTM does not come out at least break-even. [NF: I stand by $45M and received confirmation of it . MGM insists it didn't spend all of it.] The P&A money comes from the credit facility, and the creditors are weighing in on every key decision. I viewed this large P&A commitment it as a “Hail Mary” play, because at this point what does MGM management have to lose? And I think they were hoping that HTTM would miraculously do well just at the moment final bids for MGM were being negotiated.
One of the two banks involved did an analysis that HTTM would need to gross $40M domestic for them to break even. They even brought in some highly paid consultants to bless the numbers, the marketing plan, and advise them (one of whom was a senior movie marketing exec with credentials from outside). The P&A spend and distribution pattern show that MGM considered HTTM a one-weekend picture: they would have to grab their money entirely the first weekend, because they were expecting a drop-off of at least 60%. They went all in, again. And lost.
MGM made their pitch to creditors, and the creditors approved the P&A spend, in early January. I’ll guarantee that some folks at JP Morgan and other creditors are having a tough weekend, and that MGM brass is working to spin the results better to them. They will also probably be talking about trying to save what remaining P&A they have unspent of the approved $47M.
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.
The film cost $50M to make, which is not really that cheap, especially for a movie that should have been made for $20M. [MGM says it cost $35M] The reason MGM had to get creditor approval for its P&A spend, which I was told is $47M by the way, is because the creditors stand to lose even more money if HTTM does not come out at least break-even. [NF: I stand by $45M and received confirmation of it . MGM insists it didn't spend all of it.] The P&A money comes from the credit facility, and the creditors are weighing in on every key decision. I viewed this large P&A commitment it as a “Hail Mary” play, because at this point what does MGM management have to lose? And I think they were hoping that HTTM would miraculously do well just at the moment final bids for MGM were being negotiated.

Whoever sent you this analysis has some incorrect information. There is no way that a movie can break even at $40 million domestic if it cost $50 million to make and another $47 million to market. Please ask your “insider” for clarification.
Yeah, if BO were the only way the movie made money. Box office is a key indicator, and often other markets (HBO, Television) are based off of the domestic box office. So, $40 million means a certain amount can be expected to be made in the axillary markets.
I am more impressed that Mr “Authur Hamiltion” commented on his Ah Ha moment (47 + 50 is more than 40), completely free of sarcasm. Then I got to the last sentence and it was full of self-righteousness, making the whole comment a sad lesson in “I don’t know what the heck I am talking about”.
“Knows better?” More like “knows nothing.” As others in this thread have shown, there’s no way a movie that grosses $40 million domestically is going to make enough in ancillaries to support a $97 million negative/marketing cost. There’s just no way.
I stand by what I said. Whoever gave Nikki this information has given some incorrect numbers.
That’s'the straight dope Art’s dishing. Ain’t no way this film comes close to b/e. This is DOA, even if they pulled back on supporting media, the media to open hounds have already been loosed. 13M opening sounds like NRV territory.
Well let’s see if you are right. $40 million domestic translates to $22 million cash, tops. Plus $22 million overseas. It will make as much on TV, as in theaters, so $22 million more. Leaving 97 minus 66, for a quite doable $31 million for DVD sales and rentals. This is the type of movie that does quite well in DVD sales. O.K.?
ESPECIALLY a comedy that zeroes in on American youth culture of the 1980′s — there’s zero international money in that subject matter.
Wedding Singer earned $40mm outside of North America.
And that’s probably why that 80′s period comedy YOUNG AMERICANS has been sitting on the shelf since 2007. That’s apart from the fact that YA screws up the 80′s vibe to the extent that one scene actually has a character uttering the Internet slang word “OMG!”
the 80s happened overseas. except for maybe in china. but that’s a whole nother discussion.
john cusack should’ve turned up to the oscars for the john hughes tribute, might’ve helped this film out a little bit. but maybe he didn’t want to stand up with a bunch of has been actors (molly ringwald anyone?).
The film will not break even from domestic, but may ultimately from foreign (depending on how their foreign deals are structured on this film). If the assumptions are straight forward -$50 million negative, $47 P&A. For the benefit of the doubt, let’s say domestic b.o. is $30 million – that’s $15 million in film rental. At $30 million in domestic b.o., that might translate to 2.5-3 million DVDs (this could have a good life on DVD/VOD/PPV) which would be about 45 million in revenue, minus 35% in costs so about 29.25 million in DVD revenue back to the studio. Pay/Domestic/Network TV is probably worth about $15 or 16 million here. Add it up and you have about $60 million. So the film, from just domestic, will stand to lose $37 million. Now, video could be higher, overall b.o. could be higher, my 35% costs could be high (or low), but certainly without foreign, this film could lose a fair amount of money. I’m hoping this movie didn’t cost $50 million to make though. Regardless, I’m off to see it.
Well this is just a poor move b MGM….BOOK OF ELl only cost 30 to make and that was set in a post apocalyptic wasteland
Nice piece of reporting Nikki. I guess you were tired of mr. Flemming showing you up
Reminds me of a joke I heard back during the white-powder-in-anonymous-envelopes scare in 2001 — Wanna keep anthrax from spreading? Let MGM distribute it.
Plato – that’s very funny –
It cost $50m???? MGM deserve to go to bust; whoever approved the budget should be run out of town; and the director should go back to home movies.
It wasn’t a home movie??? Holy C–p ! The trailer looks like a 5 year old filmed it. (no offense to 5 year old’s – we all know you could do a better job than MGM)
This is nothing compared to the moronic decisions at Universal, who is running that place? Talk about a hazmat cleaning, they need to toss all the execs, producers, etc. A studio run on leftist politics and insider trading. The FTC should investigate the abuse of power, good luck, it’s an important arm of Professor Obama’s propaganda machine.
Ron Meyer runs the studio and is as nice and classy as they come. Propaganda machine? Why don’t you just go back wearing your klan hood whille masturbating to the Glen Beck show.
Hysterical, and so true.
I’m sick of this bs that if you don’t support Obama your some sort of klansman!
Kind of how if you didn’t support Bush you were unpatriotic?
Jeezz. Idiot teabaggers are posting here, too?
Yup, right along side all the idiot Communists!
Yeah, only Communists can post here….maybe hippies.
It can’t be any worse than how Universal runs its LA theme park. Seriously offering less an less to the customers and charging more. Their last “show” was a musical about the Creature from the Black Lagoon. It was so bad, they had people walking out by the hundreds. Rewrites couldn’t save that turkey. AND it cost 10 million to produce…for a frickin’ theme park show!
The problem with all of these executives is that they’ve lost touch with what the public wants and they inflate costs to stroke their egos. Common sense is gone. Whether its movies, tv, or even theme parks, their egos are more important than giving a good product at a fair price.
These MGM idiots greenlit a movie at this budget? incredible! even more incredible is the creditors approved a p&a spend at this number. Cale Boyter couldn’t find a hit movie these days to save his life. He has no personal skills or development skills. I was amazed when Mary Parent hired this loser in the first place. Happy job hunting, Boyter. Good luck at the unemployment line with all the other d-boy and girls out of work. You deserve it.
Could you be any more vindictive? I know Cale and know that the movie didn’t cost $50m. I’ve locked horns with the guy a couple of times, but he’s smart and knows what works. Everyone at MGM has been dealt a bum hand with the financial situation with which they’ve been dealt. You on the other hand sound like someone who got their script passed over and are excited to vent your outrage anonymously on a message board. Get a life.
No, he actually sounds like someone who has some common sense…MGM is an idiotic place with flop after flop after flop which translates into mismanagement. MGM needs to die!!!
Really? Flop after flop after flop? We’ve had one movie — FAME was Lakeshore’s project and developed before the staff was even assembled — and HOT TUB is not even a “flop” yet. You, Mr. Rod, come from an “idiotic place.”
Thought it was absolutely hilarious. Didn’t think it would be that good but I laughed hard and the audence in general was havng a good time. I bet this movie is gonna get some good word of mouth.
Listen Mr. Rod, not sure that you have any idea what you’re talking about other then the fact that you know the names of the studio head and development head so let me illuminate you:
The 200+ employees at MGM have been working their ASSES off the past 5 months to open this thing. They’ve poured their hearts and souls into this. The movie itself, you probably havent seen it, is fantastic and will be a cult classic for years to come. Cale and Mary are damn talented. So is Mike Vollman. He and his team deserve a lot of credit for what they did.
The buisness of film is very difficult and hugely unpredictable. For every movie that works, 10 “fail” even if they are solid or even very good films. Hell even FOX was terrified Avatar would bomb in the early stages of their campaign.
Anyway, bottom line: these are REAL people who depend on these jobs for healthcare, house payments, etc. They work very hard and love their studio very much. So before you open your mouth and start spewing all this ill-informed hatred…realize whats at stake and all the people who are going to be affected.
I don’t think Cale knows what works. His career of the last 5 years is a bit of a mystery to me.
He is, though, really, really tall!
Cale Boyter is a prince. You are an idiot.
Jef, you are an idiot.
everyone i know is posting on facebook about how much they loved the movie and laughed their ass off.
i saw it and it has plenty of laughs and the audience applauded at the end.
so— 60% drop off, i think not. but, it’s not a repeat biz type movie either. see it once is enough.
50M!?!?!?!? not up on the screen, unless it all went into Cusack’s pocket.
the audience applauded a half-baked cusack vehicle? get real
mind is still blown that they dumped that much p&a on this obvious dog
Did you see it? Really? I nearly busted a gut– it’s really funny. I love how people on these boards shit on people they don’t know and movies they haven’t seen.
Hot Tub Fan,
I saw it. Wanna pick a fight with me? I thought it was pretty average – so did the movie audience. Wanna pick a fight with them too?
This was a very bad choice for the first film out of the new creative management. I thought they bought that zoo keeper CGI combo film first, but my guess is that it takes longer to get to the screen than a “really funny” movie like Hot Tub Time Machine.
I am glad that you found it funny. There has to be that some of the people for the all of the time to work.
Paul
I saw it. In fact, I just got back. I live in Ohio.
I was one of 13 people in the theater, and I actually liked it and thought it was funny. Cusack was unnecessary, but everyone else was outstanding.
Hi, Paul, I’m “Hot Tub Fan,”
No I don’t “wanna pick a fight” with you– defensive much? I can sit here and argue with you about what I thought was funny about the film and what I thought didn’t work (Lizzy Caplan, for one). But I laughed throughout. The audience laughed throughout. My brother, who lives across the country, saw it today and laughed his ass off. I’m sorry you were too bitter too appreciate it. People who have seen this, by and large, have really liked it. I’m sorry you didn’t. I’m also sorry that your line “there has to be that some of the people for all of the time to work” doesn’t make any sense.
Ken Talbott
I believe Paul was paraphrasing the old P.T. Barnum quote about fooling people. Not that I agree with him- I don’t. I haven’t seen HTTM yet, but I intend to. And based on the premise, the previews and (most of) the cast, I expect I will enjoy it but not as much as I would like.
I’m not questioning that some guy in flyover country found this movie enjoyable (before or after dining at his favorite buffet restaurant), I’m questioning the ludicrous assertion that the audience erupted in applause at the end of this very average looking high concept comedy. Please, let’s keep it within the realm of the possible.
Flyover country? That says it all. Smarmy jackasses like you are the reason people don’t like Hollywood.
“Flyover country” is hilarious. This kind of stuff can be used in scripts. The buffet line wasn’t necessary, though. Economical writing is best.
Your statement supports the probable financial success of the movie. There are more “flyover, buffett eating people” who will like this movie than condesending, coast dwelling elitist a-holes. Cater to the masses and go to the bank.
Ken,
You’re right. My line about “there has to be that some of the people for all of the time to work” doesn’t make sense. I have no idea what I was talking about. You are also right about my bitterness. I really am wrong when I say it was a bad choice to put out Hot Tub Time Machine first. Those guys running MGM are really a crack bunch, and I just secretly wish I were working there. It is purely my bitterness that is talking.
Thanks,
Paul
Ooh, message board fight about a movie called ‘Hot Tub Time Machine’! You guys wanna step outside? I’ll hold your earrings.
Love the insight to the financials, but not sure how this makes sense. MGM spent $50 million making the film and earmarked anothe $47 million in P&A. That’s $97 million spent. A $40 million domestic gross brings about $25-$30 million back to the studio (that’s assuming MGM bookers have the clout to get up to 75% of the total receipts, a big reach). That still leaves them at least $67 million in the red without spending a penny on international P&A.
Let’s assume they break even on their International Theatrical P&A versus returns (a big leap, given American comedy is dodgy, at best, internationally) and they still have the same $67 million deficit. Home Video sells 3 million units at best (2 north America, 1 international) at $8 per unit profit (after Fox’s cut) is another $24 million back to MGM, and still a $43 million loss. Given their lack of contribution to the Epix start up, my guess is they would get nothing from Pay Tv.
Maybe there is another $10 million combined from other revenue streams, but that is still a huge loss (abiut $33 million) if they make $40 million Domestic.
HTTM probably needed to make closer to $80-$100 million to have a chance at profit over tHe lifespan.
Collections are between 44-48% of domestic box office gross.
-RnsW
that’s right except it won’t sell anywhere near 3m units on this gross. if they are lucky, they’ll do half that ww — and even if the get $4 million from their epix deal, they’ll be down even further. films like this get made by Sony and Universal for around $30-35 million, if not less. who greenlit this thing for $50 million dollars?
I definitely think I was being generous with the numbers.
Incidentally, Box Office Mojo has the budget at $36 million, which makes a lot more sense for a film like this. Still doesn’t come close to a profit with the current numbers (or even a $40 million Domestic gross).
Actually, even $36mil is pushing it for something like this.
“40 Year Old Virgin” cost $25M; “Knocked Up” cost $30M; “Anchorman” $25M; “Old School” $25M; “Dodgeball” $20M !!!
All money-makers, all funny. Comedy doesn’t require huge production budgets — except when they suck! (Talladega Nights, anyone.)
you definitely couldn’t miss the advertising around this movie but why would they decide to open it during march madness? – That’s the difference between $20M and $13M.
As someone who has seen Hot Tub Time Machine, there is no way that Hot Tub Time Machine cost 50 million dollars to make.
I agree with L-Train. Somebody is playing loose and funny with the budgets if that movie cost $50 to make. It looks like it was shot on a soap opera set and lit by film students. I can’t imagine that the above the line was more than $3M for the film. Anyone responsible for greenlighting that at a $50M negative should sell shoes.
Delightful autopsy, Nikki. And John finally gets his name above the title! I can see MGM pimping this on Monday, “We completely dominated the balding middle aged fat guy quadrant!” “Axillary” markets, indeed.
i don’t get these numbers either. it would have to perform substantially better than that to overcome a total 97MM investment.
anyway, that being said, i don’t foresee a 60% dropoff. the buzz is strong, social media is positive from it, and i think that will drive a great second week. 60% won’t happen.
Um, yeah. Those numbers make no sense at all. I know there’s been shifts in the older – a film has to make 2-1/2 times it’s budget to break even paradigm – but really.
If the film really did cost 50 mil to make – and that’s the first strange number – and they spent another 47 mil on publicity there’s no way it breaks even at 40 mil. Maybe the bankers are the same ones who bankrupted the country and they take info off the IMDB boards as movie knowledge.
That said it will probably have a 50% drop at the box office which seems to be more standard these days. It was a cute film, not a great one. Third act was a mess but it had some funny gags. It should also do well VOD and what’s left of the DVD market.
I was also thinking that if MGM and Focus could have swapped stars between Greenberg and HTTM they both would have done a lot better. Adding Stiller’s acerbic edge to HTTM would have given it more drive and Cusack’s natural vunerability would have made the Baumbach vehicle more palatable. Instead they got mediocre comedy and another unwatchable Noah Baumbach movie that is failing fast as well. (I love the pretty good per theater average spin – 5 grand a theater on 180 screens in big cities with 12 -14 buck ticket prices on a second weekend. Keep spinning that when you’re playing the 2 buck theater in Pasadena the weekend after next.)
John Cusak probably got a big paycheck. I thought this was a low budget movie. When will producers learn that a big budget film doesn’t mean success. I think this only applies to James Cameron because he can deliver the goods.
No way did this film cost $50M to produce, unless $10M went to synch licenses for the 80s music. I do believe a $35M budget however, and if you think about it, other than above the line salary for Cusack, this film should have cost between $15 to $20M.
In any event, what isnt being reported is the Cinemascore from Audiences leaving this movie. I havent seen the scores yet, but i’m guessing they will be HIGH! Audiences are LOVING this movie. I heard feedback from multiple screenings on Fri/Sat and audiences are laughing and clapping their way through the film. If that’s the case, the film’s hold next weekend could be very strong. This might be one of those word of mouth movies with staying power. Remember those?
the reason this movie did bad was everyone who wanted to see it already did at one of the 300+ FREE screenings they had all over the country…
Can’t wait for Hot Tub Time Machine II!!
Yeah.
How much more destruction needs to happen before Harry Sloan is finally held accountable for the mess he’s made of mgm since he got there?
You must be living in a time warp. Harry Sloan hasn’t been there since the middle of last year.
maybe he’s living in a hot tub time machine.
Maybe MGM should have made it 3D and raised the ticket prices.
Bad Timing, I agree. As I watched the film I wondered why it wasn’t released in November. As we gear up for Spring/Summer, the last thing we need to see is snow on the ground.
Don’t worry! I’m sure it will have a nice shelflife on YouTube!
;P
I was astounded by how bad HTTM was, especially as someone who laughed my ass off at the trailers and really wanted to support the movie on opening weekend. So I went and-
I watched in horror as a crappy, unfunny movie unfolded on the screen. What the hell? I want my money back….
The script is really funny, is it juvenile in places? Yes, is it sexist? yes but it WAS totally hilarious.
Then they got their hands on it and rewrote it, making it more… I don’t know — raunchy or something.
They made a HUGE mistake marketing this film — they went raunchy. They totally alienated the female crowd. The trailer clips were pretty horrific. They should’ve realized that part of the reason THE HANGOVER was so successful is because women (wives, girlfriends) went to see it and loved it.
So Nikki, if Kick Ass grosses under 20mm in a couple weeks should they try to market it more to Females? And if it makes over 20mm can you please lay off the Hollywood overlooks Females tirades. Some films aren’t geared towards women, just like Sex and The City isn’t marketed to makes but still makes a shitload.
75% full theater on a Sunday night in a big multiplex. Sorry for the typos, the soap got into my eyes.