On The Road To Awards Season? Kerouac Book Finally Makes It … 
Michael Bay’s Name Pushed Paramount To Settle Injured … 
Several More New Series In Recasting Mode; Returning Ones … 
‘G.I. Joe: Retaliation’ Moving To March 2013 To … 
Directors Fortnight Says It Must “Police … 
‘Chronicle’ Helmer Josh Trank Takes On … 
Big Media Chiefs Tell Cable Operators To Speed Up ‘TV … 
Will ‘Pan Am’ Take Flight With Amazon? 
EMMYS: Showtime Launches Free Weekend Promotion Targeting … 
TOLDJA! ICM Management Buyout Complete 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘Dancing With The Stars’, … 
An Olympian Effort: NBCUni Plans 5,535 Hours Of Coverage … 
Netflix Exec Denies It’s Responsible For Nickelodeon … 
DESPERATE: HuffPo & Oprah Team Up Now 
Hot Trailer: ‘The Great Gatsby’ 
How Did Women Pilot Writers Fare For 2012? 
Disney Quits Snow White Film ‘Order Of The … 
Cannes Planning Surprise Screening Of Non-Fest Films; … 
Investors Unfriend Facebook As SEC Investigates IPO … 
Cash Windfalls For WME Agents, Assistants 
A&E IndieFilms Sets ‘Happy Valley,’ … 
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.
Loading ...
M.G.M. is an abbreviation for MismanaGeMent… or is it just a synonym at this point?
The word of mouth on HTTM will be quite good. I suspect it will have legs.
The initial take on it is that it looked unbelievably dumb but those who delivered the $13M will tip off their friends that its a must -see. Think that’s ridiculous? Stop listening to the theories noted above by those who haven’t even seen the flick. I have and while walking out heard several patrons mumbling the words ‘this year’s Hangover’. Those patrons had one up on most of those posting above: they actually saw the film and more importantly: they are the audience who determines these things.
As for comparisons to The Wedding Singer, they’re irrelevant: that’s a 12-year old film. A lot changes in a dozen calendars including 80s nostalgia.
Here is what no one is saying. They re-wrote HOT TUB TIME MACHINE while in production. As a result, production costs SOARED. Then they decided to do it in 3D. My reports, though, I’ve not seen any paperwork was that it was North of $65 million. Originally it was approved at $35 million.
It was a very good example of how Mary Parent is not qualified for this job. She’s not Scott Stuber, nor Stacey Snider. And this film with those numbers is an unmitigated disaster.
Don’t forget that the audiences are really liking the movie and in all likelihood the drop-off will be less than 50%. If younger people go to see the movie more than once, this movie could wind up doing just fine. Remember that TITANIC did not open with a huge weekend, but it stuck around forever. I’m not suggesting that this movie will have that kind of staying power, but I must say that HTTM is a really fun, entertaining movie and hats off to the folks at MGM….
OK.
Did anyone out there see or read the original script that launched this box office flop? I have to admit that I was shocked the film did not perform better. The trailers were great. The elevator pitch snappy. The title was punchy and hilarious. So, why did this tank when THE HANGOVER soared?
Thoughts?
I saw the movie on Friday afternoon and laughed here and there, but thought it was kind of loose and not as funny as the trailers suggested – BUT, I was in a mostly empty theater. I got emails from two different people who saw it with big crowds on Friday and Saturday and were saying that it was the funniest thing they’d seen. I agree with whoever said the word-of-mouth is going to help this one. If Facebook/Twitter is any indication, people really enjoyed it.
I am so embarassed to admit that I paid money (thankfully matinee price) to see this piece of trash. There was so much unnecessary profanity, it was HORRIBLE. The message was even worse. It had no redeeming message, it was just disgusting.
I take responsibility for not reading more reviews ahead of time. So shame on me. But it was pretty pathetic, these people should be ashamed of themselves.
Poor Cusak, I think the only decent movie he has made this century was Max.
The commercials looked horrible; tired 80′s schtick that’s been done a million times over the past few years. Come to think of it, most Hollywood comedies generally are horrible, the last one that was funny was Borat. The problem is the same problem with SNL, the Simpsons and most other comedies nowadays; terrible writing! Asides from Curb Your Enthusiasm and occasionally South Park there is very little good comedy writing out there today, everything has this stupid frat-guy vibe, even the Judd Apatow movies are really overrated IMO
The only female marketing I can see in THE HANGOVER’S campaign was the use of the Rhianna song in the trailer. Other than that it was a dude’s party from the start, but it ended up being appealing to both sexes and transcending the BACHELOR PARTY crowd. I thought HOT TUB’s red-band trailers were perfect, but I can agree that maybe slipping in some Cusack love-story edge could have interested more audience. Regardless, I haven’t heard one person say a negative thing about it. Word of mouth should keep it breathing for a bit. Wasn’t it WEDDING CRASHERS that had a so-so opener and then took the number one spot in its second weekend? WOM
I agree. Wedding Crashers and also much of The Hangover’s success was due to Word Of Mouth. Guys going back a second time to watch it with their friends, girlfriends, and so on. Everyone needs to take chill toke, it’s ONLY been a week. Give it a chance…
Interesting information. I do find it hard to imagine why they’d spend 50 Million on production.
However, I thought it was going to do better as I saw it Friday night with a packed theater and there were lots of laughs and I figure the word of mouth will be decent.
I enjoyed it but definitely think it’s not worth 50 Mil production budget.
It sounds really odd that this movie would cost 50 million to make. If it did, Cusack may have made 10-15 million on his cheque. I thought a lot of the scenes the sets looked really poor/cheap.
As for the marketing budget – I’ve rarely heard of so many free screenings for a movie. Maybe one or two per city. In the Toronto area there were DOZENS of free screenings. In fact you could basically pick and choose what free screening worked for you.
Nikki, your numbers are just plain wrong. The budget really is closer to $35m – someone has been feeding you bad info. Your $50m claim doesn’t pass the sniff test to anyone who has seen the movie(as you can tell by all the comments to that effect), which makes sense because that’s about 140% of what the movie actually cost. Why are you so determined to take a slanted view of MGM stories?
Let me get this straight. There’s people out there that are surprised a film called “Hot Tub Time Machine” flopped?!
No way this movie cost 50M with a 47M P&A.
It couldn’t be.
those numbers have to be wrong……..
Update anyone?
This Movie Did NOT cost $50 Million…It Cost Significantly Less Than That. It can breakeven if the stars align during an eclipse meaning most likely not but it will not lose as much money as stated on this site.
Sad to read the plants returning with absurd posts like “word of mouth” and “those who delivered the $13M will tip off their friends that its a must-see…” And of course, blaming the marketing of their masterpiece.
Look, you made a shit movie. You could have done anything you wanted to do and what you did was “Hot Tub Time Machine.” Stop the pathetic posts and try to learn something about your own taste, which is in your ass.
By the way, “Wedding Crashers” opened to almost thirty-four million dollars. It was a good movie, a smart comedy. The guys who made it knew something about people and human behavior. And they had Vince Vaughn, not John Cusack.
I’m not a plant. I liked it– a lot. I went with a large group of people, both male and female, who liked it– a lot. And we’ve told others, which is called “word of mouth.” Maybe our taste is in “our ass” (as would be the majority of critics who liked it too, I suppose) as you so classily say, but I’d like to think I’m not so insecure that I get off on ragging on other people and what they like/dislike anonymously on a message board. Get A Clue? Get some balls.
HTTM is playing like high fidelty played when it opened. HF had about the same per screen average, made about 6M opening weekend put played on about half the screens and had a budget of 30M. the attendance for HTTM actually increased on saturday, so it probably won’t take a 60% hit next weekend.
it could play ok in europe. but probably won’t make a dent in asia. one of the reasons the hangover did well is because the guys in the movie were dudes–but only one of them was a straight up loser but he was hilarious. this film is filled to the rim with a bunch of overweight losers. there’s no bradley cooper character in this movie.
If HTTM cost $50 million to make, then I can only think that MGM used some Hollywood accounting techniques to funnel the inflated extra $30 million of the budget to line either executives pockets, to pay off one of their vertically integrated companies to place the money in their cash reserves or something. Cause there’s no way this movie could have cost $50 million dollars in real cost. $20 million at the MOST is all I can think. Organized crime syndicates use to do this same thing with restaurants and it’s called money laundering. Ha.
Other than Cusack, this is a pretty no-name cast. Granted, most of them I’ve loved for a long time, but they aren’t proven bankable yet – so therefore how in the world was this expected to be a smash hit? Cuz it has a silly name?
For those in intense discussion on how impossible it is to turn a profit from a $40 DBO, note that Nikke sources “One of the banks involved..” Quite plausible the bank analyst in charge simply looked at a blanket Film Revenue Chart and thought, “Theatrical is 22% of the film’s eventual profit!” Dirty and incomplete math happens all the time – need I mention the housing crisis??
$47m in “P&A” may sound high if your talking just prints and ads, but don’t forget that free sneaks aren’t “free.” The distributor four-walls the theater. To bump the screening of another picture, you have to pay the theater and the other distributor what the house would have grossed if it had screened the bumped picture.
The movie was good…a full ‘star’ below The Hangover, but better than 80% of the comedies I’ve seen recently. I laughed a lot, and so did the (at least) 50% full house…on a Tuesday. The Hangover it is not, but it’ll have some staying power with good word of mouth, and will probably really do well once it gets to DVD…I work in retail, and when a movie like this comes out, all the people who thought about seeing it in the theatres but didn’t want to drop $12 on something that ‘might not be that good’ will fork over the $6 to rent it (or even the $20 to buy it)…especially if a few of their friends saw it and gave it the thumbs up.
As for the MGM bashing…is Hollywood really this nasty?
LOL. ah, Neil, you just made my day.
It’s much, much, much nastier than this message board. ‘Tip o’ the Iceberg’. Hollywood is unfilled potholes and empty souls.
I saw this movie on Saturday night with 2 friends. All 3 of us laughed our asses off. In fact, we agreed it was way funnier than the Hangover – whatever that may say about our comedic tastes.
I really hope Hot Tub does well so they make more movies in this vein of humor and not lame, pansy comedies like I Love You, Man and Sarah Marshall.
Guys in Hollywood- Get a clue….
When tickets were $2, I went every weekend and once during the week.
When tickets were $5, I went twice a month.
When tickets became $10 to see a movie, I go once a year.
You morons in motion picture land haven’t a clue, when it comes to economics.
Will you consistently pack more people into the theater at $5 or $6 a ticket, or at $10 or $12 a ticket?
The objective is the bottom-line, not the high ticket prices. Capacity limits the sale of tickets. If you have 100 seats and can can pack 5 theaters, 10 times, at $5 a ticket, that’s $25,000. If you have 5 theaters and 100 seats and you only can pack them in only twice, at $10 a head, that’s only $10,000. You may have the same amount of stragglers as the shows go on through the following weeks.
Cheaper tickets means more sales. Duh.
I knew, briefly, the original writer. Great guy. I couldn’t wait to see this. But I was pretty disappointed. They took a great concept and made a slapdash, badly edited, unnecessarily stupid movie. What a shame. Of course there will be a variety of opinions as to whether it was acceptably funny or not. But it was not smartly made. Steve Pink, I’m looking at you.
Well it was hilarious, so I’m curious about the original script..any way to see it?