If you think that The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo was a hit, then talk to MGM Holdings CEO Gary Barber. His company co-financed the film, and although it has generated about $231M at worldwide box offices he tells investors who own MGM’s unlisted shares that “it is below our expectations and we booked a modest loss.” The company wouldn’t say how much it wrote down, but Barber notes that execs ”were hoping we’d do 10% more than we did.” MGM has an option to co-finance the other two films in the trilogy and is talking to Sony about following through “assuming we can achieve better economics.” He was much more upbeat about the early performance of 21 Jump Street, which MGM also co-financed. “We expect it to be profitable,” Barber says. He adds that ”MGM has entered 2012 as a revitalized company.” He declined to describe MGM’s strategy but says it is “evaluating all options.”
The call followed the release of the company’s annual report which dropped a few interesting tidbits about the company that emerged from bankruptcy protection toward the end of December 2010. Last year MGM spent $30.3M to repurchase about 1.5M shares, and ended the year with net income of $37.8M on revenues of $699.1M. The company disclosed that it acquired 100% of United Artists late last year, giving it the rights to Hot Tub Time Machine, Fame, Valkyrie, and Lions for Lambs. MGM says that it “may resume using the United Artists banner to develop and produce new films.” Meanwhile, MGM is co-financing New Line’s two films based on The Hobbit. It also appears to be tight with several studios including Viacom as a financing partner for Paramount’s G.I. Joe: Retaliation and Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters, and MTV Networks’ TV series Teen Wolf. MGM also names the members of its board, a lot of people with the word “former” in their titles. Former Fox and Discovery exec Peter Liguori’s on it. The lead director is Ann Mather, who was Pixar’s CFO and now also sits on the boards of Google and Netflix. There’s also former MySpace co-president Jason Hirschhorn and former CBS CFO Fredric Reynolds, as well representatives of major backers including Anchorage Capital, Highland Capital and Icahn Capital.

That is absolutely ridiculous that it didn’t make any money. and they were hoping for 10 percent more? so what is that 20 million more — that is insanity, at least say 20-40 percent more. this made more than the original so why would they think they would make more than the original.
Huh? For the financials to make sense for MGM the film either needed to cost less or it need to gross more. I assume SOny had a bigger slice of the back end based on it’s ownership, distribution, and marketing. MGM’s money must have in after Sony recouped certain numbers.
Fact remains that movies cast too much to make and market unless they are guaranteed to blow up like Dark Knight or Transformers or Harry Potter.
I hate stories like this. The studio business model is terrible if investors don’t receive returns on films like this. What is so broken about the model? I don’t understand.
I’d also love to understand why in the world this wasn’t profitable. How in the world can this not be profitable? What went wrong? Can we get further analysis?
How about a very expensive marketing campaign.
How about releasing a movie about rape and murder right around Christmas. And the marketing campaign relied far too heavily on people already being familiar with the property. The marketing was cool if you were already set on seeing the movie, otherwise it conveyed very little about the movie plotwise.
It’s not totally surprising about the Tattoo loss after it came in well under Sony’s earlier projection of $300 million global.
It didn’t really do much better internationally than the original did and the US take wasn’t enough due to the (once again) stupidly high budget on it.
Could have been made for a good twenty or so million less.
If I may be so bold as to steal a term .. “toldja” (c Niki Finke)
It made no sense to s[end a ton of money on a “remake” of a film where the original had a very solid fan base, the original was only a year or two old, the original is considered VERY good AND it was in a genre that doesn’t tug at about every demographic.
And who woulda thought people wouldnt want to see a movie about rape and murder during holiday season?
I don’t think that the holidays have as big an effect on the tastes of filmgoers as you’re giving them credit for. Do you think that adults (who are the main audience for this film) who feel all warm and fuzzy over Christmas are the kind of people who would ever buy a ticket for this movie?
I think that people who find the thought of watching a movie about rape and murder repulsive would be just as turned off in July as they would in December.
It most definitely has an impact. If you are an adult and it’s the holiday season you don’t really want to go and watch something like that. Once it passes then, yeah, definitely. It should have opend up in March or late summer.
I disagree Steve. I watched it precisely because I hate all the fuzzy lovey dovey films that are in cinemas and on tv every holiday season. I would have watched it anyway because I like Fincher’s work, but I personally loved the ‘feel bad movie of Christmas’ idea.
I ask myself if the CEO’s of Sony have any common sense. TGWTDT was a fantastic movie. But who releases a movie like this(and a potential franchise)during Christmas? The movie was unusual holiday fare. It had to face fierce competition. And the movie is far less mainstream that you might think given the popularity of its source material. It would have knocked it out of the park on President’s Day weekend in February. Don’t know how you get to be in the management of an entertainment & broadcast companies if you are that far away from your customers. Maybe you should hook up with your Disney colleagues (John Carter desaster) for a drink. Aaaah, don’t forget to invite your TV colleagues from NBC. Cheers!!!
Get over it MGM. It was a well executed piece of work and deserves it’s sequels.
Agreed. Fincher did a great job and although I enjoyed the Swedish version, I’m looking forward to seeing his sequels.
I agree. I love Fincher’s work as well and imagine how this story would escalate with his talent on the second and third sequels. I know how money is always the name of the game, so to speak, but us true fans of the books; and the author; deserve to see the final outcome of the American versions. Just imagine Rooney Mara as Lisbeth in the second and third movies!!! She blew me away!!!
I’m confused about the following line:
“The company disclosed that it acquired 100% of United Artists late last year, giving it the rights to Hot Tub Time Machine, Fame, Valkyrie, and Lions for Lambs.”
What is this in reference to? Hasn’t MGM owned UA for years now, if not decades? I know Tom Cruise took a prominent role in UA a few years back when they did (one of many) restructurings; did he purchase part of UA then, and now MGM has regained full control? I always thought UA was 100% owned by MGM for quite a few years now. The Wagner/Cruise deal with MGM/UA under previous leadership at first seemed somewhat promising, but, ultimately, it didn’t really pan out, imo, although I do think Valkyrie was a good effort.
UA coexisted nicely with MGM there in the late 90s, early 2000s, when it served more as a specialty film unit. Considering MGM is out of distribution, at least for the time being, I don’t really see why they would need to revive the UA label.
I sense that the film missed its moment – that the excitement over the trilogy of books had largely passed by the time it came out. And where the Swedish films followed each other quickly, what year will it be by the time “Hornet’s Nest” is released (even if they shoot 2 & 3 together)?
And while Rooney Mara got an Oscar nomination, she seemed too muted in the part of Salander to make her a must-see character like Noomi Rapace did.
Rooney did a better job that that 40 year old did. Read the books, Rooney was faithful to the descriptions.
Noomi did a fine job at the nursing home age of, what, 29, 30?
Rapace far looked too old for Lisbeth and got her all wrong. Read the books! Lisbeth is suppose to be able to pass a teenage boy in the first book.
Faithfulness to a book is not indicative of a good performance.
Ah, that’s just tiresome to hear, over and over again. Noomi Rapace was 27 when the began to shoot the Swedish movie. Both did a great job so non of this has anything to do with the loss. You better come up with a better reason like the other posters have.
A very, very well made film… that was, if you look at it with clear eyes, not much more interesting than A Very Special Episode of “Law & Order: SVU.”
And that means, no matter how good it was, it was going to have a ceiling on the Box Office. If your audience can watch essentially the same kind of story every week for free on television (and they can) no matter how much you gussy it up with prestige names, it isn’t going to pop. It would have had to have been budgeted as one of Paramount’s old programmer thrillers — not a huge event movie with Fincher at the helm.
I agree. Lisbeth is an interesting character, but the story was pretty pedestrian, something we’ve seen a thousand times before. The only thing that really set it apart was the exotic and chilly Swedish setting.
But then I said the same thing about the original.
The only reason I went to see the remake is because I’m a big fan of Fincher’s previous films–but even his talents weren’t enough to elevate this one.
I won’t bother to see the sequels, if they’re made.
The key is Lisbeth.
Making her the real focus (and not splitting time with the Dr. Watson-ish what’s his name) might make folks scared to hang the movie on a young woman as a lead. But it is what would make the stories stand out as feature-franchise material. But that’s not the books, so that’s not going to happen.
$231M Worldwide is excellent considering it is the American version of the Swedish film.
If they don’t want to make the sequels, just over-dub English onto the other two Swedish movies…
If you hire Fincher to do a tentpole/epic movie it’s not going to cost less than $120M to do. So I’d blame the studio cost control and not the revenue stream. They knew what they were getting into when he was hired. They’d be wise to combine the two sequels into one shoot to make them profitable but I don’t see more audience coming out for those movies as interest will deteriorate even further over 2-3 years.
Fincher has already said that when they came to him about directing the film that they had already set the budget at 90 million. So get out of here with the “They knew what they were getting into when he was hired”. I blame Amy Pascal, Scott Rudin and whoever else thought that releasing a hard R rated film that was 2 hours and 40 minutes long and had 3 rape scences in it to be a good idea to release it during Christmas. FYI, I loved the film
What ae you talking about Jake? The original cost$16 million and made $100 million. The Fincher version cost $90 Million ( plus millions more on advertising) but only made $231 Million. Sure it made more money than the original but it cost MORE to make and advertise. Understand? Remember they have to split the $231 with the theater owners. So the investors LOST money.
Theaters do not make 50 percent — they are on a sliding scale that starts at what 70-80 percent go to the studios opening weekend. And they are claiming a small loss of 10 percent, which is ridiculous in my opinion. It’s a great movie, it’s an oscar winning movie, an oscar nominated actress and it made 200 million, it’s ridiculous to think that no one made money on this and if you want to buy that, then go ahead.
Isn’t the WB financing hobbit and Sony financing bond? What highlights do these guys really have for the future…GI Joe…? Doesn’t seem like they can even compete with Lionsgate.
MGM is co-financing Bond and Warners is putting up most of the budget on Hobbit. MGM has worldwide home video/TV rights to Bond (as they should) and international TV on Hobbit, Dragon Tattoo, 21 Jump Street, etc. that it finances w/Sony or Paramount or whoever. Anything else they finance largely on their own (i.e. Robocop, Poltergeist) they own DVD/TV rights.
As much as I enjoyed it, how much could have been saved by not doing that music video CG thing at the beginning? Plus, it was too long by a half hour or so.
Rooney Mara nailed that part way bettah than Noomi Rapace in my opinion. Where can I get me one a them “Fuck You You Fucking Fuck” t-shirts she wore?????
Hollywood you are seriously doing something wrong if you can’t make money on a movie with no major visual effects. The Swedish original cost $13M and made $104M.
Coming late to this party..But, we must also remember that Fincher was unhappy with all the interior scenes that were shot in sweden, so he came back to LA to reshoot most of the interiors. Subtract that extra cost from the next two films and Fincher comes in under budget as long as the talent is willing to take off the back end vs up front. I see this as a small hiccup along the trilogy road.
MGM is under a microscope and still showering off the bankruptcy sweat.
An R-rated film about rape, murder, conspiracy starring a girl whose previous biggest role was a combined 10-min appearance in The Social Network and a guy who’s primarily/solely known as James Bond…. and it makes a quarter of a billion dollars and the studio takes a loss on it?
This is specialty/niche/indie sort of material; it doesn’t involve aliens, superheroes, vampires, etc., nor does it have elements of fantasy, adventure, sci-fi, etc. (or even comedy) — so, $230 million should be an awesome take.
Realistically, what were they actually expecting and hoping for? $300+ million? Half a billion? Because if they really hoped for $250 million and just “missed” by $20 million, they shouldn’t at all be unhappy.
A movie like this could’ve been prudently and efficiently made at $30 million, and promoted for, say, $50 million. There’s no way the total cost of putting it out there should be 9 figures. Excess, excess, excess.
No they were hoping for 10 percent more — so that’s 240 million instead of 220. ridiculous
my mistake — it made 230 million, they were hoping for 10 percent more which would be 23 million more so 253 million would have made them “profitable”. that’s not even counting dvd/blu ray sales and ancillary markets.
The crooks got ahold of a studio, get the money upfront, no backend deals because no movie at MGM will make a dime, until they sell the studio again.
By the way has Forrest Gump turned a profit yet?
someone at MGM should look up the definition of the word “business” I’m sure the word “profit is in there some where. but if I’ve seen this once i’ve seen it a million times this is just the arrogance of the people in charge. the don’t want to admit their WRONG!! arrogance diminishes companies to rubble all the time. in the old school they would call it throwing good money after bad money. I love how studios and hollywood change the rules depending on who it is? if another director did the exact same numbers with that movie his career would be over! done! but fincher get’s considered for two more sequels. I don’t care how many people on this site think it was a good movie. Your in the business… your agenda riddled opinion doesn’t count! the numbers and the people have spoken. MGM has an option to co-finance the other two films in the trilogy and is talking to Sony about following through “assuming we can achieve better economics.” that’s like trying to figure out how to win the fight after (in a chris tucker voice) YOU GOT KNOCKED THE FUCK OUT!
No excuses people. Sony wanted a big franchise out of a property that was never going to truly cross over into the mainstream. I liked the film but let’s be realistic.
Don’t blame the marketing costs. Don’t blame Fincher. Don’t blame Daniel Craig who was given a big three film deal. Don’t blame the release date.
Instead blame Sony for doubling down on a project that had an audience who turned up to see the film and then…., no one else did. Sony can’t help themselves but overspend on stuff like this as they desperately seek out a franchise they can actually own.
It happens.
Stop making trash movies. the movie was so BORING, and no wonder, it faithfully followed the book.
they had way too much Daniel Craig, the opening credits were ridiculous, and the story was not original. The only thing that was interesting was this strange girl and they didn’t use her to advantage.
and i hate how everyone referred to the uncle as ‘my brother the nazi’ or ‘my uncle the nazi’ or just ‘the nazi’. get over it!!! the nazis are yesterdays bad guy and unless you are jewish, you don’t care to see villians from 70 years ago. why would everyone in the family tell the guy writing a family financed book how their family was connected to nazis? Retarded.
The movie was gorgeous. I think it’s one of the most impressive works of Mister Fincher, definitely one of the best movies of the year. I wanna see the sequels so bad, hope they are not in danger.
Jake,
The movie only made $13 Million opening weekend. So 70-80% of that is small. It slowly made its money of which 50% were international which American studios get even less of a return on. All that means that the studio got to take home even less money. Sony gave an interview to Nikki Finke saing they expected the movie to make $300 Million. That would have been their break even point for spending $90 million production and about $30-40 Million on P&A.
It doesn’t matter that the movie won one techically Oscar (so did Alice in Wonderland that example of art at it’s worst) or Rooney Mara got an Oscar nom. The bottom line is Hollywood is not a charity, it’s a business. Investors expect profit from funding these movies. They have shareholders to answer to.
Movie money just always seems to disappear. No one knows where it ends up, especially the IRS. That’s what all the accountants are for.
So true Bob. Someone made money on this, let’s not kid ourselves.
Opening credits were the best thing in the movie and as far as I can see the only “new” addition that Fincher brought to this.