From what I understand a movie needs to gross around 3 times its production cost to break even*. Part of this cost is promotion and distribution. HHGttG will need to gross $150k to break even.
It’s a flop.
*Source: Star Trek’s George Takai, on why Star Trek V sucked so bad.
That’s the first time I’ve ever heard that. And not that I don’t trust George Takei, but… well, I don’t trust George Takei. Not on this topic. If it was a flop I’d like to know why none of the news stories I’ve read about the movie have described its performance as disappointing. After the first weekend there was talk in the IMDb news about sequels. This was, very intentionally, a small-budget movie. $50 million is small, $150 is not.
I know it’s a given that few movies make back their cost, but if the threshhold was making triple the cost of the film, then nothing makes a profit.
Well, if you listen to the studio accountants, that’s true. Remember back when Warner Brothers was trying to claim that Batman lost money?
Considering half the money goes to theaters and a lot more is spent in advertisements and shipping the film, you could say the movie flopped. On the other hand, it can turn into a sleeper hit on DVD.
Today, it’s all about the DVDs. Not the box office.
Hollywood accountants are experts at proving that none of their movies makes a profit (e.g. the Art Buchwald Coming to America lawsuit).
Yes, they are, just like Miller says. I wouldn’t say that makes it true, though. 
The better lawsuit is Winston Groom vs Forrest Gump. $300+ million in rentals on a film that cost $50,000,000 (that’s six times the cost, Mr. Takai) and they claim it still lost money. LOL!
Most movies make back their money, just not neccesarily from domestic theaters. Add in foreign distribution, DVDs, ancilliaries and your movie has to cost a hell of a lot and make such a minescule amount to lose money. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be so many. You can certainly talk about opportunity costs and such, but rare is the film that is really in the red. Hollywood pretends they lose money a lot because it suits their purpose.
The book du jour is The Big Picture : The New Logic of Money and Power in Hollywood, by EDWARD JAY EPSTEIN, which is a long-winded but necessary look at motion picture finances.
For almost all movies today, the first theatrical run loses money. It isn’t even designed to make money. First run movies today are essentially nothing but an extended commercial for the real product, which is the aftermarket. DVDs, videos, Pay-per-view, pay cable, regular cable, regular television, soundtracks, novelizations, action figures, etc. and etc. and even more etc.
There’s not a chance that Hitchhiker made money. The $50 million production budget is the barest start. The average movie incurs $35 million just in domestic advertising and marketing. There’s the multi-million price of creating and shipping and maintaining those 3500 or so prints to the theaters of America. There’s the interest on the loan taken out to finance this $100 million or so (nobody pays for movie making out of their own pockets except Mel Gibson). Tripling the production budget used to be a good rule of thumb for break-even but now that’s probably too low.
When will they decide whether to make a Hitchhiker sequel? When and if the DVD comes out as a blockbuster. Up to 70% of the total sales of a DVD now come in the first week of its release. If that’s huge then they’ll find some sucker to produce Restaurant.
And I’ll claw my eyes out before I subject myself to something that is guaranteed to be even worse than this piece of swill.
I wonder how much the movie has made in Great Britian.
And I liked the movie, though I will admit it’s (a) not a knee-slapping yukfest, and (b) not for the easily-intimidated Adams neophyte. Still fun, though, and even the new bits were very Adamsish.
From the perspective of someone who had only ever heard the title before and knew it was a book—exactly. The previews for this movie were terrible. If you want to make people who don’t know what this story is about interested in seeing the movie, you have to draw them in with the previews. All the Hitchhiker’s previews said to me was, “Only Hitchhiker’s geeks who will wear costumes as they wait in line at 7 a.m. for the midnight premiere will enjoy this film. Don’t bother.” (No offense to Hitchhiker’s geeks who wore costumes while they waited in line at 7 a.m. for the midnight premiere. I don’t really think you’re geeks. But the previews made me think you might be. )
I might catch this movie on DVD, but I doubt it.
~$10 Million, according to the IMDb.
Weeelllll…
I waited twenty years for The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy to come out in cinematic form. I had read the books, read the radio scripts, seen the TV series, and waited and waited and waited for the movie.
I have seen some bad movies in my life. I have sat through some of the most unbelievable crap ever to be splattered on the silver screen.
The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy is the first movie I have ever in my thirty-odd years as a member of the filmgoing public walked out on.
I can see a bit of editing in order to make a novel fit into a two-hour film, but leaving cool bits out so you can put in uncool and unfunny bits that were not part of the original story, sorry, that doesn’t fly with me.
I’m a rabid Hitchhiker fan since I was fourteen. So, for twenty-three years I have been making sure I know where my towel is.
I couldn’t take the movie. I bailed before they got to Magrathea, and went home and read the books again.
And George Lucas.
You don’t trust Takei? Talking about Shatner? And Trek?
Actually, I bet not. Why take it out of pocket when he can be sure that the profits will cover a loan? Technically speaking he’s still paying for it himself rather than going through a studio or moneymen but the financials look better that way.
He privately funded them himself so that no studio head could interfere with the content of the film.
What a double-edged sword that turned out to be.
Yes, but “privately funded” doesn’t exclude his (actually, Lucasfilm’s) taking out a loan.
Well, just under $80 millions isn’t usually considered a flop, but nor is it a hit, having failed to pass the maybe-its-too-old hit standard of $100 million. The flop/hit standard, though, rarely has to do with any net profit from the film, since, well, those calculations can be odd (e.g. marking “how much money we could have made if we had just put the money in the bank and earned interest” in red).
Why didn’t it do better? Many reasons: Mediocre script (DA’s style of writing had changed from the wacky absurdist fiction to the more thickly plotted Dirk Gently style and he didn’t seem to be able to recapture it), mediocre directing, mediocre marketing… all kind of made the film, well, mediocre. Quite frankly, even though I’m a long time fan of DA’s universe, changing plot points, not doing things “exactly” right… this never bothered me. In all the other forms, it was the characters that made it a quality Hitchhiker’s work. This film didn’t have them.
Zaphod - In the film, he was… well, stupid… an almost Bush-like take on the ex-POTG. He should have maybe appeared stupid, but you weren’t sure if he was pretending or not (there’s that quote in the first book that describes his character perfectly)… since he’s actually quite intelligent. And political jokes like that never age well. (Not that that’s stopped DA before :smack: )
Trillian - In the film, was a dreamy, idealistic, and not always sure of herself. Completely opposite the way she should have been: Devestatingly intelligent, more at ease with space travel than Zaphod even, and always seeming to be in control of the situation…
Ford - I didn’t buy once that he was a researcher for the Guide. He just seemed to hang around with a towel over his shoulder most of the time.
Arthur - Actually did a decent job capturing his character, I think. Maybe needed just a touch more of smartassedness that was lurking just below the surface.
Welll…
I might dress up and go to it at 7 AM. I didn’t, I’m a huge fan, but I went two nights after opening night, at midnight. So not a great deal better.
But it was directed solely at the core fan base. Which is OK, for us, but it’s not going to make money that way. “Cult” flicks - and from what I can see, HHGG falls into that category - don’t normally make much money.
And yellowval, I’m offended. Of course I’m a HHGG geek. 