CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
EN/FR
Search
Menu
Research dossier · Arts & Letters

Hot Tub Time Machine 2

2015 film by Steve Pink

Manuscripts, fine bindings, an engraving plate and preserved performance ephemera
Arts and lettersInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionJul 31, 2026
Entity authoritySource title only
Source-derived summary

Hot Tub Time Machine 2 is a 2015 American science fiction comedy film directed by Steve Pink and written by Josh Heald. The film stars Rob Corddry, Craig Robinson, Clark Duke, Adam Scott, Chevy Chase, and Gillian Jacobs. It is the sequel to the 2010 film Hot Tub Time Machine. The film was released by Paramount Pictures on February 20, 2015. John Cusack, who played Adam Yates and produced the first film, does not return in the theatrical cut, but has a brief cameo in the unrated version. The film grossed $13.1 million against a budget of $14–18 million, and reviews were generally unfavorable, deeming it "unfunny" and "unoriginal".

Editorial summary

The public source identifies “Hot Tub Time Machine 2” as 2015 film by Steve Pink. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Time, Machine and film.

Editorial reviewBest approached as a cultural-object dossier: authorship and date matter, but circulation and reception often explain the wider significance. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—2015, 2010—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its value is orientation rather than verdict, with Time, Machine and film providing the first useful test.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Hot Tub Time Machine 2”, the useful work is to connect “2015 film by Steve Pink” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.

Evidence profile

Object files, edition statements, performance records and contemporary criticism preserve different stages of the work’s history. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jul 31, 2026. The first chronological checks are 2015 and 2010.

Critical limits

Later fame can flatten the distinction between original context, subsequent adaptation and institutional collecting history. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Separate the work, its editions or performances, and its later reception. Catalogue records, publication histories and object files often preserve different parts of that story.

Best used for
  • Identifying works and editions
  • Tracing reception history
  • Finding collection records
Verify next

The original object or edition, catalogue raisonné, performance record, rights file and holding institution.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Hot Tub Time Machine 2”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Hot Tub Time Machine 2 primary sources, Hot Tub Time Machine 2 archive and Time research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Hot Tub Time Machine 2”?
  2. Where is authorship, date or provenance documented?
  3. How did later circulation or interpretation alter the work’s reception?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Hot Tub Time Machine 2” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.