twitter google

Never Back Down is in the black

Despite the fact that all you haters didn’t bother to go see it, Never Back Down has still managed to take in over 21 million bucks in the past three weeks. That covers it’s production costs of 20 million bucks, making it a success. The blog title is a little bit misleading though … it’s unclear if the 20 million takes into account the money spent marketing the movie. Since I don’t have cable or a life, I have no idea of there were tons of commercials on TV or posters plastered around town. The only thing I had to go on was the movie’s presence at the IFL and Strikeforce shows … and those blinking orange banners on every freaking MMA website. That probably cost them a decent amount of money.

The funny thing is, it was kinda a waste for them to blow all that money reaching out to MMA fans. The universal opinion of pretty much everyone except us was that the movie was a steaming pile of shit that made MMA look no different than streetfighting. I’ve never actually seen a revolt firsthand on the scale I did from MMA fans when this film was out … MMA fans just couldn’t stop talking about how much they hated the idea of it.

The big question is if these same people actually ended up going out to see it – which if you’re going to talk shit about it, you really should watch it first right? Isn’t that what we tell all those assface reporters who diss human cockfighting?

When we were filming Georges St Pierre and Denis Kang for Fighters Only, they said they had gone and watched it. So I guess there’s a possibility that for all the vitriol spewed over this film, the marketing push to the MMA crowd actually did work. Just not for the reasons the studio thought it would.

  • TheLeprechaun

    The marketing costs of a flick are not usually included as part of the production costs. So the $20 mil to actually make the movie has been made back, with a $1 mil profit recorded so far.
    Chances are the studio probably invested between $5-10 mil to promote the film and that amount includes marketing when it hits DVD, so the film will most likely recoup a small profit. Not too bad.

  • Jemaleddin

    TheLeprechaun is right: marketing costs are generally half the production costs, so it’ll take 30 mil to get them in the black. But since they’ll rush the DVD out pretty soon to capitalize on the marketing done for the movie, they’ll easily make back that money.

    And what does that mean? Never Back Down 2: Electric Boogaloo is coming soon to a DVD player near you.

  • Xavier

    When you see a turd from afar, you don’t need to get closer up to know it smells bad. It’s a turd. Of course it smells bad.

    Change around a few words, and you have exactly why nobody needed to go see Never Back Down to know it’s a steaming pile of crap (and that you’re a movie-tard with shitty movie tastes per usual).

  • fightlinker

    Never Back Down 2: Never Back Down AGAIN

  • jiujitsu365

    The movie was actually pretty good. It had its’ cheesy moments but they kept it to a minimum.

  • Allah Ackbar

    I’m pretty sure that theaters take half of a movie’s gross, so Never Back Down would have to make $60 million in theaters to break even assuming that the total budget was $30 million. It’ll probably at least earn back the money on DVD’s and rentals though.

  • cyph

    Movie theaters only take 20% or even less for blockbuster movies (5%) during the first few weeks. They get more share as the weeks advance. Theaters make money off of concessions mostly.

    Production costs usually include production, marketing, as well as distribution. Trust me, movies that cost $150 mil to make already factor in marketing costs. There is no way it cost another $150 mil to market and distribute it.

    With oversea takes and DVD sales (which I believe will do very well. MMA fans are waiting for DVDS, those cheap bastards.), this movie will make chedda’.