America1

hahahahahaha - I love it when Canadians talk tough. You sound like a fool when you say you are going to teach us a lesson by "pulling the plug" on us. Newflash, the US is a country of ~300 mm people compared to what not even 40mm in Canada and our GDP being almost 12 times as large as yours.

I think the # is 20 deserter out of a few hundred thousand who have served in Iraq and afghan. So there really aren't "many" deserters at all. So basically, what the hell are you talking about?

There is a difference between: - crying a river for somebody who has been charged, tried under due process and convicted by a jury of his peers and - crying a river for somebody who is incarcerated without charges and without any respect for human rights. Speaking of double standards, I find it distressing when members of a free and democratic society are sooooo comfortable violating the principles of democracy, freedom, blind justice and due process to suit their hot-headed desires. I agree with you 100%. It always amazes me when I hear people support GITMO. I wonder, if Americans were captured in a war, say in Iraq before their army fell, if they would support the same kind of prison. you do realize these people were picked up on the battle field, have been reviewed and processed by our military (several times) and in some cases have been offered back to their respective gvts only to have the offer rejected. Even if these enemy combattons were actual gvt soldiers (which they are not so they DO NOT GET GANEVA CONVERTIONS RIGHTS) we could/should still hold them until the war is over.

Except, er, it hasn't failed. It's done very well, all things (size of release, budget) considered. BTW: have you seen it? er, um, $6.5 mm is terrible!

I notice quickly that it is playing in 2 cinemas in Montreal, 1 in Calgary, 6 in Vancouver and 9 in Toronto. This is hardly what is called wide release, and no one is claiming the movie is a block-buster. America1, I'm not certain where you're going with this. Is it some desire to compete? Some people apparently see cinema data the same way they view sports matches or politics. It's my team vs. their team. IMDb now refuses to let posters rate certain movies because too many boys vote against girl movies, and so on. Or, are you assuming this financial data of Gore's movie somehow indicates popular opinion about global warming? Opinion polls woild be a better way to gauge that. In any case, I'm not certain whether scientific issues should be decided by popular vote. yes, i think it shows that people see this movie as nothing but pure propaganda (which it is) and that it make crazy leaps with its analysis/predictions. Yet, the Looney libs think its a movie of facts and a spear head for their cause. On top of that, I like rubbing it in liberals faces when their insane hero has another failed venture.

Well I am not guranteeing it will get 50 million dollars, I am saying based on my observations and past trends this movie could very likely pull in 50 million dollars. It may not, it is meerley an educated guess. For an early indication this weekend will probabley be usefull when it is open in 420 theatres, if it can stay in the $10,000-12,000/theatre range then I believe it is a very good indication that it has the momentum to go the distance. I will admit it is to soon to gurantee 50 million, but it is also far to premature to label the movie as a flop, being that it is already the fith highest grosing political commentary ever made. just to update; after 5 weeks, 'Inconceneint Truth' just under $6.5 mm.

a great reply!

You've gone a bit beyond the facts, America1 (damn, I wish folks like you wouldn't embarass the rest of us abroad by linking your neocon mentality to patriotic sounding screen names - you don't even represent a majority opinion anymore, but in fact a rather pathetic minority). How did I go beyond the facts? Do you know something Fitzgerald doesn't? Oh- that's right, your'e talking out your *ss. "pathetic minority" - can someone explain to this fool who won the 2004 election!

Unfortunately, you're missing the point. He didn't get away with anything. He's innocent. However, it's an odd comment from you. I guess he's guilty until proven innocent, and even then, he's guilty? How very liberal of you. I can't say that I'm suprised. Innocent untill proven guilty. To bad all those in GITMO do not get the same treatment. I guess being caught on the battle field & being processed (multiple times) by military review boards means nothing? On top of that, the war is still being fought and not even actual troops (not that they qualify) are not released before the war is over.

yeeeahhh. No. Not charged does not equal "innocent". Quite simply, either they didn't have enough evidence to move ahead with charges or they cut a deal. Given that this investigation points to Veep's office, it's quite possible they are going to use Rove to fry bigger fish. But is Rove off the hook? Not yet. Yes, he is. He got off, let it go!

don't quit your day job.

The movie has been out for 3 weeks and has made less than $4mm and you think it will reach $50 mm domestically? I guess you're banking on a great finishing push?

A movie that makes that kind of money while only playing on 77 screens is nothing short of an amazing success. Yeah BTW, for a movie that had an hour long special dedicated solely too it on MTV, $ 4 mm is NOTHING.

A movie that makes that kind of money while only playing on 77 screens is nothing short of an amazing success. yeah, very short of amazing.

I trust you hold "Walk the Line" in the same contempt, then. The film hardly shied away from the tragic. It certainly was blunt in its depiction of the effect Jack and Ennis' affair had on their families. But you clearly couldn't get past the gay gay gay gay. Apples. Oranges. You know why they don't use per theatre averages for films like X-Men or Da Vinci? Because those numbers are small, given the market saturation those films have. As BM said: if the film makes back what it cost and more, it's a success, not a flop. "Brokeback" was a success. So, it would appear, is "An Inconvienient Truth." In any case, it's futile arguing with someone so blinded by idealogical predjudices. Yeah, they use total $ amount as a cop-out to "fake it", yeah, you nailed it. Did you ever think "whythe huge block busters are in ALL of the theatres, instead of just a couple? - Perhaps maybe b/c they are willing to "bet" that these movies will draw large crowds regradless of location, unlike Brokeback and the gore flop. B/c when I know I have a hit, I want it in a only a few locations so that people need to search for to go see it. Now, who is the Blind one again?

This is the most startlingly dishonest use of statistics I've ever seen on this forum. You very conveniently leave out a crucial bit of information--the number of screens Gore's powerpoint presentation played on. According to http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/boxoffice/weekend/2006/06/04/ Xmen played on 3714 screens; Inconvenient Truth played on 77. In fact, all of the movies that did better played on over 1000 screens. This shows that Gore's little documentary dramatically exceeded industry expectations. Also, considering the production costs of creating what is essentially an Al Gore lecture, it will likely make a whole lot more money. That's ultimately what defines success in that business. Hey genuis, the numbers are accurate, there is nothing dishonest about them. The fact that it only plays in selected theatres is not an excuse (we'll it is to liberals who can't compete, so they throw theatre averages out instead of gross $ amount just like with brokeback. You don't here anything about per theatre average when talking about 'The Da Vince code' do you?). At the end of the day this is what it has made so far, PERIOD! BTW, it's only in limited release b/c many theatres realize tht there is no market for this film so they choice not to show it instead opting for more profitable films. For example take the smll budget film "My big fat greek wedding", it was in limited release but after it did so well, it was picked up and put it into more theatres throughout the US. The whole limited release is a marketing ploy to "test the waters".

Here are the figures after 3 weeks for the Gore flop. "An Inconvenient Truth" - total gross = $3,952,000 just to let you compare, "X-Men: The Last Stand" (also only out for 3 weeks) - total gross = $201,716,000

What? $14 million was the film's production costs, which is why it's considered a low-budget film. As for it's box office ranking: you're aware it was released in December 2005, right? I don't think there was any attempt to conceal the content. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who didn't kniow this was the "gay cowboy movie". It's a pity you're own predjudices can't allow you to appreciate was is a qulaity piece of cinema. Yes, I have a few prejudices for a film about adultery (none the less a homosexual affair) especially when it is passed off as "love story". It is a great example of where the liberal mindset is on issues such as marriage, family and commitment to be able to call this a love story instead of a family targedy. Why is it a pity, the quality of the cinema (when BTW judged on its merit and not the “gay” aspect, is really a fairly boring and slow developing movie) is overshadowed by stories content.

Because it was made for $14 million? I'm not sure why you're contorting yourself to try and paint this film as a failure when, by any measure, it was a commercial and critical success, even while you try to downplay those successes as the product of marketing. So which is it: a dud, or a success powered on a Hollywood gay conspiracy? BTW, $14 mm for a major film release these days is not much AT ALL, that’s why it ranked 24th for the year despite being put up for and winning awards. What re you talking about gay conspiracy? It doesn't take a conspiracy to have Hollywood push for a film to do well b/c they like the content of the film. This was a film Hollywood and many media elites (liberals) wanted the public to embarrass. I mean, how can you have a movie about to a married guy having a homosexual affair and call it "one of the most amazing love stories of our time". Can you really not see the twisting of the description of the movie to make it more palatable for the average American/viewer?

I've never bought into the mythology arond Zarqawi as the Big Bad Guy. Now, even if he's a fraction of what they say he was, the wolrd is better off without him. But we've heard this song and dance before, so I'll pass on the chest beating. TYhe problems in Iraq go well beyond one man. "I've never bought into the mythology arond Zarqawi as the Big Bad Guy" - Tell that to Nick Berg.

Considering the size of the film's release, it's small ad campaign ($60 million is peanuts: Narnia's marketing budget, for example, was double Brokeback's) and the fact that it was made for around $74 million (if your ad budget numbers are accurate) I don't think there's anyway you can call Brokeback anything but a success. It made money and was an award-winning, critical smash which is all that can be expected for a small, semi-independent film aimed at adults. Comparing it to a big-budget blockbuster is apples and oranges. How can you not call Brokeback A big budget film? It had 2 very famous actors in the leads, a well known director in Ang lee and a huge marketing push not to mention the incredible pro-gay push from hollywood and the liberal media. You are a blind mannot to see that it was onl=e of the biggest if not the biggest push from hollywood for the year.

I wonder: in what kind of bizzaro universe can a movie crack the top ten on less than a 100 screens and still be considered a flop? I guess the same kind of universe where a film like "Brokeback Mountain" (which grossed $178 million worldwide) can be considered a dud. I'm sure there's plenty of producers who'd love to fail like that. Seeing how "Brokeback Mountain' was such an award winning movie (tons of free hype, I mean press) and it was only able to bring in a little over $178 mm internationally, 24th top grossing film, in a very weak year (not exactly a prized position in the count down for the year). Yeah, I'd say it was a flop especially when you consider that they spent around $60 mm on the marketing campaign alone. Keep in mind that 'Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire' pulled in $892 mm in the same period internationally.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/entertain...D2?OpenDocument Looks like this movie is going to be a blockbuster. Anistons film "break-up" (reviewed as BAD) brought in 38million in one weekend showing on 3070 screens to take the top spot. Showing on a paltry 77 screens Gores "Inconvenient Truth" rakes in 1.33 million. That is excellent! With the amount of press this movie has gotten, it is an incredible flop so far (and I predict will be). This is going the same route as ‘Brokeback Mountain’. Tons of hype by the liberal media orgs but, very few actually showings and it will do horribly at the box office when compared to movies with an equal $ amount for its marketing campaign. This is why it uses the per/theatre showing % instead of gross sales as all other hits are judged by.

Posts like this are why many Americans can't stand Canadians anymore. Can someone remind me what Canada/Canadians have done to make them think that are superior to USA/Americans?

"perceived" - you're a moron!