Jump to content

Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" tops "Break up"


Recommended Posts

Aniston and Vaughn's `Break-Up' tops box office

By David Germain

ASSOCIATED PRESS

snip

In its second weekend, the Al Gore documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" went into wider release and broke into the top 10 with $1.33 million, even though it was playing in just 77 theaters.

Released by Paramount Classics, the film averaged an impressive $17,292 a theater, compared to $12,410 in 3,070 cinemas for "The Break-Up."

Chronicling the former vice president's campaign to educate people about the perils of global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth" expands to more theaters over the next two weekends.

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 104
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Aniston and Vaughn's `Break-Up' tops box office

By David Germain

ASSOCIATED PRESS

snip

In its second weekend, the Al Gore documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" went into wider release and broke into the top 10 with $1.33 million, even though it was playing in just 77 theaters.

Released by Paramount Classics, the film averaged an impressive $17,292 a theater, compared to $12,410 in 3,070 cinemas for "The Break-Up."

Chronicling the former vice president's campaign to educate people about the perils of global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth" expands to more theaters over the next two weekends.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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. :lol: I'm sure there's plenty of producers who'd love to fail like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bet, if they'd carefully selected only three or four screens nationwide to show the movie on, they could have averaged over 20k per screen easy. That would make it, like, the biggest blockbuster hit of all time! (On a per screen basis.) Yay, Al!!!

The incovenient truth is that outside of a very limited number of markets this movie will flop, because only blue state concrete jungle dwellers (you know, Greenpeace supporters) buy in to Gore's econutter ramblings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same kind of universe in which global warming isn't happening.

The denial universe, full of simple-minded folk.

You're an ass. I have never denied that global warming is happening in my conversations with you. I have denied the importance of the anthropogenic aspects of global warming. Big difference. So much for your grasp of reality, and your reading comprehension skills. No wonder you take crap eco-alarmism as gospel truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same kind of universe in which global warming isn't happening.

The denial universe, full of simple-minded folk.

You're an ass. I have never denied that global warming is happening in my conversations with you. I have denied the importance of the anthropogenic aspects of global warming. Big difference. So much for your grasp of reality, and your reading comprehension skills. No wonder you take crap eco-alarmism as gospel truth.

On the one hand you deny any denial of global warming, and on the other you call it "crap eco-alarmism".

Who's the "ass" again?

:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess we should take your anonymous online word against the broad consensus of the scientific community. They are, after all, a bunch of "econutters."

1) Consensus has never proved anything. In fact, broad concensus among scientists has on numerous occasions worked against developing an acurrate scientific determination of how a system actually works. That scientists share an opinion doesn't make that opinion scientific or true.

2) There is no broad concensus that man-made problems are the primary cause of global warming. The consensus you speak of is pertains to the notions that warming is occuring and that this is a problem. And even those opinions have their detractors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same kind of universe in which global warming isn't happening.

The denial universe, full of simple-minded folk.

You're an ass. I have never denied that global warming is happening in my conversations with you. I have denied the importance of the anthropogenic aspects of global warming. Big difference. So much for your grasp of reality, and your reading comprehension skills. No wonder you take crap eco-alarmism as gospel truth.

On the one hand you deny any denial of global warming, and on the other you call it "crap eco-alarmism".

Who's the "ass" again?

:rolleyes:

I apologized to the forum administrator for using inappropriate language, after I was contacted on the matter. Clearly someone complained. I guess it wasn't you, though, since you've chosen to use the same language in return here. Right? (And please, don't try to deny that you're reference to "simple-minded folk" which prompted my outburst (and your subsequent rehash) wasn't a reference to me specifically to me.)

You still have to work on your reading comprehension skills, as you have once again mischaracterized my meaning. I wasn't referring to global warming as "crap eco-alarmism". I was refering to that piece of crap website you linked to as "crap eco-alarmism".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was refering to that piece of crap website you linked to as "crap eco-alarmism".

What on the website is "crap eco-alarmism"?

As for your claim that there's no consensus on the cause of global warming, here's more from that same "crap eco-alarmism" website:

http://allpoliticsnow.com/content/view/15/1/

Are the claims made there also "crap eco-alarmism"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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. :lol: 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can you not call Brokeback A big budget film?

Because it was made for $14 million?

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'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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can you not call Brokeback A big budget film?

Because it was made for $14 million?

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'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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? $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?

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 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? $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?

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 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
IMDb claims Brokeback Mountain had a budget of $14 million. The $60 million for publicity is nonsense or a number pulled out of thin air forpublicity purposes. It grossed $80 million in the US on ticket sales so BD's claim of $177 million worldwide makes sense. This is a movie that'll do well on rentals and sales far into the future.

So, for an artsy-fartsy movie, that's a remarkable success. Since it was filmed in Alberta and all, I regret not seeing it on the big screen but a movie about two adulterous gay cowboys based on a novel by Annie Proulx just pushed my wretch meter too far into the red zone. I did watch the Bunny Version (formatted to fit ADD sufferers).

But getting back to the thread's title, anybody see "Inconvenient Truth"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,717
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Watson Winnefred
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...