Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Sequel' bombs at the box office, ranks in 15th place

It ranked 6th in per theater average for the weekend, more than Spiderman and Dunkirk. So what's your point?

www.boxofficemojo.com...

Who the # would want to go see an educational (propaganda) movie at the box office?

The only reason I would shell out money to those places is for the IMAX 3D... not so Al Gore can lecture me on how I need to give him my money so he can save the world from his 22 bedroom mansion.

Report: Al Gore’s Home Energy Use ‘Surges up to 34 Times the National Average’

a reply to: redtic

There is a big difference in the number of people who chose to see Al Gore's sequel in 180 theaters as opposed to movies that were released nation wide.

What is your point? how to lie with statistics?

a reply to: seasonal

Buy carbon credits... burn all the fuel you want, just buy credits.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

It is a money making scheme.

Al gore is the king of kings when it comes to profiting off the simpletons. Just not with this "film".

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: redtic

There is a big difference in the number of people who chose to see Al Gore's sequel in 180 theaters as opposed to movies that were released nation wide.

What is your point? how to lie with statistics?

Wait, you're telling me that more people can fit into 4000 theaters than in 180? That is simply a brilliant observation on your part.

a reply to: redtic

so what was your point in telling us about average theatre attendance? And comparing it to movies that were released nationwide?

Was it that the sequal was only released in cities where there is a strong liberal support and that people who already drank the global warming kool-aid were counted on for attendance?

a reply to: redtic

His film made 1,000,000 dollars. Fail.Should have went straight to video.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: seasonal

Buy carbon credits... burn all the fuel you want, just buy credits.

Soon enough you'll be taxed just for breathing. I'm sure they have a plan in the works.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: redtic

so what was your point in telling us about average theatre attendance? And comparing it to movies that were released nationwide?

Was it that the sequal was only released in cities where there is a strong liberal support and that people who already drank the global warming kool-aid were counted on for attendance?

My point is that it is still in limited release, to expand to 500 theaters next weekend. $1million for a documentary in limited release in 1 weekend is not bad - in fact it's pretty good. My point is that the OP is premature in his judgement. Come back in 4 weeks or so - if it's made less than 10 million, you can come back and gloat.

a reply to: redtic

an inconvenient truth was released to only 4 theatres for its opening. it grossed 17 k per theatre.

deadline.com...

An Inconvenient Truth opened via Paramount Classics in May, 2006 taking in over $281K in its debut weekend in four locations, averaging $70,332, a bit more than double this weekend’s PTA for Truth To Power. An Inconvenient Truth went on to cume over $24.14M in U.S. theaters.

The sequel was released to 180 theatres, grossed 1 million or about 5,000 per theatre


The sequel is already showing up poorly

a reply to: seasonal

I wonder what the carbon footprint was on the making of the film?

It's not really that surprising. I haven't seen the new one, but the first one complete redefined the word "Twattle".

I wouldn't be surprised to find that if you looked up "Twattle" in the dictionary, there would just be a picture of the "An Inconvenient Truth" DVD cover. Fortunately, far fewer people are drinking the Global-Warming kool-aid nowadays than when the first one was released.

You gotta love Doom-Porn.

i understand there are some pretty low iqs around here.

it's being released at the peak time for kids movies hence the top ten.
an odd time to release a documentary especially as this forum shows, its a time when being proud to be stupid and ignore facts along with science is on the rise.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: seasonal

I wonder what the carbon footprint was on the making of the film?

I wonder what the cartoon footprint of manbearpig is?

I don't really see how a "documentary" coming in at 15 counts as "bombing".

Hell, there are romantic comedies that do worse than that. Horror movies too.

Al Gore can suck it..suck it hard.
It's not that I don't believe in climate change either..I just don't believe in Al Gore.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: oddnutz

Have those numbers been adjusted like the climate numbers?

.

Well they actually took the average of the top 3 screens then adjusted all the other 177 screens accordingly . Now with the new properly "calibrated" screens, it appears the movie now made 68 Million dollars.

originally posted by: CB328
Another pointless thread. Will ATS ever return to conspiracies and stop catering to neanderthals?

And yet you read and responded. Neanderthal much?

The irony is the amount of energy and jet fuel that was used to make this movie and then for people to view the movie...not to mention all of those ocean-killing plastic parts in the equipment used to produce it.

I'm sure that he paid his carbon credits, though, so it's all okay...