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

Al Gore isn't going to make as much $$ of his inconvenient squeal as people do not seem to want to watch this flavor of political drama.

Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power” failed to resonate with many viewers.

15th spot at the box office in its first weekend since being released on July 28.

The publication added the movie, which focuses on climate change, earned about $1 million. "An Inconvenient Truth" made nearly $50 million at the box office.

www.foxnews.com...

Ahh, Paramount decided to sabotage the film by limiting the exposure it got with a small realease. I imagine that everyone would have went if only there was theater that was showing it.

Washington Monthly writer D.R. Tucker wrote that Paramount's move to release the film in a few cities, as opposed to nation-wide, caused poor ticket sales and essentially sabotaged the film.

“Back in June, Paramount abandoned plans to give ‘An Inconvenient Sequel’ a wide release on July 28, choosing instead to release the film in only four screens in New York and Los Angeles on July 28 and only 180 screens nationwide a week later,” he claimed.

a reply to: seasonal

The publication added the movie, which focuses on climate change, earned about $1 million.

This makes me wonder if tickets costed $1 million and Al Gore was the only attendee.

a reply to: Vector99

The climate change issue is so important that people should be forced to watch and then be forced to change. And what ever Al Gore says is what we should do.

It was only on about 180 screens.

Check the per screen average. It's equal to (or better than) most of the films in the top ten.

a reply to: seasonal

And what ever Al Gore says is what we should do.

Ughh fine, I'll start looking for man-bear-pig....


I'm super serial.

A sure sign progressive fake causes are passe now that Trump is all the rage.

a reply to: seasonal


The movie wasn't in many theaters, but that might be because not to many theatres wanted to show it.

a reply to: Moresby

$5,000 per screen since july 28th. Is that good?

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Vector99

The climate change issue is so important that people should be forced to watch and then be forced to change. And what ever Al Gore says is what we should do.

You mean like Clockwork Orange where you're strapped into a chair with spring clips holding your eyes open?
Maybe then I'd watch it.

Does it star Shia le Bouef? (or however its spelled).

Another pointless thread. Will ATS ever return to conspiracies and stop catering to neanderthals?

a reply to: Tulpa

Clock work at a minimum. I think a matrix approach where we are confined to a plexi glass bubble filled with goo would be just about right.

Everyone but Al Gore because he is so good and important to this cause that he could be in charge of monitoring the whole system. Kinda like the architect. I would feel good about the world at that point with only the reservation that it took us so long to finally balance this all out.

Well it would have had better numbers, but as Gore predicted in his first film, so many major American cities are now under the sea.

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

Lol seriously?
Trump's new Immigration Policy may be his most Controversial act yet
Trump holding meetings with religious leaders
Trump's War on Science
Kushners "Forgot" to disclose millions of dollars of assets

All threads authored by you in the last 2 days.

a reply to: Grambler

I'm reading this wearing a super long snorkel and typing on my phone in a waterproof bag.
About 30 feet down.

Super super serial.

If it was on 4 screens for one week with a guestimated 4 sessions a day and then was expanded to a 180 screens on the Thursday the 3rd at an average guestimation of 4 sessions a day we almost reach 3000 sessions since release. 1 million dollars divided by 3000 sessions divided $8.65 for the average movie ticket = 38.5 people per screening. Massive Bomb.

a reply to: oddnutz

Have those numbers been adjusted like the climate numbers?

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

Yet you commented. Thanks.

originally posted by: Moresby
It was only on about 180 screens.

Check the per screen average. It's equal to (or better than) most of the films in the top ten.

Where were those 180 screens? I can well imagine that it played well in say Berkeley, but I imagine it would bomb on a screen situated in a less left-leaning area.

Paramount likely chose limited release in order to play it in friendly venues because their research showed them that the issue doesn't pull well in a wider market.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: seasonal

The publication added the movie, which focuses on climate change, earned about $1 million.

This makes me wonder if tickets costed $1 million and Al Gore was the only attendee.

Yeah, and he flew in on one of his private jets.

He's Green like that.

a reply to: oddnutz

isn't it a shame (sarc). especially as we all know that Al is super "cereal" about this! He will begin reducing his carbon footprint as soon as the rest of us are all done!