Earns just $45,000.00 nationwide on opening weekend – film cost $1.5 million to make
GLB earned forty five thousand dollars nationwide, wow. Maybe it had to do with the situation described in this review by Alana Goodman from a showing in Washington D.C. area:
Only a handful of people showed up to a screening of Greedy Lying Bastards—Craig Rosebraugh’s documentary that aims to expose the global warming denialist-industrial complex—at an Alexandria, Va., theater on Saturday. And none of them seemed to notice one of the documentary’s star villains seated in the audience.
Yep, the numbers are in, and it’s a bomb. It never even had Box Office Mojo to start with:
The screen above was captured in two parts from Box Office Mojo, which tracks weekend box office ratings.
Note the gross receipts circled in red. The average Theater take was $900, and since the theaters earn their majority of profit on concessions, and the green types that attended probably don’t eat that evil butter flavored popcorn or drink Coke because it reminds them of the Koch Brothers, I’m guessing that a number of those 50 theaters won’t be showing the movie next weekend.
I wonder if eco-activist producer Daryl Hannah will ask for her funding back?
UPDATE: I agree with this comment from MattS, so I’ve elevated it to the post body.
Comparing GLB to blockbuster entertainment films doesn’t seem fair some how. How does it compare to other documentaries.
looking at documentaries for 1982-Present, GLB comes in at 128th for opening weekend take. Not a stellar opening even in it’s own genre.
Aussie Luke of Australiastan says:
March 12, 2013 at 6:36 pm
“If Daryl Hannah . . . She was great in 10.”
I saw the one with Bo Derek.
Most films like this are not aiming for or respecting stunning box office success, and such a lack of success does NOT e indicate a failure of the message or the meaning. What is typical of Republicans and small minded people is they judge things only in terms of money, which is basically the entire problem the film is trying to expose!
Focusing on earning gobs of money at the expense of the environment is the main problem with our society and many societies, as well as the lack of freedom imposed by dictatorships and giant corporations run by a few billionaires and millionaires. Most of us are wage slaves, albeit with better working conditions than most slaves–currently and in the old days–but we are still slaves to the capitalist system which truly benefits only a very few– those who keep gaming the system with corruption and influence at the highest levels to benefit only themselves.
The purpose of humanity should be furthering the interests and health and ideals of all humanity, not just the very few who are grabbing it for themselves– and destroying everything for everyone along the way, blindly and greedily and wantonly.
And we should all absolutely be working to eliminate poverty, hunger and environmental destruction and slavery and other social ills instead of working for rich people to enrich only them. Why would you, the 99 percent, support such an unfair system when you receive so little from it?? When you are chained to it?
For example, the egregious lack of regard for women’s health by corporations in America. In all other industrialized nations, women get paid maternity leave, sometimes up to a year or 2. Where is this common sense benefit in America, the wonderful and supposedly great? It is obviously being taken up as profits for the rich instead of benefiting women who bear the burden of childbirth.
1 of the worst things going on is the gigantic epic failure of the oceans due to human pollution. Within 50 years we face a mass extinction event that will totally change the course of evolution itself and of course history. Mass starvation will follow because many societies are dependent on the chain of life that will be destroyed in our oceans. And that will be only the first, most obvious result. For more scientific data on this just google “shocking oceans report.”
Wake up people, look at a wider vision of life instead of gloating that a documentary that makes absolute sense doesn’t hurt as much as Harry Potter, the latest Pixar film or a Hugh Grant comedy.
I am expecting brainless attacks on this comment that are typical of the audience here . Be aware that insipid accusations of “he is a socialist,” and ridiculing the concept that the oceans’ life systems upon which we are dependent are about to collapse, just reveal your ignorance of science and lack of research on social systems and their
Box Office Mojo lists the number of screens showing the movie as well – 50 listed here. Dividing the take by nine bucks (about usual) gives 5000 people and dividing by the 50 screens comes out at 100 people per screen. I think the weekend is three-night period so 33 people per showing. Not very good considering the publicity it got.
[snip. You cannot label others ‘denialists’ here. — mod.]
Tshane3000 says:
March 12, 2013 at 8:06 pm
——————–
Tshane my friend, you ought to open your eyes.
Did you imagine we’re all Republicans here? Richard Courtney is an articulate, razor sharp AGW skeptic who posts here regularly, nice guy too, happens he’s a socialist and makes no bones about it, just like several others. Lots of people here, myself included incidentally, have plenty of concern for the environment. Part of what irritates me so much about the AGW hoopla is that it’s a waste of time, money, and attention that could actually be put to good purpose to benefit the environment.
So, put down your sword, stay awhile. You might learn something. Heck, you might teach me something, which after all is the only valid reason for all the rest of you to be posting in the first place – for my benefit, am I right? No? Just kidding. It’s late.
However, don’t expect a whole lot of respect. For this film or… much of anything else, actually. What respect you see around here is hard earned.
Regards
Just one final salient question:
Why would anyone support an industry that kills thousands of people each year, whose products kill millions of people over time, whose products and the extraction of which are destroying our world ecosystem and creating dependence on other nations who are hostile to us? HM
I applaud anyone who can give me an honest answer. Other than the bankrupt: “We have been doing it for a long time and it should continue because we have been doing it for a long time– and it makes a very few people very very rich .”
In an Earth filled with a very small number of people, the amount of pollution could possibly be reabsorbed by the planet. Not with 6,000,000,000 people and growing everyday. This is what fossil fuel supporters cannot widen their minds to see and grasp.
Anyone who reads a fair amount of science and sociology should be able to see this easily. And do research on counter arguments.
Tshane3000 says:
“Most films like this are not aiming for or respecting stunning box office success, and such a lack of success does NOT indicate a failure of the message or the meaning.”
• • •
Such a ‘lack of success’ DOES, in fact, indicate failure. The film was intended to make money. But it bombed. A return of $45K on an investment of $1.5 million = total failure.
You really should get out of your mom’s basement once in a while. Practical economics isn’t Socialism’s strong point; every Socialist needs to remember that their primary job is figuring out how to steal the earnings of the productive members of society.
Finally, I note your hypocrisy in demonizing the fossil fuel industry. [I will retract that accusation if you name the “thousands” of people “killed” by them.] The plain truth of the matter is that lifespans and human health have increased enormously due directly to fossil fuel use. And you are certainly a fossil fuel consumer.
We know who the thumbsuckers are here. Lookin’ at you, Tshane. If you are sincere in your post above, you will, of course, be one of the first to volunteer for self-extinction. Set an example for the rest of us, ‘K? Thx bye.
TeeWee there are lots of those movies most of them are really, really hard to find
D.B. Stealey says:
March 12, 2013 at 8:30 pm
Tshane3000 says:
———————-
Oh, yup. Tshane, forgot to mention. Come in swinging like that, somebody’s bound to hit back. Usually me in fact, more often than not. 🙂
Nite folks.
Tshane3000 says:
March 12, 2013 at 8:21 pm
[snip. You cannot label others ‘denialists’ here. — mod.]
————————————————————————————————————————
Could you pass a polygraph test with just 3 questions on climate?
This assumes you are actually a scientifically informed person (earned right of logical understanding) ……..
This site does not allow for anonymous server connections. Just sayin,,,,,,,,,,, Step up!
Can you?
Tshane3000.
You inadvertently stumbled across the reasons for the failure of the Global Warming cause, despite the billions of dollars spent on promoting it.
By immediately associating CAGW skeptics with ‘Republicans’ you revealed two things simultaneously; firstly you assumed that the motivation for questioning CAGW is political and by implication that your Faith in CAGW is political. In the latter you are correct, in the former very, very wrong.
What gives us skeptics the ‘high ground’ is that we are not a homogenous group who occupy one slice of the political spectrum…that’s yourselves you’re talking about.
The engineers, scientists, meteorologists, statisticians, geologists etc etc who come onto WUWT on a daily basis and demolish and debunk Warmist Scaremongers are a diverse group of free thinkers…wherein lies their strength.
The terrible irony is that many of us ‘skeptics’ are deeply concerned about matters ecological, but given that the ‘Green’ movement has yoked its wagon to the millenarian doomsday cult of CO2 Warming we cannot rightly support it in general terms.
If you really care about ‘the planet’ abandon this absurd belief and you will find that millions of us alienated ‘skeptics’ will once again be able to address real, actual ecological issues.
5 Stars Charles.
Cool, I got a comment elevated to the main post!
P.S. Anthony needs to put a running comment total under the view in the blog stats section in the right margin panel.
Rob Potter says:
March 12, 2013 at 8:20 pm
Box Office Mojo lists the number of screens showing the movie as well – 50 listed here. Dividing the take by nine bucks (about usual) gives 5000 people and dividing by the 50 screens comes out at 100 people per screen. I think the weekend is three-night period so 33 people per showing. Not very good considering the publicity it got.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
GLB has a cast and crew totaling 62. I am willing to bet that they all went to see it on the big screen so that leaves just 4938. And those were probably all “True Believers” to begin with.
So the upshot is that if any fifty of us showed up at a showing dressed as hockey sticks or lumps of coal we’d double the theater’s take for the night…
Also, GLB opened up in 50 theatres for that 128th place performance. 50 opening theatres puts it at #33 on the list ranked by number of theatres it opened in.
@Tshane3000
Mr. McShane, as a professional comedian, the American people will grant you enormous liberty to say outrageous things to make people laugh. Some audiences are harder than others; this one is not particularly Victorian. But I took the trouble to visit your web site, and I wish to advise you that you need to call a plumber. You have a sewage problem.
jacles wins the award for one of the dumbest posts in WUWT’s history. LOL. Talk about placing your argument in the wrong basket.
@ur momisugly Tshane3000
Seems to me you should write a post explaining what needs to be done and how it will work. Specifics are required. If you have details on the political, economic, societal setup you aspire to – spell it out.
[I’ve not seen a Hugh Grant comedy, a Pixar film, nor know anything about Harry Potter. Maybe that’s because I spend my spare time volunteering for things that I think might help the environment. Unlike you, I guess.]
A minor point of grammer.
Salient = Most noticeable or important
You cannot have more than one salient question…
I wonder if this sort of propaganda film qualifies for a government subsidy, I guess your Government just might be eager to contribute, after all its only a drop in the bucket with all the trillions that have been wasted on climatology so far.
And failure at the box office doesn’t stop climatmystryologists from forming back slapping circles and creating PRESTIGIOUS titles and awards – cue Bill Mc Kibben and a fine cast of ” you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours”, after all some might get Nobel Peace Prizes even if they fail the elementary truth or self deception test.
Tshane3000 says (March 12, 2013 at 8:29 pm): “In an Earth filled with a very small number of people, the amount of pollution could possibly be reabsorbed by the planet. Not with 6,000,000,000 people and growing everyday.”
Seven billion, isn’t it? Were we supposed to die out at six? Oops.
Tshane3000 says:
March 12, 2013 at 8:29 pm
Just one final salient question:
—————————————————-
Aaaaah, that tired old “when did you stop beating your wife question”, only asked when one can’t think of a salient question.
…. but please go on, O Wise One. We can solve the world’s problems by pretending to remove CO2 from the atmosphere with wind turbines, while paying your puppeteers a commission for mandating them ??
How’s that going, by the way ??
LOL!! Well, it looks like the greedy lying bastards that made this POS are not going to make a dime on the film.
I love to see a poetic justice in action.
Shame asked: “Why would you, the 99 percent, support such an unfair system when you receive so little from it?”
Answer: Because I’m not hung up on money like you are. Whether someone has billion$, million$, thousand$ or just hundred$ makes no difference to me – as long as they are satisfied with their lot in life. (Actually the more one has, the more headache there is to manage it.) Diversity is great in many areas of life – including wealth status – so celebrate it!
@D. B. Stealey
As far as practical economics goes, I’ve refuted you grand and uninformed assertion about socialists not being skilled in economics. I made clearly salient points in my last comment–ones you clearly were not capable of coming up with yourself. Even with your vast intellect, able to critique mine as though I were a bug under your all seeing scientific and analytical eyes.
Furthermore, an opening weekend for a film has little to do with the overall economics of how much money it makes. Stating a film is a failure based on 1 weekend of box office receipts is itself a failure to grasp the economics of the situation.
Again, looking at small moments– cherry picking–while ignoring the big picture, while claiming this small slice is the only important piece, is a trait of typical conservatives that reveals ignorance. If not ignorance, then a willful and evil intention to dupe others.
The big picture is that the film may or may not make millions and millions in DVD, residuals, and the likes of HBO, Current TV (or whatever its replacement may be.)
To assert a film is a failure before it has run years and years simply (yes, I mean simply in the literal sense: it was a simplistic supposition) ignores the big picture of the economics of the film industry. Many, many films make huge amounts more money in DVD and cable distribution then they ever made in their first run. Clearly you have failed to do this type of research and failed to consider these points . Why?
Could it be you want to dupe the audience into believing your points by ignoring realities that could be researched? Weak ploy. Easily countered. Or could it be ignorance? There really aren’t any other answers.
Your suppositions and assertions…***eviscerated****.
Given the failings of your analyses, is there *any* reason whatsoever to trust or believe in the value of your comments anymore???
John Kerry recently told German students that in America we have the right to be stupid. Any idiot has a right to an opinion. Go forth and spew yours.