Gore's new movie: an 'inconvenient bomb' at the box office

The numbers for weekend movie sales are in, and Al Gore’s new movie, a sequel to An Inconvenient Truth, called An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power  (AIT2) tanked at the box office this weekend according to numbers gathered by movie sites “Box Office Mojo” and IMDB.

The opening weekend for any new movie is usually when the public, rife with anticipation, lines up to buy tickets at theaters. In this case, the opening weekend seemed to signal a major lack of interest on the part of the public, but more importantly, lack of interest in promoting the film by the studio itself, Paramount, who limited the opening weekend to just 4 theaters nationwide.

According to Box Office Mojo, AIT2 opened in just 4 theaters, and earned a measly $124,823.00 and put it at number 28, well behind other movies opening that weekend:

This is quite a departure from how the film was received at the preview at the Sundance Film Festival back on January 19th. According to Variety:

An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power” kicked off the 2017 Sundance Film FestivalThursday night, bringing a strongly positive response from an audience of 1,200 at the Eccles Center Theater.Though Al Gore announced in “An Inconvenient Sequel” that he is a recovered politician, the audience at the Sundance Film Festival reacted to the follow-up to 2006’s “Inconvenient Truth” like they wish he would get back in the game.Many stood at the end of the film to applaud Gore, who compared the cause of slowing climate change to other great moral causes of the modern era — like women’s suffrage and civil rights.

Reminiscent of the original, “An Inconvenient Sequel” depicted dire consequences of a warming earth — from flooding in Miami and the Philippines, to the worst drought on record in Syria, bringing human suffering there that predated the ongoing civil war, to air pollution so bad in some parts of China that life expectancy has declined by six years.

The now 68-year-old Gore acknowledges that he “would be lying” if he didn’t admit slow progress on slowing greenhouses gases sometimes causes him despair. “In order to fix the climate crisis we have to fix the democracy crisis,” he declares.After receiving his standing ovation following the premiere, Gore told the crowd that despite repeated setbacks there is reason to have hope for progress on climate change.

In essence, Gore is admitting that there’s not a lot of interest for action on his cause. Could it be because the majority of people just don’t believe him?

I’m not sure Mr. Gore will recover any momentum like he had with the original AIT film in 2006. In my opinion he’s become largely irrelevant in the climate debate, mainly due to the multitude of failed claims and factual errors in his statements overs the years. For example, it was shown that in a Gore-produced “high school science experiment” film about carbon dioxide, that the results demonstrating warming had to be faked in post production to make the experiment work. We caught and called him out on it, and yet the video remains on his website today, years later.

If Gore really speaks “Truth to Power” you’d think he’d want to remove that video, especially when a rival has clearly shown his “high school science experiment” results to be entirely fabricated. Apparently, the man has no scruples.

In AIT2, there’s similar failures and fabrications, as Bjorn Lomborg points out in a Wall Street Journal article

The former vice president has a poor record. Over the past 11 years Mr. Gore has suggested that global warming had caused an increase in tornadoes, that Mount Kilimanjaro’s glacier would disappear by 2016, and that the Arctic summers could be ice-free as soon as 2014. These predictions and claims all proved wrong.

“An Inconvenient Truth” promoted the frightening narrative that higher temperatures mean more extreme weather, especially hurricanes. The movie poster showed a hurricane emerging from a smokestack. Mr. Gore appears to double down on this by declaring in the new film’s trailer: “Storms get stronger and more destructive. Watch the water splash off the city. This is global warming.”

This is misleading. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—in its Fifth Assessment Report, published in 2013—found “low confidence” of increased hurricane activity to date because of global warming. Storms are causing more damage, but primarily because more wealthy people choose to live on the coast, not because of rising temperatures.

In the trailer, Mr. Gore addresses “the most criticized scene” of his previous documentary, which suggested that “the combination of sea-level rise and storm surge would flood the 9/11 Memorial site.” Then viewers are shown footage of Manhattan taking on water in 2012 after superstorm Sandy, apparently vindicating Mr. Gore’s claims. Never mind that what he actually predicted was flooding caused by melting ice in Greenland.

Mr. Gore declares in his new film that “it is right to save humanity.” No argument here. But is using scare tactics really the best way to go about it?

Gore is clearly mostly about propaganda, and both sides of the climate debate now recognize this. One wonders if Mr. Gore isn’t past his expiration date when it comes to climate.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Larry Vaughn

Maybe it would do better if they hyped it as a Fairy Tale.

PaulH

Or perhaps it would be #1 in the “Sci-fi Comedy Mocumentary” category.

Felflames

He failed to put in the flying sharks,everyone knows you need flying sharks to make modern disaster movies work.

Jbird

Maybe Al needs to find something else to scare all of us about. Perhaps a documentary about how he plans to run for president again would prove sufficiently terrifying to get him a nomination for best horror film.

Bruce

Sadly the viewership will skyrocket once the film is released to “Science” teachers in K – 12 indoctrination centers worldwide….

He’s a joke; he can’t reach an audience beyond the age of 18, with the exception of Sundance goers!

Klem

Exactly, I expect my local high school will be showing it to their students this fall. How much Gore earns in royalties is unknown.

Goldrider

The amount of “interest” generated by this movie is roughly equivalent to that of late-night infomercials for home elliptical machines. And appeals to the same crowd.

Makes me want to drive 1000 miles to the nearest theater showing his flick. I wonder if I’ll be lucky enough to get a seat. Perhaps I should bring a tape recorder and record those pearls of wisdom that he has undoubtedly accumulated over the years. A very modest man. So gracious.

I’ll have to go see it and heckle all the misinformation until they throw me out …

Rhoda R

I doubt that you’d bother the three people in the audience.

Rhoda,
I live in the SF Bay area. I might actually get thrown in jail or even lynched …

oeman50

I was planning to see it, but then I decided I needed to wash my hair instead….

Rhoda: the takings per theatre are 30 grand, so it doesn’t look like the showings were empty. Maybe they chose green heartlands for the location of the theatres?

Todd

Sorry, Anthony. but $31k per theater is really good. Dunkirk pulled in $7k per theater. Of course, the locations of the theaters were probably optimized. You can’t tell if it is a flop until it is put in wider release.

Harry Passfield

If Gore’s film had been put into as many theatres as Dunkirk (instead of just four) what would have been the average take then?

MarkW

I suspect there were a lot of acolytes who drove an hour or two just to see this “movie”.
If it had been in more theaters, I doubt the total take would have increased all that much.

jorgekafkazar

Right, Todd. Release in four theatres is strictly a trial flight, and probably a successful one. The decision to limit this initial release to these four outlets may have been based on previews elsewhere, but ranking this flick based on one weekend’s gross is misleading. The average gross per outlet is the proper metric for market performance.
“An Incontinent Sequel” is not scheduled to make credulous audiences pee their pants nationwide until August 3. So far, it looks favorable…for those who like propaganda. I suspect theatergoers can get KoolAid to wash down their popcorn.

Releasing this well-publicized film in only 4 theatres is an attempt to gin the per theatre stats to create a buzz. Naomi Oreske’s “Merchants of Doubt” (2015) had gross domestic sales of only $308,156 while Naomi Klein’s “This Changes Everything” had gross domestic sales of $16,692. Public interest in these eco-catastrophe propaganda films is waning.

Al Gore – the climate whore. Making his millions on no more than a lie. Repeat the lie enough, it’s swallowed whole as the truth.

Cameron Kuhns

In my case, if you repeat the lie, I get tired of hearing it.

jIM a

Look, I think it’s full of lies, too. But look at the return per theater.
Hardly looks like it bombed out.. looks to me like it’s going into wider release. How can you miss that?

jIM a

IOW, ditto Todd.
Heh… what I get for walking away for a bit.

Latitude

I think the average movie theatre price is a little over $17…..so only around 7000 people saw it

Actually, earning almost $125,000 and coming in at 28th in just 4 theaters is pretty impressive. Al must have bought all the tickets himself. lol!!
Al got, by far, the highest average per theater take at $31,206/theater. #1 ranked Dunkirk only averaged $7,100/theater over the weekend.
Last weekend was a limited release. It’ll be interesting to see the numbers next week with a wider release.

Harry Passfield

I wouldn’t put it past Gore to ahve bought up all the tickets. $125k is hardly going to break him.

Grant

I’d bet Dunkirk did better than that it a lot more theaters.

john harmsworth

It’s a sign of the times. Dunkirk was about something real.

upcountrywater

May this joke movie have as much success as his plan to tax every single URLconnection,just like a long distance phone call, that’s his Internet…..

“Science Fiction”…Didnt see it and wont but good $’s for the 4 theaters shown in…..
Ranking is a 5/10 and you can see there are the believers and the skeptics
1127 IMDb users have given a weighted average vote of 5.0 / 10
Demographic breakdowns are shown below.
Votes Percentage Rating
433 38.4% 10
47 4.2% 9
43 3.8% 8
28 2.5% 7
23 2.0% 6
13 1.2% 5
11 1.0% 4
19 1.7% 3
25 2.2% 2
485 43.0% 1
Arithmetic mean = 5.4. Median = 6

Mumbles McGuirck

Mr. Gore is clearly about Mr. Gore. Both films are an ego trip for him. Most scenes involve Albet Jr. front & center. See Mr. Gore save the Paris Accord! Give me a GD break.

Mumbles McGuirck

Sorry, Albert Jr,

Trebla

What’s the title of his next film? Isn’t he over-using the word “inconvenient”? It may be convenient for him to keep using inconvenient, but it’s starting to get on my nerves. How about “Son of Inconvenient” or “The Return of the Inconvenient”. They sort of have a nice ring to them, don’t you think? How about a WUWT contest to name the sequel ti the sequel? Just a thought.

The -gate suffix has been way more overused. Calm down.

NorwegianSceptic

Incontinent. There fixed it for ya.

Markopanama

The Second Coming of the Inconvenient Truth. Oh wait, The third Coming…

Bill Parsons

“What’s the title of his next film?”
“Several-Million-mile Journey to the Center of the Earth!!!”

Robert of Texas

I sometimes wonder if this man actually believes his own hype? He doesn’t live a life-style that suggests he does. He and DiCaprio need to combine forces on the next sequel. They can show how AGW will cause ice bergs that sink giant ships and kill all the passengers, and they won’t even have to shoot any new footage.
It is interesting that one can make an industry of producing propaganda that reinforces what other want to believe and completely ignore the truth. It isn’t just governments that can “profit” through propaganda. You just need to convince Hollywood of your claim.

Roger Knights

I sometimes wonder if this man actually believes his own hype?

He’s Hansen’s yorkie.

Tom Halla

Why, pray tell, did something so hyped open in only four theaters? Perhaps the distributors were trying to limit their losses.

Mark from the Midwest

Paramount is just a distributor, no money into production

ossqss

It seems we are overlooking that Gore charged Leonardo 120k for his ticket 😉

Mark from the Midwest

You gotta be careful on how this is characterized, the per-theater metrics are very solid, but the theaters are being hand picked, places like Cupertino, West Hollywood, Upper West Side .. and there’s a slow-roll, limited run in each theater, give it a month before it’s really called a total dog.
Paramount is actually pushing on-line viewing, and getting some traction, although it’s below the thresholds where day-to-day streaming metrics are stable.
One thing about this movie, the production values are really bad. Looks a lot like people in Hollywood donated time, but there was no good effort to build a coherent look and feel, and style is the thing that draws in the youngsters …

Mary Brown

“…the theaters are being hand picked, places like Cupertino, West Hollywood, Upper West Side”
I predict low sales in Bismarck
Interesting they rolled out the hottest week of summer

Brian R

As they used to say: “If it’ll play in Peoria it’ll play anywhere”. Once it makes, if it makes, wide distribution I doubt it will do well in any of what the Leftist call “Fly Over” states.

That rather odd island of committed Leftists that have two brain cells to rub together, the Village Voice, is on to him. “…more brand building…”
That is the only purpose of the movie – build the trademarked Al Gore Climate Catastrophe Unless You Fork Over More Money brand.

Tom in Denver

I cannot hear Al speak anymore and not think of “Manbearpig”. South Park has forever tainter my view of this man.

Mary Brown

“Half man, half bear, half pig”
Classic episode and the math inherent in above statement is more accurate than climate models

john harmsworth

Do you really think he needed any extra taint?

I would love to know how much was expended on direct mail, social media and phone banks to reach the AGW sycophants within a 60 mile radius of those theaters. That would tell us a whole lot about just exactly what the drawing power of his latest screed will be.

embutler

I’m not an AL gore fan but the film is number one at 125 k per theater..

Bruce Cobb

Sorry Al, I haven’t seen the original yet, and won’t watch the sequel until until I’ve seen that. I will watch the original AIT approximately when pigs take wing and fly, or when hell freezes over – whichever comes first.

john harmsworth

Hell will freeze over the day Al Gore lands there! If only I could be there to see it!

Well, I’ve been told that I am going there. But I can at least tell those people that I’m going to have a cold reception, not a hot one, considering that Al is quite a bit older. (Note to self, must remember to specify parka burial, not tuxedo, in the will.)

Mumbles McGuirck

As for promotion, the MSM as well as the distributor are going full out. I have seen numerous articles written to promote this film, including a Bill McKibben fawning interview with Gore for an airline magazine. In my local AMC theater there is a huge wall-sized poster promoting this flick. I don’t think they are holding anything back in trying to promote this, expecting great returns.
All that being said, I think Anthony’s prediction about it bombing in general release has a greater chance of coming true than any of the predictions Gore makes in his movie.

jorgekafkazar

“Anthony’s prediction about it bombing in general release has a greater chance of coming true than any of the predictions Gore makes in his movie.”
Setting the bar awfully low, aren’t you, Mumbles-san?

commieBob

If Gore really speaks “Truth to Power” …

Typical bully tactic … pretend you’re the victim and the underdog. Until The Donald was elected, the alarmists were in power.

DonK31

Yes, what did he do when he was the power?
And what is he doing personally now?
Do as I say and not as I do does not cut it.

TheLastDemocrat

What did Gore do when in power?
His big VP initiative was to reduce government red tape.
Now, when you see on a government form, such as your tax return, that it should take 32 minutes for you to gather information and complete that government form, recognize that as Gore’s legacy.
https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/library/nprrpt/annrpt/pdf/com01.pdf

Resourceguy

Do they waste rotten tomatoes on that?

Mark from the Midwest

I will make sure it does, sometimes the process needs a little push

Steve Thayer

I wonder if anywhere in the movie there is measured data. Lots of words, lots of predictions, lots of video of bad weather I’m sure, but is there any measured data shown?
There is a video of Bill Nye debating a skeptic about global warming and Bill Nye said it is the rate of change of sea level rise that is alarming. The skeptic said the rate of change of sea level rise is not changing. Bill Nye closed by saying “We just don’t agree on the data at all”.
How absurd is that? They can’t agree on what the measurements are! An audience can not make any conclusions about a science issue without measured data, but most warmists never show measured data when they tell us how bad the problem is. And any mainstream media spot on global warming will never show measured data either, just words and predictions of terrible consequences.

Grant

The critics give it 77% on Rotten Tomatoes, the audience, not so much at 41%.

Mumbles McGuirck

That is very typical for Rotten Tomatoes. Any movie with a leftist agenda will be praised to the sky by the professional critics (MSM) but often get very low ratings from the public. And for a movie with a centrist or even conservative agenda, the critics will hunt for a reason to dislike it, even if it’s a well made and effective film.

RockyRoad

The critics vs audience gap is the promotional hype.

M Courtney

It opened in 4 theatres but that’s 3 more than it needed.
Only one cinema needs to show it before it goes out on download and DVD… Only one to be eligible for the Best Documentary Oscar.
This will win the Oscar and then be pushed on schoolchildren. It’s not meant for a discerning audience.

Resourceguy

Two of the theaters offered free beer and munchies.

Morano should do his sequel to counter Gore’s disinformation campaign. He can call it ‘Fraudulent Green’.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green

Mumbles McGuirck

“Fraudulent Green is people …. not being able to run their air conditioners.”

Butch2

“Mars rover concept vehicle looks to inspire next generation
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5528035952001/?#sp=show-clips
Kool !

John F. Hultquist

“… places like Cupertino, West Hollywood, Upper West Side …
Are these three (+1) the actual places?
Did Gore appear at each one to sign folk’s hats or whatever?
So, yes, the questions revolve around these 4, why, who picked them, what were the promotions?
I detect the smell of week old carp.

john harmsworth

You spelled crap incorrectly.

mwhite

“In order to fix the climate crisis we have to fix the democracy crisis,”
Democracy a problem is it???

Kpar

That was my thought. And the cure is…?

J

This is his phrase that makes me worry…
“The now 68-year-old Gore acknowledges that he “would be lying” if he didn’t admit slow progress on slowing greenhouses gases sometimes causes him despair. “In order to fix the climate crisis we have to fix the democracy crisis,” he declares.”
To him fixing the “democracy crisis” means manipulating the media, science, and government to repress the will of the people. These stupid people need to be controlled so they do the “right” thing !
/sarc

The Iconoclast

Yeah, a number of green lefties have wistfully pointed to authoritarian China as a country whose government can Get Things Done. Of course China’s environmental record is lousy, but the government can just give orders and make stuff happen, unlike the US where people can disagree and elect people who disagree and put the brakes on the plans of his most eminent self-enriching windbag.

RockyRoad

Their brand of “democracy” is practiced in places like North Korea, which prides itself on being the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Snarling Dolphin

I’ve seen the film and there is one memorably impactful scene: Al Gore dressed casually is seen walking towards the camera along an old country road paralleling a wooden fence line. As he passes each fence post he dramatically intones, “There’s one. There’s one. And there’s another one…” while simultaneously pointing out turtles resting peacefully in the sun, one on top of each fence post. “These poor little guys are climate refugees, waiting for the coming deluge as the ice in our world melts away. These little fellas know it’s time to seek higher ground…”
About then a grizzled ole’ Tennesee Hillbilly approaches from stage left, whispers in the AlleGorical’s ear for a moment and exits stage right. Al nods and stops, peers into the very souls of all the viewers on the other side of the camera lens and earnestly, somberly and chillingly speaks, “When you see a turtle on a fence post, you can be pretty sure it didn’t get there by itself.”
The scene then dissolves to some calving icebergs and I was like totally, wow and thought to myself, “I can no longer deny climate change.”

Stu

I just threw up in my mouth.

Roger Knights

If Gore really speaks “Truth to Power” you’d think he’d want to

DEBATE!
(Instead, he ducks like a quack.)

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing

I saw Dunkirk in IMAX quality, and I recommend it if you know the story. It is full of real people and just as you’d expect, some of them are not heroes.
I will not be seeing either of the Inconveniences. I presume the second coming will be taken to UK court and, as before, disclaimers forced upon it if it is shown in schools. (Keep up the good work.)
Dunkirk is about an unexpected recovery from a man-made expected doom. Inconvenient 2 is about an expected disaster from what is claimed to be a man-made expected doom.
When the former disaster didn’t happen, the people rejoiced. When the latter disaster doesn’t happen, a certain large segment of the climate science community will be very, very unhappy.

Resourceguy

Maybe it would draw more interest with a title of The Inconvenient Midwife?

michael hart

I would guess that the nature of US politics is also hindering Al Gore’s cause simply because of his association with it: It always seems to me that a failed US Presidential campaign usually signifies the effective death of that person’s political career. In many other democracies a loser for the top job often gets to hang around, still wielding considerable influence and power, and may get a second and third bite of the cherry later on. If Gore’s political fortunes followed the common US pattern then it seems likely that causes associated with him may also take a dive in public attentions.
Speaking of people who coulda been a contender….what is HRC up to these days? We don’t hear so much in the UK media. Is she still stalking the halls of the Democrats like the Bloody Barron at Hogwarts, carrying her head under her arm?

Juan Slayton

: It always seems to me that a failed US Presidential campaign usually signifies the effective death of that person’s political career
Best not to forget Richard Nixon. His political death was delayed by quite a few years. While some may agree with Kennedy that the past is prologue, it can also be precedent..

Roger Knights

“what is HRC up to these days?”
She’s incubating a book on the 2016 campaign.

London247

Being cynical ,in the modern understood sense, as opposed to the original Cynics who disavowed all personal property, I would suggest that the profits will be gained by sales of the film to education authorities.
Maybe Mr Gore could become a Climate Cynic?

Greg in Houston

I suspect the $/theater number is incorrect. Checking Fandango, I found it in several locations (LA, SF, Portland, Seattle, Madison WI, Hollywood, Boulder, Denver, and even Houston (And of course Aspen). However, many just had one screen a night, and only one theater in each city carried it.

john harmsworth

You mean they cherry picked their data? Are we shocked?

Jim

If you were smart, you would have saved your derision another week. Hollywood will laugh at you instead as the per screen average of $32K is exceptional and lead all limited releases.
It will undoubtedly fail and you could have great fun if it turns on less than $2,000 a screen which would indeed be a failure in anything over 100 screens. But for now you merely look like am ignorant rube who knows nothing about the movie business.

Greg in Houston

Jim, I believe the $32,000 for four theaters ($8000/theater, not per screen) number is incorrect. See my post (2 above this). First, there are more theaters than four showing the film. Second, $32000 is so high that other theaters would be clamoring to get the film, and media buzz would be immense – it is not. The weekend is Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. The Mojo site says 13,900 tickets were sold. That would be 3,475 per theater over three weekend days, or 1,158/day. Since most theaters seem to have only one or two showings a day, the 1,158 number seems very high. As a comparison, Dunkirk averaged 264 tickets/theater/day. There is almost assuredly something wrong with the data.

I understand your confusion. As someone who distributes films – let me explain it to you. (Continued on my post – too long for here – https://therightjb.wordpress.com/2017/08/02/an-inconvenient-bomb-response/)

Herbert

On IMDB, the rating for An Inconvenient Sequel is 4.8/10.
This puts it in the same bracket as the worst movies ever made-
” Plan 9 from Outer Space” and that other cult classic ” Reefer Madness”.

tango

good now take a 4 month holiday Antarctica would be a good starting point

TA

Well, I just watched Gore on CNN giving his CAGW pitch. It was nothing by one distortion of the facts after another. Fact checkers would have their work cut out for them. Not that his version of the facts are difficult to check, it’s just that thee were *so* many distortions that it would take a long time just to list them all.

Gary Pearse

68 and looking stuffed. He better start eating broccoli if he wants do a third bockbluster. Maybe “inconvenient sequel” suggested to movie goers that it was not a good time to see it. Millennial population has doubled since the last one and ‘inconvenient’ is likely a trigger word, too.
I feel a bit sorry for old Al. He must be tallying up what his life has been about. Yegads!

ReallySkeptical

hey, let’s debate a film we haven’t seen. cool. you guys are a riot.

TA

“hey, let’s debate a film we haven’t seen. cool. you guys are a riot.”
Well, if you are talking about my comments on the Gore townhall meeting on CAGW, I was discussing what Gore was saying during the townhall meeting when I described it as “one distorted fact after another”, I wasn’t talking about the movie. So it looks to me like *you* are the riot.
Listening to Gore, you have to wonder what planet he lives on because his dire descriptions can’t be about the Earth.

The movie opens in Concord NH on Thursday PM. Last weekend was not the national opening, whatever that means. From http://www.redrivertheatres.org/2017/07/an-inconvenient-sequel-truth-to-power-special-event/

On Thursday, August 3rd: Be among the first to see this long-awaited
film prior to its national release at this very special screening!
Environmental conditions have worsened in the decade since AN
INCONVENIENT TRUTH was released and crusading former Vice President Al
Gore, angrier these days, continues to promote the urgency involved and
find cause for hope. Exciting details about the UN’s 2015 Climate Change
Conference (in Paris), advances in wind and solar power are mixed with
scenes of melting ice caps, flooding, increasingly violent weather and
persistent deniers who claim that climate charge is a hoax. Gore is
convincing and his “Call To Action” is impassioned.
—–
On Thursday, August 3rd there will be a pre-film reception in our
Simchik Cinema at 6:00 PM before the film sponsored by ReVision Energy
and the League of Conservation Voters.
The post-film panel discussion will include:
State Representative Howard Moffett
Michael Behrmann, NH Clean Tech Council
Melissa Birchard, Conservation Law Foundation
Dan Weeks, ReVision Energy
We will also have a special post-film Q&A discussion led by Rob Werner
of League of Conservation Voters after the opening night screening on
Friday, August 4th.

Howard Moffet, IIRC, is a strong proponent of wind turbines. It’s about as one sided a panel as can be found in NH. (Somehow they missed Cameron Wake.)
The trailer is at http://www.youtube.com/embed/huX1bmfdkyA?iv_loading_policy=3&modestbranding=1 and features lots of wind turbines.
My wife and I will be there, I’ve notified NH WindWatch and Joe D’Aleo.

knr

This is the man that lost to G Bush, which he could add to quite a list of failures.
His ‘sucess’ have come from selling AGW BS, although it has bought him the very type of beach front property he claims would already be under water.

NorwegianSceptic

Big Al: “In order to fix the climate crisis we have to fix the democracy crisis,”
So he admits that Democracy is a problem for him and the rest of the AGW_ascists…….

TA

“So he admits that Democracy is a problem for him and the rest of the AGW_ascists…….”
Yes, when things are not going the Liberals/Socialists way, they think Democracy needs fixing. They refuse to accept any verdict that goes against them, so there must be somthing wrong with Demcracy, not with them.

ddpalmer

Although I am sure the film is a disaster and the fact that Paramount only showed it in 4 theatres shows their lack of support, it did make significantly more per theatre than almost any other film listed for that weekend.
I assume that it did so well per theatre because the 4 where it was being shown were in the middle of areas where Paramount knew there were a lot of Gore supporters and that true believers would travel a considerable distance to see their hero’s movie. This weekends take will be interesting to see. I expect it will drop to almost zero because the die hard believers have already seen it and there are very few left who are interested enough to pay theatre prices to watch. I expect when it shows up on HBO or Netflix or wherever that many less die hard supporters will watch it and some that strongly oppose it will also watch to laugh and critique it.

TA

Good picture, Doc! 🙂

2hotel9

“an ‘inconvenient bomb’ at the box office” Which is exactly why they will give copies free to elementary schools and force children to watch it.

Mumbles McGuirck

Some inconvenient facts are revealed in this National Review review of Gore’s film.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449910/al-gore-inconvenient-sequel-self-serving

Greg in Houston

The $32,000 for four theaters ($8000/theater, not per screen) number is incorrect. First, there are more theaters than four showing the film. Second, $32000 is so high that other theaters would be clamoring to get the film, and media buzz would be immense – it is not. The weekend is Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. The Mojo site says 13,900 tickets were sold. That would be 3,475 per theater over three weekend days, or 1,158/day. Since most theaters seem to have only one or two showings a day, the 1,158 number seems very high. As a comparison, Dunkirk averaged 264 tickets/theater/day. There is almost assuredly something wrong with the data.

manicbeancounter

The $31204 figure is the average per theatre. The film grossed $123k.
There might be something wrong with the data. Alternatively, by showing in just 4 theatres and heavily promoting the film in the limited climate community it might be possible to sell over a thousand tickets per day. It might be nothing wrong with the data. It may be an indication that a large part of the potential viewing audience was catered for. It will remain to be seen if the revenue increases markedly when more theatres show it.

Greg in Houston

Yes, my error – thanks…