Al Bores Movie Bombs at Box Office

[red states rule]

See your posts are totally unrelated to proving or disproving my argument. You obviously have nothing else to contribute to the debate so instead of hurling your puny insults please either admit that you are wrong or stop posting in this thread.

The film is a flop (like Al himself) It probably will lose money after taking out expenses. The liberal media are lapping it up better then a dog at a water bowl.

We will see the numbers are next week. They will go down faster then Monica

My posts are not puny - I think they are rather snappy

 

[red states rule]

Al may want to work on his timing...............


GORE TO DECRY 'GLOBAL WARMING' ON NEW YORK CITY'S COLDEST DAY IN DECADE
Drudge Report^ | 1/14/2003 | Matt Drudge


Posted on 01/14/2004 505 PM PST by Dan Evans


In what political watchers are calling possibly the biggest gaffe in years, former Vice President Al Gore is set to give a speech tomorrow on the perils of global warming -- on what is expected to be the coldest day in New England in nearly half a century!

MORE

Against the advice of senior advisers, Gore is planning to appear at the historic Beacon Theatre in Manhattan on Thursday to issue an indictment of the Bush administration's "inaction on global warming."

Gore will make the warming case on a day forecasters are predicting the coldest temps in Boston since 1957, with wind chills in parts of New England plunging to 100 degrees below zero!

MORE

Even though forecasters predict Thursday night will bring the coldest temperature reading in New York City in more than 10 years [1 degree above zero], sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT that Gore is determined to deliver the speech -- hoping to make the case how "Global warming" is actually the cause of the record cold snap!

MORE

"The extreme conditions are actually the end result of the planet warming," Gore has told advisers, sources say, in explaining his motivations. "The Bush policies are leading to weather extremes."

Sources would not say whether the speech is to be given outdoors.


Global warming is a rip!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Mr.Conley]

GORE TO DECRY 'GLOBAL WARMING' ON NEW YORK CITY'S COLDEST DAY IN DECADE
Drudge Report^ | 1/14/2003 | Matt Drudge


Posted on 01/14/2004 505 PM PST by Dan Evans


In what political watchers are calling possibly the biggest gaffe in years, former Vice President Al Gore is set to give a speech tomorrow on the perils of global warming -- on what is expected to be the coldest day in New England in nearly half a century!

MORE

Against the advice of senior advisers, Gore is planning to appear at the historic Beacon Theatre in Manhattan on Thursday to issue an indictment of the Bush administration's "inaction on global warming."

Gore will make the warming case on a day forecasters are predicting the coldest temps in Boston since 1957, with wind chills in parts of New England plunging to 100 degrees below zero!

MORE

Even though forecasters predict Thursday night will bring the coldest temperature reading in New York City in more than 10 years [1 degree above zero], sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT that Gore is determined to deliver the speech -- hoping to make the case how "Global warming" is actually the cause of the record cold snap!

MORE

"The extreme conditions are actually the end result of the planet warming," Gore has told advisers, sources say, in explaining his motivations. "The Bush policies are leading to weather extremes."

Sources would not say whether the speech is to be given outdoors.


Global warming is a rip!!!!!!!!!!!!

Really? Under 100 degrees. That's amazing, especially considering that the lowest temperature ever recorded in the entire history of the United States was -79.8, and that was in the artic circle(Source: http://www.usatoday.com/weather/wcstates.htm)

The film is a flop (like Al himself) It probably will lose money after taking out expenses. The liberal media are lapping it up better then a dog at a water bowl.

We will see the numbers are next week. They will go down faster then Monica

My posts are not puny - I think they are rather snappy

In two weeks, when the film starts pulling in millions. I am going to come here and quote every last word of what you've said and then I want you to defend it. Obviously you are beyond reason. You have cited no evidence, brought forth no statistics, highlighted no trends or event, failed to grasp the background knowledge, and use no facts to support your argument. The only thing you've said is that Al Gore sucks, that the movie will fail, and that you have no idea what you are talking about. You sir are truely blinded by your hatred of the left. Obviously you are not a person to have a reasonable discussion with. I will persist in my efforts though ultimately, all we can do is wait.

 

[red states rule]

It said WIND CHILLS of 100 below.

see below.......
On July 21, 1983, a temperature of -129 F (officially 128.6 F) was recorded at Vostok! This is not a wind chill temperature, but the actual temperature of the air. In fact, if the wind is blowing, the temperatures will often rise on the polar plateau. As mentioned last week, when the wind blows, while it makes us feel colder, it also breaks up the deep inversions that occur during the winter months, and the turbulent motion of the air keeps the temperature from falling.
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/scienceques2001/20020118.htm



I do not hate libs. I find them very amusing and only a little annoying

When they are out of power they are funny

It is when they are in power I worry.

I will be here in a few weeks as Al's movie is about to come out on DVD

(Hopefully the package is made out of recyclable paper)

 

[CockySOB]

All we can really do now is wait. Based on the numbers, and the fact that I think your looking at this from a purely partisan perspective, I think you are wrong, but only time will tell.

And you're NOT looking at it with partisan leanings? Right. I've got a bridge for sale near Brooklyn...

Think for a second on how many Hollywood movies and assorted "made for television" movies have focused on environmental doom and gloom in the past 5 years? I think the market for such movies is saturated, and while Gore's flick may not be boilerplate for these type of films, I do think the genre is currently in full ebb. And while documentary-styled productions can do fairly well on the television, I don't see them as being proven money-makers for the big screen.

Is it possible that Gore's film will be a blockbuster? Perhaps. And I'll be sure to duck my head to avoid the flying pigs when it becomes a blockbuster....

 

[Mr.Conley]

It said WIND CHILLS of 100 below.

see below.......
On July 21, 1983, a temperature of -129 F (officially 128.6 F) was recorded at Vostok! This is not a wind chill temperature, but the actual temperature of the air. In fact, if the wind is blowing, the temperatures will often rise on the polar plateau. As mentioned last week, when the wind blows, while it makes us feel colder, it also breaks up the deep inversions that occur during the winter months, and the turbulent motion of the air keeps the temperature from falling.
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/scienceques2001/20020118.htm



I do not hate libs. I find them very amusing and only a little annoying

When they are out of power they are funny

It is when they are in power I worry.

I will be here in a few weeks as Al's movie is about to come out on DVD

(Hopefully the package is made out of recyclable paper)

Ahh. my bad. I didn't see it.

My figure is for the United States; you figure is for the planet.

I'm glad you don't hate liberals.

That's great too...

I'm glad you will be here

Paper is recyclable.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Ps. Congradulations on using your first fact. See how much easier it was to prove your point. You should try doing it more often. It really works with most people.

 

[Rico]

Really? Under 100 degrees. That's amazing, especially considering that the lowest temperature ever recorded in the entire history of the United States was -79.8, and that was in the artic circle(Source: http://www.usatoday.com/weather/wcstates.htm)


In two weeks, when the film starts pulling in millions. I am going to come here and quote every last word of what you've said and then I want you to defend it. Obviously you are beyond reason. You have cited no evidence, brought forth no statistics, highlighted no trends or event, failed to grasp the background knowledge, and use no facts to support your argument. The only thing you've said is that Al Gore sucks, that the movie will fail, and that you have no idea what you are talking about. You sir are truely blinded by your hatred of the left. Obviously you are not a person to have a reasonable discussion with. I will persist in my efforts though ultimately, all we can do is wait.

I have no doubt that the film will make money. Judging by the box office that "Fahrenheit 911" accomplished it is without doubt that blindly following liberals will turn out to sip at the trough of their favorite propaganda. The real question yet to be answered is whether global warming is in fact occuring, and secondly is this due to mankind or a natural phenomena. And tertiarily can the actions of the United States alone affect any change.

It is NOT a proven scientific fact that global warming is occuring. It is NOT a proven fact that if global warming were in fact occuring that the warming is the result of human activity alone. It is NOT a fact that any action of the United States alone could affect such warming.

What is a fact is the same group of leftists that despise capitalism are the tree huggers that gleefully embrace the global warming hypothesis. Coincidence? I think not. Al Gore has this group to rely on to see his propaganda film and make him, in a true capitalist move, a ton of money.

See if you tree huggers can sell the idea first to the main contributors to pollution, namely the Red Chinese (your pals against capitalism, but no they're capitalists too now) and the Indians. Give it a shot.

 

[Mr.Conley]

nd you're NOT looking at it with partisan leanings? Right. I've got a bridge for sale near Brooklyn...

Think for a second on how many Hollywood movies and assorted "made for television" movies have focused on environmental doom and gloom in the past 5 years? I think the market for such movies is saturated, and while Gore's flick may not be boilerplate for these type of films, I do think the genre is currently in full ebb. And while documentary-styled productions can do fairly well on the television, I don't see them as being proven money-makers for the big screen.

Is it possible that Gore's film will be a blockbuster? Perhaps. And I'll be sure to duck my head to avoid the flying pigs when it becomes a blockbuster....

Can you show me where I am being partisan.

there have been a lot of environmental horror films in the past few years, but based on its numbers in the theatres where it has opened, and the different style of the film, I think it will do well. Not $100 million blockbuster well, but a few tens of millions.

 

[CockySOB]

Mr.C, I assert that since you claim nay-sayers of the film must be partisan, that you in fact, are basing that opinion on your own partisan beliefs. Try not to assume too much, and you might be worthy of continued discussion.

My criticism was based more on the fact that Al Gore has the personality of a potato lying in the mud, and that we have seen eviro-disaster films on the decline for the last several years rather than an immediate partisan attack on the movie content. Yes, I think that it is human hubris to think that we have had such a drastic impact on our environment, especially the weather, in such a short time. I remain convinced that this is part of the known cycle of around 30-40 years wherein the climate undergoes natural adjustments on a glboal scale.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Well, Al Bores Global Warming movie is an inconvenient bomb at the box office

Seems not to many people want to see this liberal fairy tale

http://neoconcommandcenter.blogspot.com/2006/05/al-gore-bombs-at-box-office.html

Al Gore Bombs At the Box Office!


AlBore's global warming movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," is still being lauded by critics as fantastic, and , "Not only are superheros big right now, but global warming is really hot as well."

The Los Angeles based paper, The Mercury Times, claimed that the film did well at the box office as well over it's opening weekend...

But there seems to be another "inconvenient truth."

AlBore's movie did not even make the top ten, and grossed a mere $365,787 from Friday to Monday. I suppose that's good as far as Power Point presentations go, but for Hollywood... Not so great.

Over $70,000 per screen this weekend...Better than "X-Men III"...Which averaged about $27,000 per screen.

<center><a href=http://www.the-numbers.com/charts/thisweek.html>The Numbers</a></center>

 

[Mr.Conley]

I have no doubt that the film will make money. Judging by the box office that "Fahrenheit 911" accomplished it is without doubt that blindly following liberals will turn out to sip at the trough of their favorite propaganda. The real question yet to be answered is whether global warming is in fact occuring, and secondly is this due to mankind or a natural phenomena. And tertiarily can the actions of the United States alone affect any change.

It is NOT a proven scientific fact that global warming is occuring. It is NOT a proven fact that if global warming were in fact occuring that the warming is the result of human activity alone. It is NOT a fact that any action of the United States alone could affect such warming.

What is a fact is the same group of leftists that despise capitalism are the tree huggers that gleefully embrace the global warming hypothesis. Coincidence? I think not. Al Gore has this group to rely on to see his propaganda film and make him, in a true capitalist move, a ton of money.

See if you tree huggers can sell the idea first to the main contributors to pollution, namely the Red Chinese (your pals against capitalism, but no they're capitalists too now) and the Indians. Give it a shot.

It'll make money. There are only two people here who refuse to see.

I am not going to debate global warming. I don't have all the information available on the subject and, until I do, am not going to take a position.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Mr.C, I assert that since you claim nay-sayers of the film must be partisan, that you in fact, are basing that opinion on your own partisan beliefs. Try not to assume too much, and you might be worthy of continued discussion.

My criticism was based more on the fact that Al Gore has the personality of a potato lying in the mud, and that we have seen eviro-disaster films on the decline for the last several years rather than an immediate partisan attack on the movie content. Yes, I think that it is human hubris to think that we have had such a drastic impact on our environment, especially the weather, in such a short time. I remain convinced that this is part of the known cycle of around 30-40 years wherein the climate undergoes natural adjustments on a glboal scale.

And my basis comes from the numbers, the hard facts, that show that at the places the film has been released, it has done remarkably better than any other film. You cannot argue with that. It is obvious. However, there are people who do, and they are the same people who can't go a post without slandering some democratic politician and, in another thread, and in all seriousness, called Bill Clinton the AntiChrist.

 

[Gunny]

It'll make money. There are only two people here who refuse to see.

I am not going to debate global warming. I don't have all the information available on the subject and, until I do, am not going to take a position.

You aren't going to debate global warming; yet, you choose to defend the future success of a movie about global warming. I can only ask WHY you would defend the success of a movie without knowing whether or not it's a bunch of crap or has even a shred of truth to it.

Your colors are showing, Mr Conley.

 

[Mr.Conley]

You aren't going to debate global warming; yet, you choose to defend the future success of a movie about global warming. I can only ask WHY you would defend the success of a movie without knowing whether or not it's a bunch of crap or has even a shred of truth to it.

Your colors are showing, Mr Conley.

I'm defending it because I care enough to try to prevent the spread of lies and mistruths where ever possible. Do you have a problem with that?

 

[Bullypulpit]

You aren't going to debate global warming; yet, you choose to defend the future success of a movie about global warming. I can only ask WHY you would defend the success of a movie without knowing whether or not it's a bunch of crap or has even a shred of truth to it.

Your colors are showing, Mr Conley.

Since the vast majority of the worlds reputable climatologists are in agreement as to the fact of global warming and its causes, aren't you whistling past the graveyard?

 

[CockySOB]

It'll make money. There are only two people here who refuse to see.

I am not going to debate global warming. I don't have all the information available on the subject and, until I do, am not going to take a position.

So I take it your endorsement of Gore's flick is that it is entertaining? I mean, if you're ill-equipped to discuss the topic of global climate change after watching the Gore flick, I would assume that all it really was was entertaining to you and not very educational. Right?

 

[Gunny]

I'm defending it because I care enough to try to prevent the spread of lies and mistruths where ever possible. Do you have a problem with that?

Just the minor problem that you seem to have absolutely NO concern with whether or not the movie spreads lies and mistruths, and by your own admission, you aren't up to snuff on the topic.

I can only conclude that "lies and mistruths" are not your concern. Defending the spreading of the liberal message is.

What was that Cocky called you ......?

 

[Gunny]

Since the vast majority of the worlds reputable climatologists are in agreement as to the fact of global warming and its causes, aren't you whistling past the graveyard?

I guess you missed the fact that there is no conclusive evidence to support any of their conjecture. Scientists dream up all kinds of crap that have nothing to do with logic and common sense.

Was the Dustbowl in the Midwest cause by global warming? Or could have it just been cyclical climate change? A fact you lefties continually try to brush off.

 

[MtnBiker]

So, being that rational people on both sides of the aisle can see that some changes are in order, why shouldn't we force our representatives to start working together, at least on THIS issue. After all, Republicans and Democrats all have kids. I'd like the world I leave to my son to be a little better, not worse.

Our frustration will continue. Our government reps have a very hard time working on anything together. The immigration debate is a perfect example, it seems less about immigration and more about political positioning. Environmental issues are approach the same way. Until a very large voting base pressures the legislature to take action. Fear is a great motivator for a movement.