Al Bores Movie Bombs at Box Office

[Abbey Normal]

Here's an inconvenient truth for you libs:

This just in: Al's little movie added 45 theaters this weekend (from 77 to 122), yet it dropped from 9th place to 11th place. It's theater count went up over 50%, but it's take went up only 8.6%



Poor Al. It's tough to maintain ticket sales when you move from the small, cherry-picked theaters where your leftie core lives, to a more mainstream environment.


http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/

 

[Gunny]

Here's an inconvenient truth for you libs:

This just in: Al's little movie added 45 theaters this weekend (from 77 to 122), yet it dropped from 9th place to 11th place. It's theater count went up over 50%, but it's take went up only 8.6%



Poor Al. It's tough to maintain ticket sales when you move from the small, cherry-picked theaters where your leftie core lives, to a more mainatream environment.


http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/

SSSShhhhh....... don't tell Mr Conley .... you'll burst his bubble.

 

[Abbey Normal]

SSSShhhhh....... don't tell Mr Conley .... you'll burst his bubble.

But the truth will set him free!

 

[red states rule]

Here's an inconvenient truth for you libs:

This just in: Al's little movie added 45 theaters this weekend (from 77 to 122), yet it dropped from 9th place to 11th place. It's theater count went up over 50%, but it's take went up only 8.6%



Poor Al. It's tough to maintain ticket sales when you move from the small, cherry-picked theaters where your leftie core lives, to a more mainstream environment.


http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/

The facts seem to be an inconvenient truth

 

[Gunny]

But the truth will set him free!

You forget what happens when libs are "set free"...... they usually start by destroying public property, and in worse case scenarios, kill all their co-workers.:2guns:

 

[sitarro]

Here's an inconvenient truth for you libs:

This just in: Al's little movie added 45 theaters this weekend (from 77 to 122), yet it dropped from 9th place to 11th place. It's theater count went up over 50%, but it's take went up only 8.6%



Poor Al. It's tough to maintain ticket sales when you move from the small, cherry-picked theaters where your leftie core lives, to a more mainstream environment.


http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/

I wonder how many of the first days worth of ticket sales were bought by film critics from every paper and magazine in the world.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Here's an inconvenient truth for you libs:

This just in: Al's little movie added 45 theaters this weekend (from 77 to 122), yet it dropped from 9th place to 11th place. It's theater count went up over 50%, but it's take went up only 8.6%



Poor Al. It's tough to maintain ticket sales when you move from the small, cherry-picked theaters where your leftie core lives, to a more mainstream environment.


http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/

That's incorrect. The weekend isn't over (It's still Sunday). Weekend gross includes Sunday. We have to wait until for figures that include today before calling the weekend gross.

 

[sitarro]

The big question I can't figure out is why anyone gives a shit how many fools spend enough to buy a decent cigar to sit in a thea ter and watch one of the most boring people on the planet repeat the same crap he said years ago in his awful book. If my cat has taken a crap in the litter box, I have somethging more imortant to do than see this propaganda film.

 

[red states rule]

The big question I can't figure out is why anyone gives a shit how many fools spend enough to buy a decent cigar to sit in a thea ter and watch one of the most boring people on the planet repeat the same crap he said years ago in his awful book. If my cat has taken a crap in the litter box, I have somethging more imortant to do than see this propaganda film.

The big question is, after months of glowing press about this fairy tale, is the low number of fools spending their money to see this flop.

Like Dead Air America, is got tons of press coverage and it is still a bust

 

[Mr.Conley]

The big question I can't figure out is why anyone gives a shit how many fools spend enough to buy a decent cigar to sit in a thea ter and watch one of the most boring people on the planet repeat the same crap he said years ago in his awful book. If my cat has taken a crap in the litter box, I have somethging more imortant to do than see this propaganda film.

You get to that.

SSSShhhhh....... don't tell Mr Conley .... you'll burst his bubble.

SSSShhhh....... don't tell GunnyL that his facts are wrong .... you'll burst his bubble.

 

[MtnBiker]

The big question I can't figure out is why anyone gives a shit how many fools spend enough to buy a decent cigar to sit in a thea ter and watch one of the most boring people on the planet repeat the same crap he said years ago in his awful book. If my cat has taken a crap in the litter box, I have somethging more imortant to do than see this propaganda film.

Agreed!

 

[Mr.Conley]

Here is the equation I used:
T= Total US Box Office
G= Gross per Theatre G=V*10
N= Number of Theatres. The variables N1, N2, N3, N4 etc. represent N for the number of theatres screening the movie for weeks 1,2,3,4, etc. G*N= Weekend Gross or V*10*N= Weekend Gross
V= Viewers per theatre (V) or (G/10) **assumes $10 ticket price** The variables V1, V2, V3, V4, etc. represent the number of viewers for weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.
P= Percentage number of viewers (V) as compared to the previous week. Determined by taking the number of V from the current week, and dividing that by the V of the previous week. Example:
If you have a per theatre gross of $10,000 with a total viewing audience at the theatre of 1000 and a $10 ticket price. The next week you make $20,000 per theatre, have a viewing audience of 2000 and a ticket price of $10.
1,000*$10=$10,000
2,000*$10=$20,000
To find the % difference of the viewing audience between the two weeks, take the second, later number of viewers, and divide it by the number of viewers during the first week. Then take that number and multiply by 100 for the percent increase or decrease. In this case, the second week's audience was 200% the size of the first week's.
P= (VX/VX-1)*100 **Where X does not equal 1**
Take the V from V(X-1), multiply that by P, the V for Week X divided by the V of Week (X-1), divided by 100 (P/100) to determine VX, the number of viewers for the selected week.
V(X-1)*(P/100)= VX or V(X-1) *[VX/V(X-1)]= VX
Example:
V1*(P/100)= V2 or V(Week 1)*[V(Week 2)/ V(Week 1)] = V(Week 2)
The number after P (P1, P2, P3, P4, etc.) stands for the percent difference between The first and second weeks, second and third weeks, third and fourth weeks, forth and fifth weeks, etc.

Now, the equation:
T=V1*10*N1 + V1*(P1/100)*10*N2 + V2*(P2/100)*10*N3 + V3*(P3/100)*10*N4 + V4*(P4/100)*N5*10...

Of course, if we are to derive each V from the previous V, we need to know the original V. Since we already know the G of the first weekend (G1), and G= V*10, we can divide the G1 by 10 to determine the V1
G1/10=V1
or we can take the total gross for the opening weekend (V1*10*N1) set equal to the actual gross of $367,311, plug in the know value of N1, and solve for V1.
V1= $367,311/($10*4)

Each group of VX*(PX/100)*10*NX= The gross of the movie for that week (G*N). Each group is added together to determine total box office (T). Since we already know the G*N for the first two weeks, we can set the first two VX*(P/100)*10*NX equal to that weekend gross.
So we know that:
V1*10*N1= $367,311
V1*(P/100)*10*N2= $1,331,508

Now it's just about inserting likely numbers into the variables (N and P).
Insert whatever percentage you think the movies audience size will increase or decrease into P.
Insert whatever the number of theatres the movie will be screened at that week. We know that for the first week it was shown at 4 theatres and at 77 for the next week. So N1 is 4, N2 is 77, and N3 is 122. N4 is when the movie goes nationwide, so it will probably be shown at between 1,500 and 3,000 theatres for those N.

 

[MtnBiker]

Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb. If the vast majority of the world's scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced.

http://www.climatecrisis.net/aboutthefilm/

If people wish to spend their hard earned money on this fearmongering let them.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Note, I kinda had a bit of a hangover when I wrote that.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb. If the vast majority of the world's scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced.

Like I said in nuclearwinter's thread- we all have to go some time. :huh:

 

[sitarro]

Note, I kinda had a bit of a hangover when I wrote that.[/QUOTE

Hey Conley,

How is the crime rate in N.O. since yall blew up the levee and sent all of your black people to Houston to raise ours?

I can't believe you would get drunk in a place like New Orleans, there is such an anti -party, anti-alcohol atmosphere in that city......not.

How on earth was Ray Nagin reelected?

 

[no1tovote4]

Wrong data, we are/were talking US gross. Titanic grossed 600 million US (http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/1997/TITAN.html) and $1,835,400,000 worldwide gross. When most people talk total gross, they assume US (because no one cares about foreigners).

Titanic made an additional $324,425,000 from rentals, $55,000,000 for the TV rights, and an additional $1,200,000,000 from DVD/VHS sales (according to you site). Total gross doesn't include these figures, total gross refers to US box office gross.

Ad hominem? So soon?

It wasn't ad hominem. I called you nothing. Feelings hurt already?

Anyway, total gross is total gross. Each way, Titanic is mammoth. I call something a blockbuster when it is mammoth against other movies... Even really sucky ones like Titanic....

That is US domestic box office gross. Not video sales. Those are not incorporated into box office gross (hence the box office).

When did I say box office when I said Titanic Grossed over one billion? I said that it grossed that much and that it made a record for fastest to 600M... I was pretty clear and used understandable English and was careful in the usage of the words...

Of course if you adjust for inflation. The problem with adjusting for inflation is that you get a list comprised mostly of 30+ year old films. Titanic is the only recent movie to breach the top 10, and only two others make it into the top 20. That is why I'm using straight figures.

Right, also it helps out your case even though it is less accurate. Adjusted for inflation also adjusts the numbers of the newer films and compares them against each other... It really helps to be accurate as well as passionate when arguing.

Wow! You realized that $100 million at the box office is a lot. Good work. Right now, I doubt it has earned the money back because of the limited release, but once it it goes nationwide, then I predict the movie will have a total US box office gross of at least 30 million, although I feel that it will likely surpass 50 million, and could possibly hit 80 million, but I doubt it will go that high.

It could, very possibly and then I'll be right along with you saying it was a huge blockbuster for a movie that started at limited release.

However I remember the stories about Brokeback, that one will outsell this one by quite a bit... (Notice I compared cats to cats and talked about how they meow, not bark...)

Thats why I'm not saying it will bring in 300+ million that the inital weekend gross would make you think. Or the $100,000,000 the second week would give you. Did you not think I would realize this and factor it into my calculations. I've got a margin for error of $80,000 and +/- 500 movie theatres. That's why I'm not giving myself an exact figure. That would be retarded. I've got a range with a likely middle. I'm ASSUMING in my calculations that the number of viewers will fall.

I think they will fall considerably and that most of the people that want to see the movie are likely to have seen it while in limited distribution. I believe that it will have some jump because of people that cheer it on for partisan political reasons, much like Mike Moore's movie, but that it is less entertaining and won't reach half those numbers....

Okay, obviously we need to come up with a common definition of blockbuster. How about this:
Blockbuster- any movies that gross over $100 million at the US box office.
Fine?
Your definitions seem to be either the highest grossing movie of all time, or the highest opening US box office gross of all time. By your standards no, Tomorrow wasn't a blockbuster (along with practically every other movie ever) The movies your using as the standards are BEYOND blockbuster status. They are the once in a decade movies.

That is what I call blockbuster. They are special, not everyday, movies that outstomp the rest by a large margin. So yes, it is often difficult to reach that standard IMO.

What I don't see is how you can consider 180M US box office to be puny. That's in the top 100 movies of all time, ever. 100M isn't even "regular." Most movies don't surpass even that. You've literally taken the top movies in their respective catagories and said anything else below that is a failure. By your standards, not only is Truth a failure, but literally every other movie ever produced in the entire history of the planet. Get serious here.

Yet when adjusted for inflation it doesn't get close to hitting the top 100. You might want to use the less accurate figures, but that doesn't make them magically accurate.... I consider a movie a blockbuster when it hits hard at the beginning and continues along those lines for some time before dying down. Once again, pointing out 120 M in one weekend. 180M in 6 months... There is a HUGE difference between what I consider a blockbuster and just a movie that, over its lifetime, made almost the same as the blockbuster did in one weekend....

And I have told you that the differences of limited release movies have ALREADY been noted in the calculations. I'm assuming as much as an 90% drop in the viewing population. That's why I get 30 million, which is 10% of 300 million. I'm also factoring that this thing will be out for multiple weekends, a fact you have not even considered. The movie could make $5000 per theatre, but over a few weeks, and assuming about 2000 theatres, then the movie still makes money.

"Makes money" is not "Blockbuster"... I have not said he will not make money, I have said that it is lackluster when compared to Brokeback..

It is you who are comparing the wrong movies.

Rubbish, I use Titanic when comparing what I consider to be a blockbuster with one that made great profit. Just profit doesn't make a blockbuster, those are something special....

And the only reason that I mentioned X-Men is because you used it in your comparison of per person numbers so you could attempt to say that Gore's film was doing better than that one and that it just wasn't all that big... I brought up the movie you did in your passionate, but inaccurate, argument that this movie can compare to those. And I pointed out to you that there is no comparison by bringing up the difference in the box office...

Don't use Titanic's as yet unrepeatable $600M and say The Day After Tomorrow is a box office salad. Your use of X-Men 3's record setting 120M opening US box office gross to say that movies that bring in a "mere" $30-40 M like Tomorrow opening weekend is extreme at best.

That is what Blockbuster IS... Those are the hardest hitting greatest grossing movies. I will admit that I am surprised that 180M for The Day AFter Tomorrow is more impressive than I thought, when it is all said and done, though....

My only point is, and has been, saying that this movie is one of the most popular ever based on limited release per person numbers is desperate partisan hackery and borders on Gore worship, but has little basis in reality.

The only way we will know is when it actually gets full release... It looks like it will with the numbers it has now but it still isn't even garaunteed to even get there at this point.

 

[jasendorf]

The numbers continue to speak for themselves.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/

Second highest per theater weekend second only to Pixar's Cars...



btw, just so you know in advance, I'm not going to bother arguing the numbers with anyone like the kind Mr. Conley. They speak for themselves and anyone disagreeing with them simply has an agenda against the movie and nothing else.

 

[red states rule]

The numbers continue to speak for themselves.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/

Second highest per theater weekend second only to Pixar's Cars...



btw, just so you know in advance, I'm not going to bother arguing the numbers with anyone like the kind Mr. Conley. They speak for themselves and anyone disagreeing with them simply has an agenda against the movie and nothing else.

It is now down to 11th place (it was in 9th last week) even with adding theaters shoing this bomb).

After 3 weeks in release it has a gross less then $4 million. What a joke!

 

[Mr.Conley]

It wasn't ad hominem. I called you nothing. Feelings hurt already?

Anyway, total gross is total gross. Each way, Titanic is mammoth. I call something a blockbuster when it is mammoth against other movies... Even really sucky ones like Titanic....

Errr. you're going to want to look up the definition there scout. You attacked me rather than the argument itself.

Your pulling that one out of the air. No one has ever said that Titanic wasn't a big movie

When did I say box office when I said Titanic Grossed over one billion? I said that it grossed that much and that it made a record for fastest to 600M... I was pretty clear and used understandable English and was careful in the usage of the words...

Well you see, when the other 99.9997% of the world is talking about a movies gross or total gross, they are refering to the US box office. Worldwide gross and videosales are a seperate deal, and you have to state that you are including those figures. So using the entire country's definition of gross, you are wrong. There is a difference between careful usage of words and correct usage of words...

Right, also it helps out your case even though it is less accurate. Adjusted for inflation also adjusts the numbers of the newer films and compares them against each other... It really helps to be accurate as well as passionate when arguing.

Yes, because the 1% inflation the FED reported will make the difference between this year and last years film dominance....:rotflmao:
The films we are comparing, are all relatively recent, and were created during a time of low inflation. Sure , if you want to compare the comparative box office acheivement of Gone with the Wind and TItanic, then go with adjustyed, but those numbers are irrelevant to our argument. They just indtroduce unnessicary data. Just remember, you are the one saying that a 186 million box office isn't a big deal. It really helps to know what you're talking about when you make a point.

That is what I call blockbuster. They are special, not everyday, movies that outstomp the rest by a large margin. So yes, it is often difficult to reach that standard IMO.

So that's what we've been arguing about. This is really just a difference of opinion. We'll just say that Tomorrow brought in 186 million, nothing more. The movie was a financial success, that is all I am concerned with.

It could, very possibly and then I'll be right along with you saying it was a huge blockbuster for a movie that started at limited release.

However I remember the stories about Brokeback, that one will outsell this one by quite a bit... (Notice I compared cats to cats and talked about how they meow, not bark...)

You are really going to have to stop making stuff up. No one said that Truth would do better than Brokeback. Brokeback made 80M, I'm predicting 50M for Truth. Thanks for stating the obvious though. (By the way, we are judging movie performances, not the noises pets make).

I think they will fall considerably and that most of the people that want to see the movie are likely to have seen it while in limited distribution. I believe that it will have some jump because of people that cheer it on for partisan political reasons, much like Mike Moore's movie, but that it is less entertaining and won't reach half those numbers....

You sure seem to know a lot about the movie's content. Have you seen it? Because, if you haven't, then you really need to stop making this stuff up. I will give you this, Moore's movie had a $119,194,771 gross (remember, that means in the United States) Wait, t6hat falls exactly in my predictions then. Wow. Whatda know.

That is what I call blockbuster. They are special, not everyday, movies that outstomp the rest by a large margin. So yes, it is often difficult to reach that standard IMO.

Well, you have different and unusually high standards for a blockbuster. It goes against the usual definitions, but it's your right to hold that view. How about this, 186 million is an excellent box office take?

Yet when adjusted for inflation it doesn't get close to hitting the top 100. You might want to use the less accurate figures, but that doesn't make them magically accurate.... I consider a movie a blockbuster when it hits hard at the beginning and continues along those lines for some time before dying down. Once again, pointing out 120 M in one weekend. 180M in 6 months... There is a HUGE difference between what I consider a blockbuster and just a movie that, over its lifetime, made almost the same as the blockbuster did in one weekend....

I'm glad you realized that and could repeat what I said about inflation adjusted figures. I'm not completely sure what you mean by less accurate. The movie still grossed more than other movies in absolute dollars, but the dollars are now worth less than say 30 years ago. Inflation adjusted only puffs up the numbers of older movies so that they have a hope of competing. In real terms the nonadjusted stands on its own merit. I don't see where you keep getting these charges of inaccurate from. Nonadjusted is a legitimate way to compare movies, even preferred over inflation adjusted by the movie industry.

"Makes money" is not "Blockbuster"... I have not said he will not make money, I have said that it is lackluster when compared to Brokeback..

And no one has ever disagreed with you on that point champ.

In fact, that's exactly what I've been saying. In different words, but what I've been saying.My method of comparison is dollars though, not how well the movie does compared to Brokeback.

Rubbish, I use Titanic when comparing what I consider to be a blockbuster with one that made great profit. Just profit doesn't make a blockbuster, those are something special....

And the only reason that I mentioned X-Men is because you used it in your comparison of per person numbers so you could attempt to say that Gore's film was doing better than that one and that it just wasn't all that big... I brought up the movie you did in your passionate, but inaccurate, argument that this movie can compare to those. And I pointed out to you that there is no comparison by bringing up the difference in the box office...

Titanic is the highest grossing movie of all time, and by a pretty large margin. You're going to have to give me some sort of cut off for blockbuster (under your definition; mine is already quite clear).

Are you denying that Truth's $90,000+ per theatre is better than X-Men's $30,000 on their opening weekends? Are you saying that pulling in $60,000 per theatre less than theother movie is better then? Passion maybe, but inaccurate, maybe if you keep saying it over and over again. Kind of like you unqualified predictions as to the content and financial success of the movie, keep saying it (and tap you ruby slippers together 3 times) and maybe your wish will come true. Also, I'm comparing opening groses per theatre, not lifetime gross per theatre, that would be stupid. I'm comparing Truth vs. the highest opening movie gross per theatre-wise. Until this week, when it came in second, Truth was highest per theatre. I then expanded those numbers, and reduced the audience size to arrive at my 30-50 possibly 80 million dollar figures. Try discrediting my actual argument next time.

hat is what Blockbuster IS... Those are the hardest hitting greatest grossing movies. I will admit that I am surprised that 180M for The Day AFter Tomorrow is more impressive than I thought, when it is all said and done, though....

My only point is, and has been, saying that this movie is one of the most popular ever based on limited release per person numbers is desperate partisan hackery and borders on Gore worship, but has little basis in reality.

The only way we will know is when it actually gets full release... It looks like it will with the numbers it has now but it still isn't even garaunteed to even get there at this point.

Okay, so Titanic and X-Men are the only blockbusters ever in your world. Good to know.

Who has said that, "this movie is one of the most popular ever based on limite d release per person number?" I haven't. I'm saying the movie will pull in at least 30, probably 50, and maybe 80M, but I dobut the last one. You really are going to want that note of what I'm actually saying from now on. No one is calling Truth the next Titanic or one of the highest grossing (remember, that means US) movies of all time, butthat it will make money. NOw do you understand?