We really shouldn’t do this. It makes us look stupid. It’s an arthouse picture, it wasn’t supposed to make millions, making over $400 grand with a widest release of 111 theaters is actually pretty damn good, not awesome but nothing to cry about. Gloating over the “failure” of a movie that’s wasn’t supposed to “succeed” is just dorky, not every movie is trying to make $100 million, in fact the vast majority of movies release (especially these kind of semi-indies) have no pretense to anything even close to that.
Sorry but $417K in 18 days is not merely some “arthouse” number, it’s a complete disaster for any film that doesn’t go straight to DVD. As for the supposed unseemliness of gloating, well when Hollywood leftist twits who know less than I knew when I was 12 years old fall flat on their faces trying to preach to the masses..... I will feel free to gloat for a few moments, thank you.
400k in 18 days with 111 theatres that are probably in the biggest cities in America (which have a much higher PTA than say where I live) is actually quite awful. Indie films in those markets can hit 10k / theatre / day if WOM is solid.
Let’s see . . . $418,000 divided by 111 theaters, divided by 18 days of release, divided by $8.00 per ticket yields 26 people per theater per day. If you figure 2 showings per day, each screening was attended by 13 people. Marvelous.
Turns out it was shown at Fayteeteville's Cameo Art House theater with a main screen of just 85 some odd seats. Some sell out there Mister Moore.
If the goal was to make a work of art or a movie for a specific audience, then yes the numbers don’t matter.
If the goal was to alert the populace regarding the dangers of global warming and the need to take action now, then the numbers do matter.
I believe the movie was made for the latter purpose and your point about comparing the movie to others with an artistic intent or for a specific limited audience is not relevant. The movie is a failure if the purpose was to appeal to the masses.