'2016 Obama's America' a Winner in Truth and Quality, but Depressing and Worrisome about America's Future

Box office shocker.

2016 Obama’s America at #3?

posted at 8:31 pm on August 25, 2012 by Jazz Shaw  at HotAir:

We all know the rules when it comes to political films, right? They’re just not worth sinking your money into them because people don’t watch. With the sole exception of one “documentary” by Michael Moore, they don’t cover their own costs and people don’t turn out to the theater for them. This is particularly true if you try to produce one from a conservative point of view in the liberal lock-down atmosphere of Hollywood. Well, hold on to your hats. It looks like the the very unflattering critique of the current administration, 2016 Obama’s America, is set to come in at number three this weekend and turn a profit in the first 24 hours since its wide release. (It actually premiered six weeks ago and was previously in limited release.)

As predicted Millenium/Lionsgate’s The Expendables 2 will finish in first place Friday and this weekend. It’s followed by Universal’s The Bourne Legacy in second place and the Rocky Mountain Pictures’ documentary 2016 Obama’s America in third place after starting out Friday #1. That’s stunning because it’s playing in a 1/3 less theaters across North American than the other wide release actioners. (See below for more details). However, its hot pre-sales have made the pic frontloaded, and its ranking will fall steeply by end of Sunday. But its new cume after this weekend could make it the #1 conservative documentary (ahead of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed’s $7.7M). The success of the anti-Obama pic comes on the eve of the Republican National Convention August 27-30.

In case you missed it, here’s the trailer.   Click for the HotAir article and the trailer here:

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/25/box-office-shocker-2016-obamas-america-at-3/

Entertainment Weekly explains why the math involved in this film’s rising status is so puzzling to industry insiders, and not just because of the content.

You see, normally, when a film’s theater count increases, the amount of money it’s earning in each theater decreases. This is the standard performance pattern for a limited release and follows common supply/demand logic.

Here’s how things have gone for 2016: Obama’s America, though: Three weekends ago, 2016 earned $34,133 out of 10 theaters, which gave it a per theater average of $3,413 — not all that remarkable for a limited release. When it expanded into 61 theaters the next weekend, its per theater average did a funny thing: it jumped up to $5,202. Last weekend, the film experienced an even bigger expansion, into 169 theaters, and again, its per theater average substantially leapt up to $7,365.

Let’s be clear: this almost never happens.

Let’s be clear about something else that “almost never happens.” It’s a movie which is critical of Democrats ever seeing the light of day outside the production studio. This film only cost $2.5M to make and it looks like it’s going to have taken in nearly four times that amount by the time the convention kicks off. It’s a fairly remarkable story.

Comment:   Every American interested in our culture, government, presidency,  history, and the nature of Barack Hussein Obama,  should….MUST…..see this exceedingly fair and penetrating story of  the sculpting of our present president and conductor of America’s disastrous future if reelected.

In addition…..Modern Americans no longer follow rules, especially those regarding language.   A point in case is the following sentence from the above article:             “That’s stunning because it’s playing in a 1/3 less theaters across North American than the other wide release actioners.”   

Now the error could be a typo.   Or the author could be 78 years old and not able to see what he has written, yet  knows the correct communication  regarding less versus fewer.  

I had great elementary schools  teachers, almost all old maids who knew every rule of many books and tried hard to share them with us students ‘or else’, may God Bless their memory. 

Samples:   One has less money, not fewer money, but has fewer dollars not  less dollars.

                      A nation can have fewer people, but has less population than another country.

                       Today’s Democrats have less intelligence, and so,   fewer intelligentsia,  because they have fewer brains AND  less brains.   (There are always exceptions in Nature.   Without these mistakes, Nature cannot  would never changel.   But, there is a bit of difference in the meaning of that last example, isn’t there.    That difference arises from the difference between the usage of fewer and less.

According to Marxist expert George Orwell, Marxist carve public language to a bare minimum of words  to reduse the citizen’s ability to think clearly and  so lose the ability to express  feelings subtlely and accurately.    Without certain language common folk would be more likely to obey :”the leading from behind people like Lord Obama.  

Modern American  folk know around 30% fewer words to use or recognize   than two generations ago.    Swearing is commonly used now to replace a whole host of words which carried a world of subtle differences to describe  bull shit……or fucking something……and so on of the modern Liberals lists of preferred language…..language to be spoken equally.

We live in the Marxist age in American History…..the Obama Age.     If one has a larger, more versatile vocabulary  than someone else, it  suggests  to the Marxist  language teacher  that such a person is more equal than someone else.    America’s Marxist teachers cannot tolerate inequality at any level.

About these ads