Posted on 04/18/2011 5:56:00 PM PDT by winstonwolf33
Atlas Shrugged: Part I was the top-grossing limited release of the weekend, generating an estimated $1.7 million at 300 single-screen locations.
For a pure independent release, Atlas Shrugged: Part I's opening was fine. But for the first-ever adaptation of Ayn Rand's influential mega-selling 1957 novel that had far more media hype than any other independent movie could dream of, it was disappointing.
There aren't many direct comparisons, because it's rare that an adaptation of such a famous book gets such a modest release. Atlas Shrugged: Part I opened higher than recent limited Christian movies The Grace Card and To Save a Life, and it was distributor Rocky Mountain Pictures' third highest-grossing launch, behind End of the Spear and Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. But none of those movies are significant in the grand scheme of things. They're all still blips, even if Atlas was a slightly bigger blip than many.
What's more, Atlas Shrugged: Part I's box office dropped six percent from Friday to Saturday, further indicating niche appeal. The movie would require exceptional holds moving forward to right its course.
Atlas Shrugged: Part I was reportedly produced for $10 million in a rush to retain the movie rights before they reverted back to Ayn Rand's estate, and its producers eschewed Hollywood (only one theater showed it in the Los Angeles area) after decades of failed attempts. Instead, they took a grass roots approach and tried to capitalize on the Tea Party movement, which was credited with the Republicans' landslide win in last November's election.
(Excerpt) Read more at boxofficemojo.com ...
And I still strongly doubt the $10m number. Most Hollywood producers, er, fudge the numbers. I’m betting it cost at least 20% more. I’d be happy with those numbers for my movie, “Rockin’ the Wall,” but then again, it’s not based on a perennial bestselling book with tons of hype.
I thought the movie was as bad as the book, with corny dialog and a dullsville plot. It would take some serious genius to turn that book into a good movie in my opinion. But then, I’ve never been able to get through Ayn Rand’s fiction (though I like her nonfiction).
Someone made an interesting point on another thread and I was thinking about it as I watched the movie yesterday — where’s the smoking? There was one cigarette in the whole thing, smoked awkwardly and amateurishly by the professor guy at the roadside greasy spoon. I found this disappointing. Given that Ayn Rand filled the original novel with characters who smoked and smoked often, I wanted to see lots of smoking, lots of elegant smoking, but there was practically none. Instead what there was was a lot of drinking. It’s almost like they consciously opted to downplay the smoking and instead used drinking to fill the void. I imagine they needed one or the other to represent slightly risky consumption for the sake of pure pleasure, or something like that.
I have no interest in this movie. Ayn Rand was a materialist. As such, her characters had no souls and it showed.
A good scriptwriter can work around those problems. Unfortunately, most of the really good scriptwriters are liberal. And then there's the prospect of being embargoed by Hollywood for ideological reasons after the movie is made, even if the screen adaptation is successful, which means any scriptwriter who gets involved is risking his future livelihood.
I went to see the movie today with my brother. The fact that there were no big stars was a big plus. I cringed when I heard the rumor that A. Jolie was being considered for Dagny. My brother and I discussed the movie over adult beverages later, and agreed that it should have been at least 30 minutes longer, to flesh out the characters and philosophical underpinnings.
As for the cigarette that Hugh Akston was smoking, it is an essential part of the movie. It has the enigmatic dollar sign that is a big clue for Dagny to pursue. So yes, more smoking should have been shown.
The character of Ellis Wyatt was spot-on. Perfect casting move, as was Lillian’s character.
You could see that budget constraints took it’s toll. The Toyota she drove should have disguised somehow.
We liked the movie with all of it’s shortcomings.
I have to confess that I have a vested interest in seeing this movie do well, as Ayn Rand’s heir, Dr. Leonard Peikoff is a former teacher of mine in the 80’s.
I recommend it highly.
[ I have no interest in this movie. Ayn Rand was a materialist. As such, her characters had no souls and it showed. ]
If I could wave a magic wand and turn all the godless communists into godless objectivists I would in an instant.
Because living in a society with the same amount of godless objectivists instead of godless communists would be a heck of a lot nicer place to live.
“Fireproof” did well at the box office BEFORE doing well on DVD. “Atlas” is dead in the water.
Average was $5,640 per theater on 299 screens, which is virtually tied for second place weekend BO with Scream 4 ($5,656 avg on 3,305 screens). I wouldn't exactly call that "derailing."
Because living in a society with the same amount of godless objectivists instead of godless communists would be a heck of a lot nicer place to live.
Amen to that, Grace. It seems some of our fellow FReepers don't appreciate how many millions of collectivist control freaks Rand has successfully turned into individualist live-and-let livers where no one else succeeded in doing so. If it weren't for Rand and those she converted, I think we would have found ourselves in a socialist slave state decades ago.
"Boosters of Atlas Shrugged: Part I might point to the movie's per theater average to spin it as a success (ex. "it did almost as much per theater as Scream 4!"), but spin is all it is. It's a common ploy to cling to per-theater average to rationalize a soft run. Obviously, it's easier for a small release to have a higher per-theater average than one at over 3,000 theaters (at any rate, Scream 4 was a disappointment itself)."
Hear any talk this weekend of Redford's disastrous opening? The Conspirator? *crickets*
The Lillian Rearden character was played very well. She was one of the few who came across as a character rather than an actor playing a character. I couldn’t believe they had Dagney and Hank driving around in a Toyota Camry, although that’s clearly a budget thing and can easily be forgiven.
‘The character of Ellis Wyatt was spot-on. Perfect casting move’
Wyatt was played by Bob Beckel’s conservative brother. Another one of those uncomfortable Thanksgiving dinners.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.