In the article, the author addresses your point.
"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)."
Actually, he proves my point. The Democrat Media Complex has done everything they can to shut this movie down including making it next to impossible for the producers to raise funding, hire staff and get distribution. They even sent union reps to the movie set during production to intimidate them. They've sent out the exact same points to every movie reviewer in the nation (they all read like they were written from the same email memo). My question is this: How can a movie be a "disappointment" when, according to them, it was so bad that there were absolutely no expectations for it to do anything at all? Derailed? Hardly. Even though they tried their level best.
Hear any talk this weekend of Redford's disastrous opening? The Conspirator? *crickets*