The combo of no big-name stars and the film's talky storyline was probably the main reason.
I still liked it and will get a DVD when it comes around.
The film didn’t need any “big name” stars to sell. It was made for 10 mil, and the highest per screen average. Now it goes to DVD where money is made and on track to outperform Fireproof’ where 3 years ago, became the top 3 DVD seller.
It’s a quagmire in week one, just like the Iraq war! < / s >
This is one of those movies that will not make big bucks at the box office, but may very well pay for itself many times over through continuing DVD and Netflix sales. I can see people paying to download it many years from now.
Okay. I've been sick but where was all of this "far more media hype" this guy is talking about? I've never heard one thing about it on the boob tube and never saw one ad. I think somebody been hittin' da happy smoke again. I learned about it after reading about it on FR and then going to their website.
I liked it. It was timely with it`s message,(frighteningly so) and I`m looking forward to the next installment. The CDs will ensure there`s money enough to finish this trilogy, and I,(for one) intend to add them to my movie collection.
We enjoyed Part I and look forward to Part II.
Our theater was 3/4 full on a Sunday evening.
What? It had that guy I saw on half a season of "Ugly Betty", and that other guy who did 6 or 7 episodes of "House" and one of the lesser important people on "Lost". And that guy from SG1/DS9/Buffy/Beauty & the Beast was onscreen for nearly 5 minutes!
My husband, our daughter and I saw the movie. We LOVED it. Our daughter (28) was the youngest person in the theater, as far as we could see. It was very well made and stuck to the book. It didn’t take that much thinking to follow the plot. It was well worth the time and we will be getting the DVD as soon as it comes out.
I just saw it this evening, and it was a good effort under the budgetary circumstances. John Galt’s lines were awful, and there was a little too much filler footage, but Hank and Dagney came across really well, as did Lillian Rearden, James Taggart and most of the rest. A little bit into it I started liking the fact that they were all no-names.
The one screen in pittsburgh had the 8:00 Friday show sold out by the Wednesday before. I had to get tix on fandango for the 5:50 show, which also was sold out by Friday. If it didn’t make much money it was only due to limited screens. I thought it was very well done.
I’d like to see it.
It’s not playing anywhere in my area. I’d have to drive to the murder capital of Phila, which is about 1 1/2 hours each way.
Or I’d have to get a bus to NYC for a 2 hr ride each way.
Hopefully, it will show up here...
My 18-year-old daughter insists on seeing it. We will have to drive about 120 miles to do so, but we will!
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.
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."