Atlas Shrugs, Yet Nobody Cares

[Staenwald]

Now all we need to give her is a catchphrase.

Ideas?

"You got some Galt not swallowing this swill."

sigged, because i can take a joke.

[Cannot think of a name]

I've not seen the film, since I can't because I live in the UK. Considering the point that many theatres aren't showing it and only a handful are, it's of course not gonna get a huge turnout.

and using sibirsky's source

13 9 Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Rodrick Rules Fox $2,081,944 -56.4% 1,849 -1,032 $1,126 $48,122,773 $21 4
14 N Atlas Shrugged: Part I RM $1,686,347 - 299 - $5,640 $1,686,347 $10 1

it's only been out 4 days, whereas as wimpy kid's been open 4 weeks...and it's already made 80% of what wimpy kid has....

No, you've read the chart wrong. In the four weeks that Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Rodrick Rules has made $48 million. What Atlas Shrugged Part I did was make 80% of the box office of an under advertised movie that had already been out for four weeks that weekend after Wimpy Kid dropped 56.4% from the previous weekend.

Someone else mentioned its ranking in per screen average, which honestly is pretty good. If I had an independent release I would be thrilled with a $5,640 per screen average. But looking solely at that, it got trounced by Evil Bong 3-D and its $12,265 per screen average (that number of screens being one). But you get a higher per screen average when you do things like taking one of the largest markets and only show it in one theater (Los Angeles it only showed on one screen, that's going to skew your per screen numbers higher, which is what limited release people try to get so that they can get more screens later.)

In the limited release category (of which there is no such thing, but for sake of argument is under 1,000 screens) it comes in second to The Conspirator which had more than twice the screens.

All in all, while I'd like to have schadenfreude about the whole thing that's not a bad opening for a self released film. However, retention is the key. The guy at Box Office Mojo I think tries to throw as much water on the whole thing as he can, but this is important-

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.

Now, it doesn't seem to me that a six percent drop from premiere day to the second is that big of a deal, but drops in general are not good for pitching the movie forward. If next week there isn't an increase, then you can dance on this movie's grave. If there is an increase, then word of mouth is doing its job and it's limited release is a success in the same way Win Win continues to increase its box office (#15) after it's much smaller release.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Is Zeitgeist a dirty word now? Who did that? The Monetray Police?

It sounds more like a foot disease.

"Dude, my zeitgeist is flaring up. Hand me that Lotrimin."

[Yuktova]

Is Zeitgeist a dirty word now? Who did that? The Monetray Police?

It sounds more like a foot disease.

"Dude, my zeitgeist is flaring up. Hand me that Lotrimin."

Ha! That's funny! No, the Zeitgeist Movement is about scientific advancement without politics, an economy, or religion. It's no foot disease my friend!

[Grave_n_idle]

http://wonkette.com/443358/terrible-atlas-shrugged-part-i-dismal-at-the-box-office

I've been saying for months now that if Atlas Shrugged is commercially mediocre, I will laugh at the utter irony of it all. A film about a book parading the virtues of capitalism and self-interest fails in the eyes of capitalism. Well, it appears to have come true

Though I'm heavily libertarian myself and agree with Rand on a surprising amount of things, I do not agree with objectivism. If people want to work in collectives rather than working for profit, let them... they'd be committing economic suicide, but let them. Likewise, charity should be an honourable thing, not frowned upon as "intellectual surrender". In short, on the Rothbard vs Rand debate, I side with Rothbard. There, that should clear me from the whole "lolyoujusthaterand" shindig.

This will probably come as good news to most here. Not sure how many objectivists we have here, most of the time I see Atlas Shrugged being rightly panned for being badly written...

I can't imagine there's going to be much fuss outside of ridiculously small and exclusive circles.

Shit book gets made into shit film, and does poorly at the Box Office. It's hardly a case for Miss Marple.

[Grave_n_idle]

It sounds more like a foot disease.

"Dude, my zeitgeist is flaring up. Hand me that Lotrimin."

Ha! That's funny! No, the Zeitgeist Movement is about scientific advancement without politics, an economy, or religion. It's no foot disease my friend!

It's a memetic disorder.

*nods*

[Orwellian Huxly]

This movie fails because it is left wing rubbish.

Left wing? lolwut?

[Rambhutan]

Is there going to be a porn version Atlas Shagged?

[Grave_n_idle]

Is there going to be a porn version Atlas Shagged?

I'm not sure there needs to be a 'porn version' of a masturbatory product.

*nods*

[Staenwald]

I've not seen the film, since I can't because I live in the UK. Considering the point that many theatres aren't showing it and only a handful are, it's of course not gonna get a huge turnout.

and using sibirsky's source

13 9 Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Rodrick Rules Fox $2,081,944 -56.4% 1,849 -1,032 $1,126 $48,122,773 $21 4
14 N Atlas Shrugged: Part I RM $1,686,347 - 299 - $5,640 $1,686,347 $10 1

it's only been out 4 days, whereas as wimpy kid's been open 4 weeks...and it's already made 80% of what wimpy kid has....

No, you've read the chart wrong. In the four weeks that Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Rodrick Rules has made $48 million. What Atlas Shrugged Part I did was make 80% of the box office of an under advertised movie that had already been out for four weeks that weekend after Wimpy Kid dropped 56.4% from the previous weekend.

ooh true. I sorry meh idc if it's a failure.

[Harata]

http://wonkette.com/443358/terrible-atlas-shrugged-part-i-dismal-at-the-box-office

I've been saying for months now that if Atlas Shrugged is commercially mediocre, I will laugh at the utter irony of it all. A film about a book parading the virtues of capitalism and self-interest fails in the eyes of capitalism. Well, it appears to have come true

Though I'm heavily libertarian myself and agree with Rand on a surprising amount of things, I do not agree with objectivism. If people want to work in collectives rather than working for profit, let them... they'd be committing economic suicide, but let them. Likewise, charity should be an honourable thing, not frowned upon as "intellectual surrender". In short, on the Rothbard vs Rand debate, I side with Rothbard. There, that should clear me from the whole "lolyoujusthaterand" shindig.

This will probably come as good news to most here. Not sure how many objectivists we have here, most of the time I see Atlas Shrugged being rightly panned for being badly written...

I can't imagine there's going to be much fuss outside of ridiculously small and exclusive circles.

Shit book gets made into shit film, and does poorly at the Box Office. It's hardly a case for Miss Marple.

"Shit book"? Well I feel sorry for you if you can't enjoy such a fine book (assuming you actually read any of it, which I doubt).

[Kubra]

Is there going to be a porn version Atlas Shagged?

IS A MAN NOT ENTITLED TO THE SWEAT OF HIS LOVEMAKING?

[New Huxlian Orwell]

I can't imagine there's going to be much fuss outside of ridiculously small and exclusive circles.

Shit book gets made into shit film, and does poorly at the Box Office. It's hardly a case for Miss Marple.

"Shit book"? Well I feel sorry for you if you can't enjoy such a fine book (assuming you actually read any of it, which I doubt).

I have read the book, and it is tedious. It is all about the poor sacrificing rich people who hold the *sob* whole world on their shoulders. A world run by objectivists would be one in which the poor would be used as chattel. It is horrible writing, shit philosophy and Ayn Rand was a angry poor hating piece of shit. I couldn't be paid to see this movie.

[Trollgaard]

I may see this movie...just to see if the movie is any worse than the book.

[The Black Forrest]

"You got some Galt not swallowing this swill."

sigged, because i can take a joke.

Oh go Galt yourself.

[Harata]

"Shit book"? Well I feel sorry for you if you can't enjoy such a fine book (assuming you actually read any of it, which I doubt).

I have read the book, and it is tedious. It is all about the poor sacrificing rich people who hold the *sob* whole world on their shoulders. A world run by objectivists would be one in which the poor would be used as chattel. It is horrible writing, shit philosophy and Ayn Rand was a angry poor hating piece of shit. I couldn't be paid to see this movie.

Holding the world on their shoulders is exactly what they do. The poor wouldn't be used as chattel; talent would be identified early on and rewarded, no matter the origin. Unskilled workers would make what they earned, nothing more, nothing less. In fact, the book identifies how the government, in attempting to make things "fair", turns the workers into chattel.

[Risottia]

The Free Market works!

Only this time the Free Market Fairy has turned Obamunist.

[Alien Space Bats]

I was initially cynical of the decision to set it in the modern era, but an oil shortage seemed like an adequate reason for rail-use to rise in popularity.

Ugh. Public transport, the left's answer to everything.

And don't even get me started on the Taggart female's complete lack of respect for traditional christian values.

You missed my thread on bowdlerization, didn't you?

[Lacadaemon]

You missed my thread on bowdlerization, didn't you?

I did actually.

But I stand by my assessment: Ayn Rand's outlook was far to the left of modern day GOP conservatives.

[Alien Space Bats]

You missed my thread on bowdlerization, didn't you?

I did actually.

But I stand by my assessment: Ayn Rand's outlook was far to the left of modern day GOP conservatives.

That was my point in the thread, too. Aside from homilies to Atlas Shrugged and some vague idea that Rand believed in free markets, modern day GOP conservatives generally hold positions opposite to Rand's on most issues:

• Rand hated religion, describing it as a "form of mental illness". She found the usual gestures that politicians make towards religion in general and Christianity in particular repulsive.
  
  
• Rand believe that women had an absolute right to abortion, right up to the moment of birth.
  
  
• While not a feminist (she saw the feminist movement as too deeply steeped in New Left thinking), Rand believed in the absolute legal equality of men and women, and did not see women as "naturally inclined" towards child-rearing and the home rather than career pursuits.
  
  
• Rand thought that any and all attempts to legislate morality, including laws against adultery, sodomy, gross indecency, and homosexuality, were absolutely wrong.
  
  
• Rand despised governments that practiced torture. Although there are those who claim that she never denounced it, I recall reading an article in the late 60's or early 70's in which she expressed revulsion for the fashion in which many Middle Eastern states treated political prisoners, citing in particular SAVAK's ruthlessness in Iran. From this, I'll go out on a limb and suggest that she'd be outraged at waterboarding, the abuses at Abu Ghraib, and the whole sorry mess that is Guantanamo Bay.
  
  
• Rand supported open immigration. 'Nuff said.
  
  
• Rand found the Confederacy repulsive, the damned Marxist minx!

No, it's Rothbard who is the patron saint of modern Republican paleolibertarianism; the GOP ultras only avoid branding her a heretic my ignoring 90% of what she preached.

[Lacadaemon]

That was my point in the thread, too. Aside from homilies to Atlas Shrugged and some vague idea that Rand believed in free markets, modern day GOP conservatives generally hold positions opposite to Rand's on most issues:

• Rand hated religion, describing it as a "form of mental illness". She found the usual gestures that politicians make towards religion in general and Christianity in particular repulsive.
  
  
• Rand believe that women had an absolute right to abortion, right up to the moment of birth.
  
  
• While not a feminist (she saw the feminist movement as too deeply steeped in New Left thinking), Rand believed in the absolute legal equality of men and women, and did not see women as "naturally inclined" towards child-rearing and the home rather than career pursuits.
  
  
• Rand thought that any and all attempts to legislate morality, including laws against adultery, sodomy, gross indecency, and homosexuality, were absolutely wrong.
  
  
• Rand despised governments that practiced torture. Although there are those who claim that she never denounced it, I recall reading an article in the late 60's or early 70's in which she expressed revulsion for the fashion in which many Middle Eastern states treated political prisoners, citing in particular SAVAK's ruthlessness in Iran. From this, I'll go out on a limb and suggest that she'd be outraged at waterboarding, the abuses at Abu Ghraib, and the whole sorry mess that is Guantanamo Bay.
  
  
• Rand supported open immigration. 'Nuff said.
  
  
• Rand found the Confederacy repulsive, the damned Marxist minx!

See, like I said, the woman is clearly part of the loony left

And FWIW, modern conservatives do not like the free market either. They do not like it at all. They love them some subsidies and the rest. Hank Paulson, Wesley Mouch, same difference.

[Maurepas]

"Atlas Shrugged" is like the Bible

Truer words hath never been spoken. About the book, and its followers.

[Staenwald]

"Atlas Shrugged" is like the Bible

Truer words hath never been spoken. About the book, and its followers.

I'm a bible?

[Maurepas]

Truer words hath never been spoken. About the book, and its followers.

I'm a bible?

Heh heh heh, not quite what I meant, but I can see where it could be taken that way. More that the ideas presented lack historical basis and validity. And it takes alot of faith to believe otherwise.

[Staenwald]

I'm a bible?

Heh heh heh, not quite what I meant, but I can see where it could be taken that way. More that the ideas presented lack historical basis and validity. And it takes alot of faith to believe otherwise.

recent events have been remarkably resemblant to those in the book, although as an objectivist myself, i wouldn't think to use the book as the answer to everything...you'd read her non-fiction stuff, and use credible evidence for things. it is a good example of posing a question of morality.