"atlas shrugged" will change the face of american politics

[Big Fitz]

The numbers are in.

Despite an over 50% increase in number of theaters screening Atlas Shrugged, the film saw its earnings and audience drop 48% from last weekend. In its second week of release, the film failed to make a million dollars, finishing with $879,000 nationwide and at number 18 overall. Not surprisingly, given that it added 160 new theaters yet made only half what it did last weekend, its once-decent per screen average fell to just $1,890 per theater, not even making the top 25 films of the weekend by per screen average.

With a budget now being reported by IMDb and The Hollywood Reporter at closer to $15 million than the initially-reported $10 million and another $5 million or so in advertising and marketing costs, the film seems highly, highly unlikely to make back its budget given that it's only made $3 million total in two weeks of release.

Since the picture has flopped and it was merely the first in a planned trilogy of films where profits from the first film were to finance the sequels, the first installment is probably the only installment in this series we'll ever see.

So, washamericom, are you ready to admit you were dead wrong?

i further suggest that this hollywood production will play a large roll in unseating the president of obama, how ultimately and deliciously ironic. how do you like us now.

The film is not a Hollywood production at all, so there's that. But it's also dead-on-arrival, not only not becoming a success but actually being a rather miserable failure with audiences, critics, and the market it extols. Any thoughts or response or admission now or will you avoid addressing how spectacularly off your prediction was?

Huh... Easter friggen weekend and you're writing a sequel to it's obituary that you've already pronounced 2 weeks ago. What a big movie weekend.

 

[QUENTIN]

Huh... Easter friggen weekend and you're writing a sequel to it's obituary that you've already pronounced 2 weeks ago. What a big movie weekend.

You say Easter weekend like it's a bad thing. The box-office take this week was better over this Easter weekend than it was last weekend when the film debuted or either of the last two weeks before that making it the biggest box-office weekend in April. Easter is usually is a stronger weekend than average.

I mean, you're essentially just continuing to show that you don't know much about what you're talking about when it comes to movie release strategies, box-office performance, distribution, etc. and how the film is performing in context.

The movie has been out two weeks and made $3 million total, with a big dropoff its second week despite screening in over 50% more theaters. If it had increased its gross and maintained its per screen average in keeping with a wider release, it might have a chance to make back its money. As it is, the film is a bomb that will be a loss for its producers and is seriously unlikely to result in two more sequels unless they're drastically lower-budgeted and go straight-to-DVD, with even that being a gamble.

I wrote the obit for the film when it was clear it was dead, which it is. Now that it's tried an expansion and done worse, it has demonstrated the movie has no legs and can't continue to expand to reach a broader audience. Apparently the majority who wanted to see it saw it opening weekend and even that was very few people.

At what point are you willing to admit it has not been a major phenomenon as the OP and many others predicted and that it's at least a financial (beyond critical which can be dismissed if you like) failure? 2 more weeks? 10? A Year? Movies are made or broken by their first couple weeks in release these days and the direction this one went is quite clear from the numbers. Do you seriously expect that somewhere down the near line this film is going to blow up and be a cultural phenomenon and major hit and play a role in unseating the president (or even, at this point, making its financiers their investment back)? If so, your expectations are unrealistic given the indie film market and this film's performance.

 

[Bern80]

You would get a society free of people with an entitlement mentality. You would get a society where everyone understood that their outcomes are predominantly determined by their own behavior and choices. Since everyone understands this you would have a remarkably strong society due to very few people residing themselves to being dependent on others for their well being.

But what if this isn't true?

One person born into abject poverty with physical and mental impairments because their mother was a junkie, who grows up in a crime-ridden neighborhood without opportunity for quality education or healthcare and few options for gainful employment and another born a Rockefeller who goes to all the best schools and gets a cushy job at daddy's company, those individual's outcome are not at all predominately determined by their own behavior and choices. Those are extreme but certainly real examples and we see this phenomenon played out in less extremes every day. People are responsible for their own actions, but an incalculably important factor, particularly when it comes to the average person who is extremely wealthy or extremely poor, is simply what they were born into and had no choice over.

To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality and the way wealth and opportunity is dispersed in practice.

If everyone has the equal opportunity to succeed, then their eventual success or failure is predominately a result of their own choices and behavior, but that's not even remotely the case in the real world.

We're not talking about the people who can't. The mentally handicapped or whomever happens to be in a state where they truly can't survive on their own. We're talking about the people who won't.

 

[konradv]

You would get a society free of people with an entitlement mentality. You would get a society where everyone understood that their outcomes are predominantly determined by their own behavior and choices. Since everyone understands this you would have a remarkably strong society due to very few people residing themselves to being dependent on others for their well being.

But what if this isn't true?

One person born into abject poverty with physical and mental impairments because their mother was a junkie, who grows up in a crime-ridden neighborhood without opportunity for quality education or healthcare and few options for gainful employment and another born a Rockefeller who goes to all the best schools and gets a cushy job at daddy's company, those individual's outcome are not at all predominately determined by their own behavior and choices. Those are extreme but certainly real examples and we see this phenomenon played out in less extremes every day. People are responsible for their own actions, but an incalculably important factor, particularly when it comes to the average person who is extremely wealthy or extremely poor, is simply what they were born into and had no choice over.

To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality and the way wealth and opportunity is dispersed in practice.

If everyone has the equal opportunity to succeed, then their eventual success or failure is predominately a result of their own choices and behavior, but that's not even remotely the case in the real world.

We're not talking about the people who can't. The mentally handicapped or whomever happens to be in a state where they truly can't survive on their own. We're talking about the people who won't.

You seem to be talking about anyone who doesn't agree with you. That's the problem with the rhetoric, you're given one example and have to throw in disclaimers. A fully realized philosophical system wouldn't require that kind of back-tracking.

 

[Big Fitz]

Huh... Easter friggen weekend and you're writing a sequel to it's obituary that you've already pronounced 2 weeks ago. What a big movie weekend.

You say Easter weekend like it's a bad thing. The box-office take this week was better over this Easter weekend than it was last weekend when the film debuted or either of the last two weeks before that making it the biggest box-office weekend in April. Easter is usually is a stronger weekend than average.

I mean, you're essentially just continuing to show that you don't know much about what you're talking about when it comes to movie release strategies, box-office performance, distribution, etc. and how the film is performing in context.

The movie has been out two weeks and made $3 million total, with a big dropoff its second week despite screening in over 50% more theaters. If it had increased its gross and maintained its per screen average in keeping with a wider release, it might have a chance to make back its money. As it is, the film is a bomb that will be a loss for its producers and is seriously unlikely to result in two more sequels unless they're drastically lower-budgeted and go straight-to-DVD, with even that being a gamble.

I wrote the obit for the film when it was clear it was dead, which it is. Now that it's tried an expansion and done worse, it has demonstrated the movie has no legs and can't continue to expand to reach a broader audience. Apparently the majority who wanted to see it saw it opening weekend and even that was very few people.

At what point are you willing to admit it has not been a major phenomenon as the OP and many others predicted and that it's at least a financial (beyond critical which can be dismissed if you like) failure? 2 more weeks? 10? A Year? Movies are made or broken by their first couple weeks in release these days and the direction this one went is quite clear from the numbers. Do you seriously expect that somewhere down the near line this film is going to blow up and be a cultural phenomenon and major hit and play a role in unseating the president (or even, at this point, making its financiers their investment back)? If so, your expectations are unrealistic given the indie film market and this film's performance.

The movie has been out two weeks and made $3 million total,

Okay. So tell me, when a movie costs around 10m to make, and you make 30% of your money back in 2 weeks, is it a flop? And this hasn't hit DVD release yet where most movies (especially small release films) now make the majority of it's money thanks to the consuming public's habits. I see maybe 70 movies a year. Only 1-3 of them in a theater, often second run. All the rest is on dvd. I wonder what will happen if they manage to get a global release? I've no idea if they'll even be able to, but it's a curious thought since it is such an Amerocentric film.

with a big dropoff its second week despite screening in over 50% more theaters.

Don't over 75% of all films drop off the second week, even with screen increases? Got numbers on that?

How many weeks did Titanic take to make back it's quarter of a billion production costs? 5-7 weeks IIRC, Then it had a MASSIVELY long run which then made it the highest grossing film of all time. That record may not still stand, but.. it lasted for more than a few years.

At what point are you willing to admit it has not been a major phenomenon as the OP

My first post on this thread? I never agreed with the OP's premise. I just maintain that reports of it's demise have been greatly exaggerated by people like you having heart palpitations and flop sweat over it's desired abject failure. I think it will have a similar effect on public culture as "Expelled" and other similar size release that faced massive mainstream liberal hatred. Will it have long lasting effects? Possibly. Depends on if it becomes a cult classic. Is "Rocky Horror" a flop? How about "The Gods Must Be Crazy"?

From IMDB:

Didn't receive a major U.S. release until 1984.

It was originally released in 1981.

Ran for 532 consecutive days at the Oaks Theaters in Cupertino, California. It was pulled only because the film reels they used fell into disrepair and a large section caught fire. After such a long run, it was simply cost prohibitive to have the reels replaced, but the record still stands as the longest uninterrupted run of any movie in Northern California.

So rail away on your false premise.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I was thinking of going to watch it, mostly to see the mass of RWers lap it up like the mindless lemmings they are.

However, I thought about it and I wont spend a red cent on that swill.

I'll just wait for it to be released on DVD in 3 to 4 weeks and download it from the Torrents.

So you'll do what leftists always do, you'll steal.

 

[Uncensored2008]

He never said he wouldn't pay. He just said he would defer the satisfaction of laughing at it.

Yes he did, dumbfuck.

He said he would steal it from the torrents.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm almost halfway through the book. Who is John Galt?

Wait!!! Don't spoil it for me, I want to read the rest of the book. It is a lot better than I expected.

Immie

Good for you for reading it. Rightwinger struggles through a three panel cartoon, basically the extent of the leftist intellect.

 

[Immanuel]

I'm almost halfway through the book. Who is John Galt?

Wait!!! Don't spoil it for me, I want to read the rest of the book. It is a lot better than I expected.

Immie

Good for you for reading it. Rightwinger struggles through a three panel cartoon, basically the extent of the leftist intellect.

It is actually quite good. I don't know how good of a movie it will make as most of us like some action in our movies and except for... well, maybe there are others who have not gotten as far along as I have so I won't spoil it... but let's just say action is not part of the plot.

The storyline is really good. It takes things to the extreme in a way that I don't think we will ever see, but, it is only fiction.

I am looking forward to seeing the movie when it comes to Netflix just to see how they handle the story. But changing the face of American politics as the title of the thread states? No, I don't think so. For one thing, today's politicians are envious of what Wesley Mouch achieved in the story. Today's politicians are already striving for that standard so where would the change come from?

I think it is a shame that many of the people who are bashing Ms. Rand's story don't appear to have actually read it.

Immie

 

[Uncensored2008]

Read up. There's been plenty said about what's wrong with her philosophy.

Of course there has, just not by you cretins.

You can cut & paste from a hate site, it's what you do. What you DON'T do, and can't do, is formulate a rational argument on your own.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Rand's philosphy is the philosophy of a highly intelligent sociopath.

So Konrad says she was stupid, you say she was a "highly intelligent sociopath."

Consistency seems low among socialists.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No argument because you didn't answer my questions.

Peace.

No argument because you have zero fucking knowledge about the subject.

 

[konradv]

Rand's philosphy is the philosophy of a highly intelligent sociopath.

So Konrad says she was stupid, you say she was a "highly intelligent sociopath."

Consistency seems low among socialists.

I don't recall saying she was stupid. Sociopaths usually aren't. It's those who don't see her for what she is and the failures of her philosophy that are stupid.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What this philosophy is really doing (and what we are really doing as a society, too, I note) is ignoring the fact that the capital those people have was the net output of the workers that the workers did not realize in their paychecks..

You know, there is something you communists never seem able to explain: Since it is the workers who produce everything, what do they need the entrepreneur for? I mean, why don't the workers just go make all this wealth on their own and keep it? A machine operator is all that is needed to make a microprocessor - so say the communists, so why don't they go make them on their own and not share their profits with the engineers and scientists who have nothing to do with creating capital?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Post of the thread!

The post is utter and complete stupidity.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You question indicates to me that nothing I wrote made much sense to you.

That's because nothing you write makes any sense at all. You recite mindless Marxist platitudes without a hint of a clue as to why they are meaningless babble.

You'll get it soon enough when this formerly wealthy society collapses.

Is that happening before or after Jesus returns?

Mindless Marxists have predicted the collapse of society and the uprising of the mighty proletariat since the mid-1800's.

You see, Sam, contrary to what you apparently believe, the wealthy are not the foundation of wealth in a capitalistic society.

Oh really?

It's the "workers," right?

Workers are.

BWAHAHAHA

Right on cue..

And when the system allows its capitalist to migrate that wealth away from the society that originally created it, that society, much like a farm without seed corn, lays fallow.

Say Sparky, why don't these workers just keep the wealth? What do they need the capitalists for?

ATlas has been systematically moving American made WEALTH offshore.

No sparky, that would be socialism. Labor costs are more than mitigated by shipping costs in virtually every case. I know you've never had a business or accounting class so let me explain. If I pay a worker to make widgets for $10 an hour in the USA and he can make 12 widgets per hour; then I offshore this to India to pay a worker $2 an hour, then my shipping costs must be less than $.66 per widget, or I just lost money on the deal.

So the reason for offshoring must not be labor costs - can you think of any other reason that these mean industrialists might want to make products outside of the USA?

That is why millions and millions of otherwise prodductive Americans cannot find work. Their jobs have migrated with the capital.

But you said the workers make the capital. So why don't they just go dig holes and fill them in? It's work and according to you, work creates capital. Are they just too lazy, or is there some other factor which you don't comprehend?

WE are just now beginning to see the net result of that foolish policiy.

How many years have you been wearing Che tee-shirts? Hmm, you must not be very effective with your message....

I am on board with the Founding fathers in this regard.

They understood, as most apologists for the Randian POV do not, that protecting a nations industrial based demands sane trade policies,

Really? Can you offer a quote or two to support your claim?

(You DO realize that Vlad Lenin and Mao are NOT founding fathers, doncha?)

That is why for the most part during first nearly 200 years that this society existed, we had protective tariffs to encourage investment into our industrial growth.

ROFL

Is that right..

Say sparky, didn't congress impose a defacto tariff on Southern cotton in 1862 whilst there was no tariff on cotton from France? Is that the kind of " protective tariffs to encourage investment into our industrial growth" you mean?

Also, how did the whole "Smoot-Hawley" thing work out? Did it really boost the U.S. economy?

 

[Uncensored2008]

And who keeps capitalism in check?

The Evil Gubment

Yeah, we see that...

{Overall, Goldman Sachs received a $12.9 billion payout from the government's bailout of AIG, which was at one time the world's largest insurance company.

Goldman Sachs also revealed to the Senate Finance Committee that it would have received $2.3 billion if AIG had gone under. Other large financial institutions, such as Citibank, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley, sold Goldman Sachs protection in the case of AIG's collapse. Those institutions did not have to pay Goldman Sachs after the government stepped in with tax money.}

Goldman reveals where bailout cash went - USATODAY.com

You communists have all the answers......

 

[Uncensored2008]

This rand movie is going to be a real piece of trash which will reflect the trash that is in the original work.

It will be a good thing for the political debate.

Stick to the Pokemon movies, Truthiness - they are the extent of your comprehension.

 

[Uncensored2008]

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

—Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged[4]

That does stand as the polar opposite of what you communists preach.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I think it is a shame that many of the people who are bashing Ms. Rand's story don't appear to have actually read it.

Immie

All very well stated.

In fairness, I've found a lot on the right who bash Marx have never actually read him. (Of course, a lot on the left who promote Marx haven't read him ether.)