“Atlas Shrugged” tanking at the box office?

posted at 5:04 pm on April 26, 2011 by Allahpundit

Really surprising. Most reviews are bad but audience reaction has been good, and Randians have been waiting long enough to see it onscreen that I figured they’d turn out in droves on principle, just to signal Hollywood that there’s a market for libertarianism. Maybe not:

After a middling performance during its opening weekend that was hyped in some quarters (i.e., The Hollywood Reporter), the per-screen average for this amateurish Ayn Rand adaptation … plunged to an alarming $1,890 from $5,640 during its opening frame. Overall, the weekend’s take was a scant $879,000 — a whopping 48 percent drop despite adding 166 locations. Which certainly suggest they’re running out of audience quick.

That means that at some locations, distributor Rocky Mountain Pictures will be writing checks to theaters to cover the difference between receipts and operating expenses. The only way they’re likely to get the 1,000 screens the producers say they want next weekend is to rent them. And, as Kyle put it at his personal blog, “Whether the sequels get made is purely a matter of how much desire the producers have for losing money.”

Surely rubbing salt in the producers’ wounds is the performance of Robert Redford’s left-leaning “The Conspirator,” which also added screens in its second weekend and managed a decent hold and a $2,696 per location average. Its current cumulative gross is $6.9 million vs. a hair over $3 million for “Atlas Shrugged.”

It made $1.68 million in its first three days; seven days after that, it still hasn’t yet doubled its take and it needs to recoup $20 million to be profitable. Normally I’d dismiss this as evidence that moviegoers just aren’t into political polemics (see, e.g., basically every anti-war film made about Iraq), especially one as talky as AS, but the producers should have had a built-in audience with so many devoted Rand fans out there. The book sold 500,000 copies in 2009 alone; its ideas have never been more current on the right. Why, we’ve got not one but two libertarians running for president this year. What happened?

Now that Gary Johnson’s been bigfooted in the primary by Ron Paul, maybe his supporters can spend their money on “Atlas Shrugged” tickets instead. Who’s more deserving of a moneybomb than Ayn Rand?

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Not a surprise at all. The theater average dropped because it was being screened at more theaters.

This theater expansion, however, allowed me and my friends to see the movie.

YoungAmerican on April 26, 2011 at 5:59 PM

In fact, Atlas Shrugged needs to take in at least $40 million to break even, not $20 million. Studios must split revenue with the theaters that show their movies.

Also note that the stated $20 million budget doesn’t include advertising and distribution. The true cost of Atlas Shrugged could easily be in the $25 million range (if not higher), which means a take of $45 million to $50 million would be needed for the film’s producers to make their money back. It would need to make more than that to finally turn a profit.

Of course, since it is a relatively low budget film, it could still recoup its costs from DVD sales and (possibly) overseas distribution.

DubiousD on April 26, 2011 at 5:59 PM

More people tapping into their retirement funds, early, because they simply can’t pay their bills any more.

Schadenfreude on April 26, 2011 at 5:59 PM

And that my friend, will be the most useful campaign slogan of the ’12 presidential winna!!

JAM on April 26, 2011 at 5:58 PM

If the righties are smart and impertinent, enough. Don’t count on it.

Schadenfreude on April 26, 2011 at 6:00 PM

crr6,
that makes no sense.

rob verdi on April 26, 2011 at 5:13 PM
You beat me to it.

laurakbarr on April 26, 2011 at 5:25 PM

That’s because crr6 uses words it isn’t remotely familiar with (eg: ‘honorable’).

Hard for someone to make sense when they try to use a language they don’t even know.

Midas on April 26, 2011 at 6:00 PM

I was not going to drive 45 minutes to see a movie- I will wait for the DVD to come out and watch in the comfort of my comfy chair with my own popped popcorn and water.

hawkman on April 26, 2011 at 6:01 PM

“Leading from behind” happens a lot in prison, doesn’t it?

An unfortunately accurate metaphor for what Obama is doing to this nation.

His followers just bite the pillow, call him “daddy”, and hang on for the ride.

Solly on April 26, 2011 at 6:02 PM

That’s a little unfair, Un. I’m an Ayn Rand fan. And a Palin supporter.

gryphon202 on April 26, 2011 at 5:24 PM

well I like Ayn Rand also. I just don’t think she is a goddess that has all the answers like some of the more vocal supporters. most of THOSE supporters also think Ron Paul is the only that can save us. I never seen you have a devotion to anyone like that. So maybe I wasn’t exactly clear in my statement. broad brush….and all that.

unseen on April 26, 2011 at 6:02 PM

unseen on April 26, 2011 at 5:19 PM

Awww, how cute, look who unseen ALSO hates for not living up to his conservative code: libertarians!

But seriously, Allah, why the befuddlement? It’s a film adaptation of a book that is, let’s be honest, a bloody chore to read through, and as trilogies go, this doesn’t exactly have the same thrill as Lord of the Rings.

Vyce on April 26, 2011 at 6:07 PM

Stiff and wooden acting and a heavy handed preachy message?

Naaaaaaaaa, that couldn’t be it.

PappyD61 on April 26, 2011 at 6:07 PM

No ad campaign, shown in very few theaters, hated for political reasons by the press that could give it publicity and attention – yes, what a thundering shock that it’s not raking in money.

Django on April 26, 2011 at 6:08 PM

It was a cheap effort on what should have been a blockbuster movie. Try again in 10 years and up the budget by 5 times.

thebrokenrattle on April 26, 2011 at 6:11 PM

My Comrades who live in small towns and rural areas refuse to drive 2-3 hours at $4 a gallon when they can wait for the DVD to be delivered to their front porch.

Bruno Strozek on April 26, 2011 at 6:14 PM

Actors not first rate but the timing is perfect. It, the idea, will be front and center in the next two years, to the chagrin of the crr6s of the world.

Schadenfreude on April 26, 2011 at 6:15 PM

Right, that’s what I think is so funny about this story. When a number of liberal-minded films on the Iraq War did poorly you guys said “the market has spoken” and urged Hollywood to make more conservative films. Do you apply the same reasoning when a clearly conservative-minded film tanks?

crr6 on April 26, 2011 at 5:46 PM

Matt Damon can make as many anti-Iraq War movies as he wants, as long as his producers don’t mind losing money on them.

Good Solid B-Plus on April 26, 2011 at 6:15 PM

JAM on April 26, 2011 at 5:47 PM

Don’t move crr’s goalposts! All is well! Remain calm!!!

Good Solid B-Plus on April 26, 2011 at 6:16 PM

I live in Metro Atlanta, ITP, and I can barely afford the gas to get to only theater in the nation’s 7th largest city to see the damn thing.

radioboyatl on April 26, 2011 at 6:19 PM

Do you apply the same reasoning when a clearly conservative-minded film tanks?

crr6 on April 26, 2011 at 5:46 PM

It’s an Indie venture, hardly the same thing when compared to a big-budget film release with A-list stars and lavish praise from the liberal critics that bombs with the public.

PackerBronco on April 26, 2011 at 6:20 PM

Don’t move crr’s goalposts! All is well! Remain calm!!!

Good Solid B-Plus on April 26, 2011 at 6:16 PM

Idk bro, seems like you guys are the goal-post movers (WHICH by the way, is an informal logical fallacy according to fossten).

Wayyy back in 2009 when the stock market still sucked, you guys would point to that as the relevant metric for economic health. Then when the stock market improved, you pointed to job growth. Then, when we started gaining jobs, you pointed to unemployment. Now that unemployment is trending down you’ve started pointing to gas prices n’ stuff. Mind sharing what’ll be next?

crr6 on April 26, 2011 at 6:21 PM

What Vyce said. How surprising that a film adaptation of the most turgid and tendentious polemic to come out of a Russian novelist since, well, ever wasn’t a boffo box office barn burner. Max Bialystock wishes he could have gotten his hands on the script…

HTL on April 26, 2011 at 6:25 PM

Vyce on April 26, 2011 at 6:07 PM

aw look. the clown shows up.

unseen on April 26, 2011 at 6:27 PM

Do you apply the same reasoning when a clearly conservative-minded film tanks?

crr6 on April 26, 2011 at 5:46 PM

PackerBronco on April 26, 2011 at 6:20 PM

It’s ok to just say “no.”

crr6 on April 26, 2011 at 6:29 PM

Ayn Rand is kind of silly. It’s probably a crappy movie.

therightwinger on April 26, 2011 at 6:31 PM

crr6 on April 26, 2011 at 6:21 PM

No, you’re right, the economy is amazing. That’s why Obama’s approval rating are soaring, right?

But don’t worry, just keep ‘messaging, messaging, messaging.’ Eventually the rubes in Middle America will realize how lucky they are to have Lord Obama as their savior, and he’ll win all 50 states in 2012.

Good Solid B-Plus on April 26, 2011 at 6:32 PM

Stiff and wooden acting and a heavy handed preachy message?

PappyD61 on April 26, 2011 at 6:07 PM

Sez someone who clearly hasn’t seen it. Thanks for the opinion.

John the Libertarian on April 26, 2011 at 6:32 PM

My, my…the trolls have come out from under their bridge, haven’t they?

Solly on April 26, 2011 at 6:32 PM

It’s ok to just say “no.”

crr6 on April 26, 2011 at 6:29 PM

Are the producers of ‘AS’ asking for a government bailout to recoup their losses from the movie?

If not, where the **** does ‘honorability’ come into the picture when it comes to a sequel?

Good Solid B-Plus on April 26, 2011 at 6:34 PM

Listen, I can’t say this enough: the movie was terrible! It didn’t fail because it was a conservative movie, it didn’t fail because of liberal bias in film reviewers, it failed because it was a bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad movie. Blaming this on bias just confirms the libs ideas of our accusations of bias (the “truth has a liberal bias” nonsense) in their heads because this was a just a plain and simple TERRIBLE movie.

galenrox on April 26, 2011 at 6:34 PM

Listen, I can’t say this enough: the movie was terrible! It didn’t fail because it was a conservative movie, it didn’t fail because of liberal bias in film reviewers, it failed because it was a bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad movie. Blaming this on bias just confirms the libs ideas of our accusations of bias (the “truth has a liberal bias” nonsense) in their heads because this was a just a plain and simple TERRIBLE movie.

galenrox on April 26, 2011 at 6:34 PM

That doesn’t matter. We have to protect the narrative. Conservative movies don’t sell!1!!! Someone write me a script for Green Zone 2, ASAP!

Good Solid B-Plus on April 26, 2011 at 6:36 PM

So, Atlas Shrugged isn’t an awesome movie so the conservative movement has failed???

Yeah, Right.

Dream on

cntrlfrk on April 26, 2011 at 6:39 PM

While I haven’t seen Atlas Shrugged yet, and I certainly will go to it – I did see a preview. Ugh; looked pretty crummy. If my initial reaction from the trailers pans out – how disappointing!

Just because a movie is based upon a great novel and excellent principles doesn’t mean that it will end up being a wonderful movie. Is it mega-frustrating for all of us who wanted it to be fabulous? You betcha. But wishing and hoping doesn’t make it so.

Those who laugh at the movie being crappy, however, should remember this corrollary: a movie being poor does not mean that the principles upon which it is based are poor.

pbundy on April 26, 2011 at 6:44 PM

When a number of liberal-minded films on the Iraq War did poorly you guys said “the market has spoken” and urged Hollywood to make more conservative films. Do you apply the same reasoning when a clearly conservative-minded film tanks?

crr6 on April 26, 2011 at 5:46 PM

All those films had major name actors, $10-30 million marketing budgets and almost universal critical acclaim. And they still tanked. Do you wish to compare this with a movie with no mass marketing budget at all, no stars and that was almost universally critically panned? How deep do you wish to plunge into double-standard?

rrpjr on April 26, 2011 at 6:45 PM

P.S. Ayn Rand wasn’t a conservative. I appreciate her defense of capitalism, but her overall philosophy wasn’t close to conservative…

therightwinger on April 26, 2011 at 6:48 PM

AP-
Wait for the pr0n version “Atlas Tugged“.

That’ll make a fortune.

Pulling a different kind of train.

profitsbeard on April 26, 2011 at 6:49 PM

Let’s see, limited showings, no name cast, no name film studio, no backing from Hollywood, and no advertising campaign to speak of, and you’re telling me it flopped? How can that be?

I don’t trust the box office reports. They’re lying, just like they do with the polls. This movie was a blockbuster, and Palin really is leading everyone in the polls.

xblade on April 26, 2011 at 6:56 PM

aw look. the clown shows up.

unseen on April 26, 2011 at 6:27 PM

I’m a bit unclear, unseen, so help me out, what’s you theory on why this movie failed? Not enough references to Palin in it? It didn’t star Palin? Palin hasn’t given the movie a glowing film review?

I want you to make sure to work your schtick into this thread.

What Vyce said. How surprising that a film adaptation of the most turgid and tendentious polemic to come out of a Russian novelist since, well, ever wasn’t a boffo box office barn burner. Max Bialystock wishes he could have gotten his hands on the script…

HTL on April 26, 2011 at 6:25 PM

I mean, look, I like Atlas Shrugged, and have defended it before against people who hated it either irrationally (because it is objectivist, and they are, shall we say, far more of the “collectivist” mindset) or rationally (like I said, even though I profess a fondness of it, it can be a taxing novel to read through due to Rand’s writing style, her frequent use of the “author fillibuster“, and how damn anvilicious it is at times). But really. Allah is being a bit hyperbolic, no? What was he expecting, box office numbers as good as Avatar?

Vyce on April 26, 2011 at 7:03 PM

The movie wasn’t bad, but it wasn’t great either. It was like watching a made-for-TV movie. But if you care to see the trilogy completed, warts and all, pay the bucks to see it the theater.

Lance Murdock on April 26, 2011 at 7:11 PM

Good Solid B-Plus on April 26, 2011 at 6:36 PM

Thank you comrade. Hopefully someday the collective can forgive me.

galenrox on April 26, 2011 at 7:13 PM

Lance Murdock on April 26, 2011 at 7:11 PM

Seriously, I’d prefer Syriana 2: The Syrianaing over another one of these morons butchering a classic.

galenrox on April 26, 2011 at 7:19 PM

I and my family ALL thought it was a great movie! I’ve read the book but my family members have not and we all liked it.

How is it that this report says it’s not doing well when it just expanded from 300 to 465 screens? I heard a report about 1000 screens, but the official site says 465. In any case, it’s doing pretty good for an indie movie and makes a nice change from the mindless garbage out there. Will Farrell anyone?

I don’t care if you are libertarian or conservative, the movie’s message about government intrusion into businesses and the not-so-free market is very clear. Even my daughter, who is not political, was upset and what the government and their business co-conspirators were trying to do.

Common Sense on April 26, 2011 at 7:20 PM

“What happened” is that the nearest screening is over an hour away, and thanks to ObamaGas prices, I have to limit my travel.

Stream it and/or trot it out on DVD and let’s see what happens.

Paul_in_NJ on April 26, 2011 at 7:33 PM

“Atlas Shrugged” tanking at the box office?

***shrugs***

rukiddingme on April 26, 2011 at 7:35 PM

I’m going to see it this weekend. So there!

ncborn on April 26, 2011 at 7:43 PM

It could also be for the same reason that Tea Partiers are underrepresented. People who work for a living and agree with these beliefs don’t have time to go see a movie a dozen times. Repeat viewing would be very low. Also, people who work have to prioritize.

The very nature of the audience is such that theater seats won’t be packed for very long.

I live at least a 2 1/2 hour drive from the nearest theater showing AS. Why spend all that gas to see a two hour movie? I’ll get it on DVD.

I drove 1 hour to see MST3000 the movie back when it was given a tiny release, and went with a half-dozen friends – but that was also high school/college years. For AS, I’m working now, don’t have time to dedicate 7 hours and $100 worth of gas and tickets to see a movie. I work, my friends work, and we all live different places.

Plus, with regards to the film itself, a lot of Rand fans have also said, and agree, that it was rushed by a production company that didn’t want to lose rights to produce it. So it’s a movie about not compromising written by people who immediately compromised in order to make something.

But I haven’t seen it – it may be good or bad, I wouldn’t know and won’t know until it comes out on DVD.

CPL 310 on April 26, 2011 at 7:44 PM

Intelligent people read books, conservatives a re intelligent

Alden Pyle on April 26, 2011 at 7:54 PM

Read the book.

Good Lt on April 26, 2011 at 7:59 PM

galenrox on April 26, 2011 at 7:19 PM

Aw come on. It wasn’t that bad.

Lance Murdock on April 26, 2011 at 8:08 PM

Yeah, I’m pretty confident the coincidental media blackout hasn’t helped sales. The reviewers are trying hard to put a bad spin on it as well. The only beef I have is that the hostile response should have been seen a mile away, and combated by at least above-average advertising campaigns.

ReformedAndDangerous on April 26, 2011 at 8:50 PM

I would love to opine however the movie is not showing anywhere within 100 miles of me and that has to affect the film’s success.

Claypigeon on April 26, 2011 at 9:13 PM

I wanted to see it, but not enough to drive 20 miles to the nearest theater, or 40 miles to the next nearest one…

Hump-Back Mountain opened in more theaters, and nearer to me, but I didn’t see that because it sucked… Or at least the actors supposedly did…

Not that I’m judging or anything…

Few Things Considered on April 26, 2011 at 9:22 PM

Well, I liked it.

cheeflo on April 26, 2011 at 9:33 PM

Pains me to say this, but the movie is awful. Stinky stinky awful. Everything about it was done in the service of libertarian agitprop — the characters don’t grip you, the story doesn’t grip you . . . the production values per se are fine, but the narrative is in the service of the message instead in the service of a story.

The already converted will happily sit through it but for anyone else, it’s a fail.

Doesn’t surprise me in the least it’s begun to tank.

bluestatered on April 26, 2011 at 9:40 PM

The only beef I have is that the hostile response should have been seen a mile away, and combated by at least above-average advertising campaigns.

ReformedAndDangerous on April 26, 2011 at 8:50 PM

Agreed but very few people understand the Left or know how to bait it and play it. The Left was so primed to destroy this movie; that energy could have been flipped back on them with savvy promotion. The filmmakers had a decent targeted marketing effort to Rand fanbase but no clue how to tap into wider cultural angst or Leftist emotions for free marketing. They needed a guerrilla campaign. I saw them interviewed; nice guys but seemed naive.

rrpjr on April 26, 2011 at 9:53 PM

It was an hour drive from me. I’ll get the DVD when it comes out.

roninacreage on April 26, 2011 at 10:05 PM

Like so many others on here, it is just too far away to see. I did actually try getting tickets for a matinee the other day though since someone else was going to pick up the kids for a playdate and I was determined to just go for it on a whim. Of course that would be the day they were sold out of tickets until the 10:30p showing. Ugh.

I would love to see it but it is going to have to get closer or I will have to wait for the DVD. My vehicle right now costs nearly $100 to fill up and I just can’t justify the trip, as much as I would like to.

XWing5 on April 26, 2011 at 10:49 PM

Apparently, this movie also tested the loyalty of Libertarian/Objectivist fanbois. They won’t drive more than 20/50/75 (insert your number here) miles from home for “the cause”. But, of course, they will climb up into the mountains of Colorado in order to deny society the essence of their precious bodily fluids. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

HTL on April 26, 2011 at 11:27 PM

Lance Murdock on April 26, 2011 at 8:08 PM

Haha, well I see two ways of looking at it. One is Syriana 2 could be pretty good if they took it in the zombie angle where that Saudi guy comes back from the dead as a mangled zombie who conquers Saudi Arabia…kind of like Land of the Dead. I’d definitely watch that. The other is that Atlas Shrugged is by far the worst movie I have ever seen in my entire life, and that includes Saturday afternoon horror movies on sci-fi. Seriously, Crocodile had better production values.

galenrox on April 26, 2011 at 11:31 PM

What happened?

Very little advertising.

JeffB. on April 27, 2011 at 12:23 AM

crr6 drooled: when we started gaining jobs

Who’s “we“?

Modest job gains only began AFTER The Obamateur pre-emptively surrendered to TEA party demands to extend Bush tax cuts.

The Pelosi-Obama-Reid (POR) economy has been a collosal fail.

Didn’t the POR triumverate promise joblessness would peak in 2009 Q3 at 8%?

*you’re fired*

Terp Mole on April 27, 2011 at 7:59 AM

We’re planning to see it next weekend. Our closest theater showing it is an hour fifteen away, and I have to work some O.T. to afford the gas to get my 8mpg tank there and back. Seriously though, those who live close to a theater probably went out and saw it right away – but it might take a few weeks for the rest of us to get there. I bet it cleans up on DVD. Heck, if it becomes a DVD hit, maybe they’ll just do part 2 straight to DVD. I’d hate to see that, but it’d be better than nothing.

Free Indeed on April 27, 2011 at 9:12 AM

The other is that Atlas Shrugged is by far the worst movie I have ever seen in my entire life, and that includes Saturday afternoon horror movies on sci-fi. Seriously, Crocodile had better production values.

galenrox on April 26, 2011 at 11:31 PM

Are you including Ishtar? :)

My family is just plain broke after property and income taxes. We’ll have to wait until after the next paycheck to eek out the cost of the tickets. Our whole town is dead due to being broke right now- we’ve got this big fancy new movie theater that’s been empty since the 15th. The grocery stores have been empty since the 15th, the restaurants, etc. I’ve never seen it this bad. We’re all just broke.

NTWR on April 27, 2011 at 1:06 PM

It was a cheap effort on what should have been a blockbuster movie. Try again in 10 years and up the budget by 5 times.

thebrokenrattle on April 26, 2011 at 6:11 PM

I haven’t seen it yet, but poor directing, scripting, and/or acting can ruin the movie adaptation of a great book.

A case in point was the movie adaptation of the third book of C. S. Lewis’ “Narnia Chronicles”, called “The Voyage of the Dawn Treader”. The movie-makers did a great job on the first book (“The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe”) and put more excitement into “Prince Caspian” than was in the book, but they managed to turn the profoundly spiritual “Dawn Treader” book into a very mediocre monster movie, that missed the entire theme of the book, which had enough material to make a mind-blowing blockbuster comparable to “Inception” or the “Lord of the Rings” movies.

It is possible to make a lousy movie out of a great book…as anyone who has both read and seen “Dawn Treader” can attest. If a book is truly great, the director and actors need to feel and “picture in their mind’s eye” what the author tried to convey, then present that vision as faithfully as possible on the screen, without trying to change or “improve” the plot.

Steve Z on April 27, 2011 at 2:18 PM

Said it before and I’ll say it again: movie obviously doesn’t have enough vampires.

J.E. Dyer on April 27, 2011 at 3:09 PM

Do you apply the same reasoning when a clearly conservativelibertarian-minded film tanks?

crr6 on April 26, 2011 at 5:46 PM

For someone who claims to be a law student, you have a disconcerting ability to miss important details relevant to the discussion.

dominigan on April 27, 2011 at 3:38 PM

Comment pages: 1 2