Skip to comments.Atlas Shrugged The Movie--Time to Expand
Posted on 04/18/2011 6:46:58 AM PDT by raccoonradio
THANK YOU. After an incredible opening weekend, it would appear it's time to expand. In only 300 theaters, Atlas Shrugged made 1.67 million dollars averaging $5,590 - 3rd only to Rio and Scream 4 in averages. Atlas Shrugged Movie = Free Market Working. Spread the word. This is our moment. Here we come.
Even if it doesn’t make it big (and I think it definitely will,) I think book sales will go through the roof over the discussion it’s started. Even the movie house manager where I saw it said he would be buying/reading it because of this premier and the discussion he’s had with patrons.
Of course Roger Ebert hated it—he’s a liberal. I won’t slam him, because I think the medical horror he’s enduring puts him off limits.
We have plans on Wednesday to drive into our nearest city to see it.
The book has moved to #4 on Amazon.
I'm going to see it a few more times over the next week or so. Fortunately, I live in the DFW Metroplex, so there are multiple theatres showing it.
There! Fixed it. It is time we called these people what they are: MARXISTS! COMMUNISTS!
Yeah! I am shouting.
The same people who feel a sense of horror at the sight of a cross are going to hate Atlas shrugged - not because there is anything Christian about objectivism,
but because the truth offends those who prefer lies.
Yep, call ‘em Marxists, and when they complain, ask them to explain the difference between their ideology and that of Marx.
I look forward to seeing it, but I am currently out of the country. I did forward the trailer and links to everybody in my address book.
Unfortunately, to my total bewilderment, some ‘conservatives’ can’t get past Ayn Rand’s religious to see the value of her indictment of collectivism in the name of fake altruism.
I guess they’d rather fight over perfectionism with libertarians than defeat the collectivists who are disarming our defenses against radical islam.
Yes, that's exactly why a liberal gets angry when you try to have a rational conversation with one. A rational conversation with a liberal is impossible. When a liberal hears the truth she acts like the the wicked Queen in Snow White when the mirror on the wall tells the truth.
Pretty good for a book that is 50+ years old.
But Rand was an avowed atheist, and I’ve never understood why so many so called good “Good Christian Conservatives” seem to admire her
this is what she had to say about religion:
“he good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man’s power to conceive- a definition that invalidates man’s consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence...Man’s mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God... Man’s standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man’s power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith....The purpose of man’s life...is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question. “
“...if devotion to truth is the hallmark of morality, then there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.... the alleged short-cut to knowledge, which is faith, is only a short-circuit destroying the mind. [Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged]
Playboy: Has no religion, in your estimation, ever offered anything of constructive value to human life?
Ayn Rand: Qua religion, no - in the sense of blind belief, belief unsupported by, or contrary to, the facts of reality and the conclusions of reason. Faith, as such, is extremely detrimental to human life: it is the negation of reason. But you must remember that religion is an early form of philosophy, that the first attempts to explain the universe, to give a coherent frame of reference to man’s life and a code of moral values, were made by religion, before men graduated or developed enough to have philosophy. And, as philosophies, some religions have very valuable moral points. They may have a good influence or proper principles to inculcate, but in a very contradictory context and, on a very - how should I say it? - dangerous or malevolent base: on the ground of faith.”
and then there is what Jesus had to say about people like her who want to “go Galt” Matthew 25:41-46
“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me. They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’”
How does the last apply to “going Galt”?
My understanding of “Galtism” is that you stop supporting the machine of the moocher class.
I’ve done my best there, spending extra time and money to legally pay as little in taxes as possible,
but I still give to charity beyond the “requirements” of scripture, and I do so with a cheerful heart.
Second, $1.6m would be terrific for my little documentary, but for a major motion picture shot for (they say) $10 million, it's not good. Your first weekend IS the movie. Few movies last past two weeks, and certainly not in 300 theaters. So producers look to make back cost on weekend one, then profit on everything after that. Dropoff for GOOD movies is often more than 50% after the first weekend.
Not saying this is always the case. There are a few films that "build" ("Slumdog Millionaire") and let's hope this is one.
Third, posted costs for movies are almost always lies. If they say it cost $10 million, it probably at least cost $12 million BEFORE "P&A," or the prints and advertising needed to put it in 300 theaters . . . all of which comes OFF THE TOP before the investors get a dime.
I happen to know the distributor of this film who did the deal for the P&A (I do not have the details of the deal), but he's a tough guy and I don't see him cutting the producers any breaks. In other words, I'm betting AS will need to show $15 million minimum before it makes a penny of profit.
Remember "Gettysburg?" Did ok. Then "Gods and Generals?" Total flop. Ever see "The Last Full Measure," the third book in the Shaara trilogy? Nope. "G&G" lost too much money, and even Ted Turner wouldn't put up for a third film. Perhaps the producers have a package deal whereby the $10m covers all episodes of AS (and I don't know if there are two or three planned) but if not, I'd like to see who ponies up another $10m when AS has a hard time repaying the first investors.
This is just to provide a little insight, not to throw cold water on things, but Freepers tend to think that a couple of hundred conservatives in a theater can somehow "make" a movie. Doesn't work that way. We are in the business of making conservative films that MAKE A PROFIT because we can show that our production and message can reach a larger population than only conservatives. We'll see in a few years if we've succeeded.
My favorite logical conversation stopper is
“what, besides your own opinion, do you base your ideological assertions on?”
Who made the decision to show it in only 300 theatres? Whoever did, the producers were screwed by them.
My son and gf drove an hour to see it. They said it was just awful — trite characters, shallow plot, poorly done, a liberal tilt — even the conservative characters were liberal. Do not waste your money.
“Who made the decision to show it in only 300 theatres?”
No large National Distributor would pick it up.
It’s politically incorrect.
Just 3 weeks ago, it was going to be in only 54 theaters. Fan demand caused several more to be added.