Free Market Declares Atlas Shrugged a Train Wreck

“In its second week of release, after expanding from 300 to 465 theaters, Atlas Shrugged: Part I may have started to tank. The movie hauled $879,000 over the weekend; more importantly, it only made an average of $1,890 per screen. The first week, it made $5,600 per screen.” [Weigel]


Speaking of Randians, Ron Paul to announce his 2012 Presidential exploratory committee tomorrow in Iowa.

So anyone think that Barbour was the one with the mistress that couldn’t be paid off (I think it was Manchu who had that B.I. over the weekend?)?

I think it might have been that óþægilegt Englendingurinn með slæmt tennur.

I think the rule of thumb is that a movie must recoup three times its production costs to break even. So. No way will they break even. And since none of the randtards know how to work a DVD player they might be shit out of luck when they go to disc.

@Snorri Haraldsson Uterus: I don’t know the standard numbers, but there’s production costs, and then there’s “prints & advertising” — the latter being a multiplier that greatly increases the break-even point.

But this movie was a train wreck from the beginning. It was rushed into production to avoid losing film rights, and the production itself was underfunded. Basically a high-profile tax write-off.

Trains, Rails and Libertarians is a fiscal bomb? Hee.

Who, besides Randheads, would have predicted that.

I brought the blind item, but didn’t say Barbour. I thought Trump, but nothing surprises me these days.

Started to tank? Let’s do a comparison, small indie movie to small indie movie with a canned fanbase:

Insideous Production Cost: 1,000,000
Insideous Opening Weekend Take: 15,000,000

Atlas Shrugged Production Cost: 10,000,000
Atlas Shrugged Opening Weekend Take: 1,600,000


@Tommmcatt Be Fat, And That Be That:
That’s not the money bomb the producers were looking for.

@ManchuCandidate: Only if the producers are played by Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder.

@Tommmcatt Be Fat, And That Be That: On the other hand, “Sucker Punch” cost $80 million to make, and world wide gross after 31 days is only $78 million. Ouch.

Metallica and martinis. Mmmm. That’s how to kick off the week.

At least we’ll be spared from enduring the insipid sequels, like Little Shruggers.

@redmanlaw: That is an ouch. By contrast, Tangled, worked on by none other than one foine Filipino muscleboy who shall remain nameless, cost $260 million, making it one of the most expensive movies to make of all time. Currently it has returned more than $576 million worldwide, and that is without HE sales figures.

@Tommmcatt Be Fat, And That Be That: I checked imdb and did not see a “Mr. Catt” in the credits. Fact checked!

Add a Comment
Please log in to post a comment