Bucking The System
Atlas Shrugged the movie is out, and the reviews (as I expected) are horrendous. But what about the take? Well, my old pal Nick Gillespie at Reason has this to say:
So Atlas Shrugged Part I debuted on April 15 and had a damn good opening weekend for a truly indie flick. With a reported $10 million budget and about 300 screens, it pulled in about $1.7 million over the weekend, according to Box Office Mojo. On a per-screen basis, it hauled $5,640, putting it third behind Rio and Scream 4 (each of which appeared on over 3,000 screens) for movies that appeared on more than two or three screens.
With all due respect, Nick's specialty is not interpreting movie grosses. True, an indie film with no names making $1.7 million on its opening weekend, with a $5000+ per screen average, isn't bad, but considering all the factors at play here, it doesn't bode well.
First, this isn't just any movie, but a long-awaited adaptation of an all-time bestseller. Second, there was a lot of publicity for the film, publicity outside normal channels--certainly more than usual for your average, relatively low-budget indie. Third, the opening was only semi-wide--that ups per screen of course. (Compare this to an art house blockbuster like Black Swan, that opened in 18 theatre and had a per screen average of over $80,000.) Finally, grosses dropped from Friday to Saturday, $674,000 to $631,000. Grosses almost always rise between those days, except for frontloaded films (in this case, due to curious Randians) with weak word of mouth.
Ayn Rand's novels weren't well-reviewed. With her first big seller, The Fountainhead, it took time for the readers to discover it (just as it took time for architect Howard Roark to find clients). The opposite should be true for this movie. The discovery comes right away, followed by a quick dropping off.
PS But see what the Hollywood Reporter has to say about the "awful marketing plan." I guess we'll find out how the film does as it rolls out to more theatres. That's the best bet they have--virgin territory with a built-in audience. I'm pretty sure the film is awful, but I'd still like to see them finish the trilogy.
3 Comments:
It's awful in a fun way. Frankly, they did pretty good for not being experienced.
And of course the book is God-awful to begin with. Some dilemma: Would you rather write a putrid, message-bound novel that lives for decades and enjoys a wide audience, or a competent position paper read by essentially no one?
I guess sacrificing art is a small price to pay if what you are trying to do is articulate the principle.
The novel may stink, but the plots pretty good, plus it's unusual in its choice of heroes. That's enough ingredients for a good movie as long as they don't have a slavish attitude toward the original author.
Why you sendding that much of money on films.so many people suffring even to live.
From
Ramesh kamuni
mail:k.s.srinivas123@gmail.com
mobile:+91 92460 87265
Hyderabad-500046,India.
Post a Comment
<< Home