Atlas Shrugged movie doing so poorly, producers forced to write checks to theaters to cover losses

[Ian David]

Atlas Shrugged movie doing so poorly, producers forced to write checks to theaters to cover losses

Movies
Box Office: 'Atlas Shrugged' collapses, even without a NY Times review

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 (even Kyle could only muster 2.5 stars' worth of enthusiam for the movie, though he liked its message) 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.''

<snip>

"Has anyone else been wondering why The Times- which never lets a new movie go unreviewed (even when no critics' screenings have been arranged)- has decided to break precedent with this one? My understanding is that the film's producers actually did hold a press screening but decided not to issue an invite to this paper. If so, the failure to publish a review here is a matter of pure pique and comes across as a disservice to the paper's readers. I have no personal connection to the film and nothing good to say on its behalf. My argument is that every film that opens commercially in NYC deserves to be critiqued by its paper of record. The decision not to do so is even more deplorable than that taken by the distributing company to withhold an invitation to its opening for reasons of editorial politics, operating policy or anything else. Who knows? The Times critics might have actually liked the thing... ''

More:
http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/movies/box_office_atlas_shrugged_collapses_1oWcoz9xOxcmfdaik24uFN

Hat-tip to: http://twitter.com/#!/liberalchik/status/63014099184910336

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. The invisible hand of the free market

gives "Atlas Shat" a visible finger.

[DenverDad]

5. It's cuz a

the librul medea!111

[SpiralHawk]

7. "Republicon greedhead claptrap sucks. As always." - The Infallible Marketplace

"Who would buy a ticket to watch a pack of greedy, self-centered, chickenhawk Republicon morans, with the morals of heyenas, pretending to be actors, and pretending to make high-speed rail (which everyone know the republicons hate as much as they hate the concept of responsibility) a reality. You'd have to be totallhy frikkin lame."

- The Infallible Market

[Initech]

2. If Atlas Shrugged and no one saw it, does it exist?

[GomezLives]

3. Shut it down and sue everyone who owes money

[RamboLiberal]

4. Dupe to earlier GD thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x959307

[Hotler]

6. Good! n/t