two pages of crazy

4/21/2011 1:55:29 PM

Quote :

"Dude, don't even bother. She was a crazy person with crazy beliefs that conservatives use to justify their lack of empathy."

i know, but if i were to run around yelling about how atlas shrugged sucks and then have someone ask if i actually read it, i wouldn't exactly have any credibility. I guess i could just hit up wikiedia or something

[Edited on April 21, 2011 at 2:02 PM. Reason : .]

4/21/2011 2:00:17 PM

the fountainhead is actually a good read but even if you can get with the philosophy on even the most base "embrace excellence" kinda level the heroes of her works are pretty much as terrible people as the antagonists.

4/21/2011 2:01:53 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand#Philosophy

[Edited on April 21, 2011 at 2:02 PM. Reason : .]

4/21/2011 2:02:31 PM

Does anyone have a response to the Hickman thing?

4/21/2011 2:04:09 PM

anyone ever suggested that Rand had Aspergers?

4/21/2011 2:06:15 PM

^I've seen that suggested about Roark in The Fountainhead and I could see it, might be an extension of her

4/21/2011 2:07:04 PM

Roark was the extension of Bill Hickman.

[Edited on April 21, 2011 at 2:26 PM. Reason : sp]

4/21/2011 2:25:44 PM

BTW, Ayn Rand ended up taking Medicare and Social Security at the end of her life.

4/21/2011 2:43:30 PM

LOL!

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

Quote :

"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.'' "

4/26/2011 12:42:12 PM

Quote :

"BTW, Ayn Rand ended up taking Medicare and Social Security at the end of her life. "

haha, so? Everyone over 65 does. If Im forced to pay for these programs I will certainly be getting them too when Im eligible. (if they are still around)

4/26/2011 2:25:08 PM

^not everyone. at least her colleagues weren't all hypocrites.

Quote :

"Rand is one of three women the Cato Institute calls founders of American libertarianism. The other two, Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel “Pat” Paterson, both rejected Social Security benefits on principle. Lane, with whom Rand corresponded for several years, once quit an editorial job in order to avoid paying Social Security taxes. The Cato Institute says Lane considered Social Security a “Ponzi fraud” and “told friends that it would be immoral of her to take part in a system that would predictably collapse so catastrophically.”"

4/26/2011 3:32:39 PM

^ They were idiots. A libertarian owes it to society to drain the government of all the resources they can.

And keep in mind how little money was spent making this movie (only $10 million). In two weeks they have made back about 15% what it cost them to make it. How many other movies can claim that?

4/26/2011 6:18:24 PM

A majority of films earn back a significant portion of their budgets, and I'd say probably 80% or more earn back more than what you're talking about with this piece of shit.

The biggest box office disaster of all time in terms of raw dollars was Sahara. It lost $120 million, but still earned back 50% of its budget.

Even fucking Ishtar earned back 25% of its budget.

4/26/2011 6:38:46 PM

http://boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/

Judging by the gross and the budget it seems that most do far better than it. On the other hand, it is no "Mars Needs Moms".

4/26/2011 7:39:48 PM

Quote :

"And keep in mind how little money was spent making this movie (only $10 million). In two weeks they have made back about 15% what it cost them to make it. How many other movies can claim that?"

hahahahahahahahahaha

4/26/2011 8:07:19 PM

i'll tell you what grossed at least 15% of its budget

KEVIN CORCHIANI IS FIRST MOVIE

4/26/2011 9:05:09 PM

That is a pretty cool website Kris.

4/26/2011 10:54:48 PM

Thanks, although Cif82 posted it before me on page 1.

4/26/2011 10:56:56 PM

If you don't like the movie, its b/c you were probably prejudice against its statement before you ever saw it... If you don't see the points its making then you are too stupid to give an opinion...

4/27/2011 12:24:07 AM

You realize it has been critically panned, right? Your statements only exhibit your own bias.

4/27/2011 12:27:05 AM

Quote :

"you were probably prejudice"

4/27/2011 12:34:17 AM

Quote :

"A libertarian owes it to society to drain the government of all the resources they can. "

LOLWUT?

The government's resources are all of our resources. Libertarians owe it to society to drain society of its resources? That sounds very terrorist-y.

4/27/2011 12:45:33 AM

^I think it was sarcasm moron

I liked the book, good message. The movie just isnt that good. The market is speaking.

4/27/2011 9:01:57 AM

it's a retarded unrealistic message...certain things are impossible due to human nature

4/27/2011 9:29:52 AM

^^ I guarantee you that was in no way meant as sarcasm. LoneSnark has said stuff like that before.

As for bringing in 15% of the production budget on opening weekend, that's an unmitigated disaster for a mainstream release--it's also an amazing feat for an independent release. This movie is somewhere in the middle, though.

Mainstream releases come out the same day in every city in the country, opening simultaneously on 2000 to 3500 or so screens. Indie releases tend to start small in New York and LA--we're talking two to four or five screens opening weekend--and then expand to more cities based on performance. Film prints are expensive. Let's say it costs $1500 to manufacture a two hour long 35mm print. On opening weekend, a film does $50,000 per screen in New York and LA (this is a very high number). This translates to about $10,000 per screen in Raleigh and Cary on opening weekend, so it makes since to make a bunch of prints and get it to the secondary and tertiary markets as soon as possible.

Now look at the other end of the spectrum--let's say the film grosses $5,000 per screen on opening weekend. If it ever makes it to the triangle (it probably won't), it'll most likely be in a couple of months. It never would have made financial sense to make more prints. If it does play at the Rialto or Galaxy, it's going to be the same beat-up print that played in New York two months ago.

Digital cinema changes all of that, of course, and Atlas Shrugged is available on 35 and digital. If they were smart, they would've done all digital, because the psychos going to see it wouldn't give a shit about the quality of the presentation.

There's a couple of things worth noting about Atlas Shrugged in particular. Box Office Mojo now lists the production budget as $20 million, not $10 million, and if that's true, the opening weekend gross was closer to 6% of the production budget. Production budgets don't include things like advertising, but this film didn't have any, so that doesn't really change anything.

Secondly, this film opening on about 300 screens nationwide. While this kind of makes sense (they needed to get as many of the diehards out to see it on opening day before the reviews were out), as I've said, it's an unusual release strategy. What doesn't make sense AT ALL, however, is that they expanded to 50% more screens on the second weekend. That is straight up crazy. This is a niche movie. If they wanted to show it in small towns, they should have waited another week and shipped the prints to other towns. The people who care about it aren't going to forget about it and they'll wait if they have to. Nevertheless, they expanded aggressively, yet in the second weekend they did HALF the business they did in the first weekend. That's a disaster. They brought the film to as many people as they could, and those people resoundingly said "no thanks". I hope, for their sake, that it was mostly digital. (I hope, for America's sake, that it was all on film.)

tl;dr what a colossal fuck up

4/27/2011 11:17:22 AM

Parts 2 & 3 have been axed by the producer.

4/27/2011 10:32:18 PM

fuckin' free market

4/27/2011 10:44:29 PM

Ayn Rand's writing style sucks and her books are incredibly boring. I have no desire to see a shitty adaptation of that.

At he end of the day, all of us are primarily self-interested. We look out for ourselves, and while we're capable of feeling empathy, selfishness is a moral imperative; our ability to do good, bad, or anything at all, is dependent on our consciousness staying intact, which means staying alive. While I'm not an Objectivist, many of you have very clearly missed some of the subtleties of Rand's philosophy. The perception that selfish and moral behaviors are mutually exclusive demonstrates a critical misunderstanding of human nature. People aren't usually altruistic, so let's stop designing governments and organizations in such a way that assumes they all are.

Quote :

"BTW, Ayn Rand ended up taking Medicare and Social Security at the end of her life."

I'd take Medicare and Social Security right now, if I could. I'll take advantage of the government in any way I can. Once again, since it seems to come up so often: it's not hypocritical to be opposed to government benefits while also receiving them. It would be hypocritical if you were a dictator and opposed government benefits, and then implemented government benefits yourself. As long as I'm being forced to pay into the system, I'll take from the system, and that in no way contradicts an anti-government political philosophy.

[Edited on April 28, 2011 at 12:01 AM. Reason : ]

4/27/2011 11:52:59 PM

Quote :

"Parts 2 & 3 have been axed by the producer. "

According to their FB page they say they are going to make 2 and 3.

I dunno, they better do a better job than 1. Also they better use a better symbol for violence/govt power than the giant tuning fork.

4/28/2011 2:54:48 PM

Quote :

"According to their FB page they say they are going to make 2 and 3."

Not without money they're not, and considering almost all of their meager budget came from a guy who said he doesn't need the grief, it doesn't look good.

4/28/2011 4:39:01 PM

I read the book and enjoyed it, but I don't plan on seeing the movie. Seems like it could definitely be a borefest.

[Edited on April 28, 2011 at 5:04 PM. Reason : .]

4/28/2011 5:02:44 PM

I would see an Atlas Shrugged movie, but not a poorly-made trilogy split across a few years.

In the book's defense, it has more of a plot and is a less boring read than the Lord of the Rings.

4/29/2011 5:58:32 PM

Quote :

"This is simply beautiful. The first part of the movie adaptation of Ayn Rand‘s ‘love it or hate it’ novel Atlas Shrugged hit a few theaters early this year, and is now on DVD, the better to be the backbone of home drinking games. (Do a shot every time someone mentions metal or trains.) But the DVDs are being recalled, because of something that was printed in the marketing copy on the package. Here’s the offending sentence: “AYN RAND’s timeless novel of courage and self-sacrifice comes to life…”"

http://www.slashfilm.com/lol-atlas-shrugged-dvds-recalled-objectivistopposing-marketing-blurb/

This might be the funniest thing I've ever heard.

11/13/2011 10:48:27 AM