Short take: Producer of Ayn Rand movie adaptation throws in towel.

Attention rugged individualists: If you are planning to take in "Atlas Shrugged: Part 1" on the big screen, you might want to hurry.

Two weeks after its release, the movie, the first part of a planned three-part adaptation of "objectivist" philosopher Ayn Rand's 1957 screed against big government, is tanking at the box office.

It has earned back only $3.1 million of the $20 million that producer John Aglialoro spent to bring his favorite novel to the screen. Mr. Aglialoro says he may break even after TV and video rights are sold, but that he's rethinking his plans to make Parts 2 and 3. Sadly, moviegoers may never learn who is John Galt.

"Critics, you won," Mr. Aglialoro said, blaming scathing reviews by major movie critics. How scathing? Rolling Stone's Peter Travers said the movie 'sits there flapping on screen like a bludgeoned seal."

more . . . http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/the-platform/article_66cf9572-b1fa-562d-9197-50baab24a081.html

It couldn't possibly be that Rand's book is a poorly-paced, incoherent, masturbatory fantasy for wealthy sociopaths.

:rofl:

As I pointed out in another thread, two adaptations of Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. 's works ("Mother Night" & "Breakfast of Champions") never made it beyond limited release and were box office disasters. In both cases, the films had respectable casts.

The problem here (IMO) is that you probably had directors, producers, and screenwriters who wanted to be faithful to every aspect of the book, rather than say "How can we make a good movie out of this?"

Good filmmakers can turn a mediocre premise into an entertaining movie, but there's no way to turn nonsense into something sensible. Atlas Shrugged has got to be the worst book I've ever read. It's a collection of cartoonish, two-dimensional characters sprinkled on an insanely dull, poorly paced story, built around a "philosophy" that would've been laughed off the shelves decades ago if it hadn't been published as fiction.

Which may be the point of the review, I guess.

Still, looks like public opinion won the day. Hooray.

( and what is this business about bringing movies out in "parts"?)

...so Aglialoro's attempt to feed off the profits of someone else's energy did not exactly end in Galtopia.

and it will be a hit with the target audience..:(

Look for it becoming a "subscription bonus" and swag bag item for assorted conservo-libertarian organizations.

"The movie, like Ms. Rand's book, imagines the chaos that would ensue if the world's great minds rebelled against the government encroaching on their right to make the maximum amount of money from their genius.
Apparently this will not be a problem for Mr. Aglialoro."

The invisible hand gives a bad movie a visible finger.

It makes perfect sense, but I have not seen that anywhere.

I am going from memory.

What you say makes sense given a) how bad the film is technically b) how completely unknown the cast is and c) what they spent.

'rethinking' making the second and third parts. Not done.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/atlas-shrugged-producer-promises-two-182714

In fact, said John Aglialoro, the co-producer and financier, it's the monolithic view from critics that say the movie stinks that is motivating him to make Parts 2 and 3, he told The Hollywood Reporter.
And he defended his film Wednesday by accusing professional film reviewers of political bias. How else, he asks, to explain their distaste for a film that is liked by the audience? At Rottentomatoes.com, 7,400 people gave it an average 85% score

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/atlas_shrugged_part_i/#!reviews=all&page=2

But they didn't go see it, so they have only the market, themselves, to blame for its failure.

I'm loving this Cybex CEO deciding he's more determined than ever to make II and III in the face of the critics hating part I. Now THERE's a formula for success. Multiple sequels to a crap movie that no one saw in the first place. Talk about throwing good money after bad.