Galt's Gulch

See it again

Posted by terrycan 12 years ago to Movies
14 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Just saw Atlas Shrugged Part II for the second time. Theaters that schuedual a film on opening night are required to run it for two weeks. I believe it is important to support the theaters that go beyond the minmum two weeks. GO! See it again.

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

    -
  • Posted by $ perry_taylor-1949 12 years ago
    I doubt I'll go see it again. I will get it when it hits Amazon though. I can see why it isn't doing so well with first time viewers though. If the haven't read the book or seen part one it is like walking in to a movie in the middle and leaving before the ending. Of course this is exactly what it is but it sure makes a lot more sense when you know what is going on. PS: I liked the first Dagny better. :)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by terrycan 12 years ago
    The market has spoken. I believe it was a mistake to shun the critics at the premier. Critics make and break movies. Shutting them out guarenteed bad reviews.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by LetsShrug 12 years ago
      I'm really sad about the numbers, but I don't know why I'm surprised when over half the country is asleep or completely unaware of current events. The critics were shut out? Why?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • -1
        Posted by C_S 12 years ago
        It was an intentional decision from the producers. They felt that the very bad reviews of Part I were a major contributor to its box office failure, and the producers hoped they'd get a better result for the crucial first weekend if the reviews weren't out yet. So they didn't show it to reviewers before it opened.

        The problem is, whenever the producers don't make a movie available to reviewers, they're telling everyone they think the reviews are guaranteed do more harm than good. That's why it's usually zombie movies and teen dance parties movies that don't get shown to critics. And it's usually a sign that a movie's no good.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by LetsShrug 12 years ago
          Well that's a tough situation. Not sure I blame them for their decision though. The real problem is that Americans don't take their country seriously enough to educate themselves about what's really happening behind the big smiles and "feel good" speeches they hear...IF they're listening at all, which I doubt. Atlas was published 55 years ago, so we can't blame anybody but ignorant Americans. (And on T.V. right now is Obama's mug talking from FEMA HQ....sigh.)
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            -
          • Posted by terrycan 12 years ago
            I believe the triology will rated higher as time passes. Caddy Shack is an example of this.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • -1
              Posted by C_S 12 years ago
              There are movies that look better with age but I really don't think this series is going to be one of them. Criticial re-assessment of that sort is usually the discovery of hidden subtleties, and subtlety and Rand are galaxies apart. For every "The Shining" there are dozens of movies that are considered as bad now as they were then.

              "Caddyshack" was the first movie directed by Harold Ramis, who went on to a great career as a writer-director-actor (among other things, as one of the Ghostbusters). With all due respect, I don't think John Putch is in the same category.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by overmanwarrior 12 years ago
          I'm glad they didn't show it to the critics. The numbers were very close to the first one because that is the market. When you make a movie that is not for everyone available to everyone, these are the kinds of results that are going to come about. The reviewers would have chewed into it anyway. Its better to give them the finger first.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • -1
            Posted by C_S 12 years ago
            I agree that the market for this movie is smaller than the budgets of the movies targeting it, which is why both parts so far have ended up as big money losers.

            The problem is, how do you raise money for the third part when it's got "pre-ordained flop" written on it?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              -
            • Posted by overmanwarrior 12 years ago
              That is a problem. I am amazed that they raised so much money for Part 2. A good plan would probably keep the film released as a small market indie and then a big DVD, Blue Ray release complete with the full John Galt speech on the DVD release as a bonus to help drive sales. The ads on the radio and TV were a waste of money. If the production budget could be kept between $5 to $10 million without the advertising, Part 3 might actually make money. But the traditional route is obviously cut off, sadly. It stands the best chance as a Netflix release, to get the message out.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • -2
    Posted by C_S 12 years ago
    The problem is that it was doing so poorly most theaters dumped it the minute they could. It went from a thousand theaters to about 150 literally overnight. It's no longer playing anywhere in my state, and the state to my north has one theater showing it one time a day!

    For a movie that cost twenty million dollars to make and advertise, they're going to be lucky to sell four million dollars in tickets.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo