Free Market Rejection?
Posted by EpicLeather 10 years, 7 months ago to Movies
I have seen quite a few articles in reaction to the kickstarter campaign stating that due to the lack of revenue generated by the first movies makes it a “flop” and is an indication that it is “a pretty loud and clear rejection by the free market.” Because of this they should give up and realize that it is a product that is unwanted.
Seriously?
So just because the populace isn’t as interested, as they claim, there is no other value or claim to be gained? If the only goal was to make a monetary profit then yes, but that was not the sole reward to be gained through this venture (as I understand it, it was also to get the message out there about the philosophies presented, which is awesome). The value intended to be gained was, so would that not be a success? If a venture flops, then you try again and improve upon it, there have been many instances where a product will “fail” but eventually gains traction through time or revision. When I read this claim of rejection I can’t help but think of Reardon Metal’s initial public opinion and the clamor by the media to discredit it. Furthermore, all revenue generated by the Kickstarter through voluntary backing, none of it has been forcibly mooched, looted or cheated from the populace, and each backer knowing full well what they are going to be gaining and willing to fund a cause they believe in that has no victims. All of this falls inline perfectly with objectivism and the “morals” spoken of in Atlas Shrugged…so what is the big deal?
Personally I feel that the movies can only truly be appreciated if one is familiar with the source material. They are good movies, but I always encourage people to read it first and then view the movies as a bonus. It is such a massive book that it would be hard to translate it sufficiently within 6 hours spanned across three movies (Galt’s speech alone would take up half of that). Would I have liked to see this be a mini-series? Of course, but I can appreciate the effort and result of what has so far come about.
Seriously?
So just because the populace isn’t as interested, as they claim, there is no other value or claim to be gained? If the only goal was to make a monetary profit then yes, but that was not the sole reward to be gained through this venture (as I understand it, it was also to get the message out there about the philosophies presented, which is awesome). The value intended to be gained was, so would that not be a success? If a venture flops, then you try again and improve upon it, there have been many instances where a product will “fail” but eventually gains traction through time or revision. When I read this claim of rejection I can’t help but think of Reardon Metal’s initial public opinion and the clamor by the media to discredit it. Furthermore, all revenue generated by the Kickstarter through voluntary backing, none of it has been forcibly mooched, looted or cheated from the populace, and each backer knowing full well what they are going to be gaining and willing to fund a cause they believe in that has no victims. All of this falls inline perfectly with objectivism and the “morals” spoken of in Atlas Shrugged…so what is the big deal?
Personally I feel that the movies can only truly be appreciated if one is familiar with the source material. They are good movies, but I always encourage people to read it first and then view the movies as a bonus. It is such a massive book that it would be hard to translate it sufficiently within 6 hours spanned across three movies (Galt’s speech alone would take up half of that). Would I have liked to see this be a mini-series? Of course, but I can appreciate the effort and result of what has so far come about.
It's also a bad analogy in the sense that "Silence" was a completely independent narrative that could be seen without having watched the prequel many didn't even know exist. That is an entirely different beast.
A movie with "Part III" in its title is telling you exactly the opposite, don't bother to see it if you missed the first parts (and everyone missed the first parts). One of the knocks on Part II was how badly it prepared the viewer who hadn't seen Part I. Given the same screenwriters, I'd expect the same problem for Part III.
Also, Darren, you've pointed to http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2011/A... for how the DVD did. When I do the math on the first two weeks, I see that the gross is about $15.50 a unit - that is, basically retail.
How much of the average consumer price of a DVD goes back to the producers? I've heard that if you get 30% of it you're on the high end, the rest going to various distributors and vendors and such. So that $3.7M can't get applied to the bottom line directly, probably only a third of it can.
If no one watched the movie, to whom will the producers "Get the message out there"? To a theater full of empty seats?
Anyway, the message went out long ago — and is still going out — by means of high sales of the book (no thanks to the movies).
The movies were superfluous, and were nothing more than ego-gratifucation for the producers., who were more interested in rushing production in order to release the films on certain key dates (tax day, election day) than they were in making every effort to make good films. It's obvious to anyone with filmmaking experience that Aglialoro and Kaslow are incompetent.
>>>>All revenue generated by the Kickstarter through voluntary backing, none of it has been forcibly mooched, looted or cheated from the populace,
True but irrelevant. No one claims the pledges were taken by force. The reason many ridicule the Kickstarter campaign is that it's such an obvious, cynical ploy to generate revenue for the producers, even after they claimed the film was "fully funded". It's not the producers who deserve ridicule — after all, they figured out a way of extracting money from Randroids without having to do the hard work of producing a commercially successful movie — but, rather, those suckers who donate: anyone dumb enough to fork over $7,500 to Aglialoro and Kaslow just to have his name carved into the side of John Galt's house — a production-designed set piece — deserves to be ridiculed.
>>>Personally I feel that the movies can only truly be appreciated if one is familiar with the source material.
The plot of the movies was so unintelligible to most movie-goers as to make sense only to those who had read the book. That's a sign of LOUSY SCREENWRITING, not "profound philosophizing." That's just one reason that word-of-mouth reviews killed Parts 1 and 2 at the box office.
Because outright lying is common in the motion picture industry, especially when it comes to anything having to do with money. Grow up.
If pigs could fly, those who claimed they saw flying pigs would indeed be vindicated. Your point?
>>>It is not unusual for some books and films to take time to find their audience.
Pray.
>>>By your standards "The Silence of the Lambs" would never have been made. The first film in which Hannible Lechter appears was a box office bust.
You're saying that there will future films with the character of John Galt, but they won't be called "Atlas Shrugged", and they'll be wildly successful because of solid screenwriting, imaginative directing, and appropriate casting. Got it. However, you'll have to fire the current production team, the current director (whoever that might be), and the current screenwriter(s).
The first film with the character of Hannibal Lecter was called "Manhunter". Let's compare its performance to that of "Atlas Shrugged Part I".
Without adjusting for the difference between 1986 dollars and 2011 dollars, we have the following:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhunter_(...)
Release Date: August 15, 1986
Closing Date: ???
Production Budget: $15,000,000
Opening Weekend: $2,204,400
[It grossed a bit over 14% of its negative cost on opening weekend.]
Widest Release: 779 theaters
Compared to:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=...
"Atlas Shrugged Part 1"
Release Date: April 15, 2011
Closing Date: May 19, 2011
[A 35-day run]
Production Budget: $20 million
Opening Weekend: $1,686,347
[By grossing $1,686,347 on its opening weekend, "Atlas Shrugged Part I" recouped a little over 8% of its production cost.]
Widest Release: 465 theaters
There's no comparison in performance. Plus the fact that "Manhunter" was very stylishly directed by a solid craftsman, Michael Mann (who created the "Miami Vice" series on television). Plus the fact that "Manhunter" has at least become a cult film among cineastes. That'll never happen with Atlas Shrugged Part I or Part 2.
Humans often assume that others are like themselves an honest woman will assume that everyone is honest; a liar will assume that everyone lies. Hmmmmm.
You have struck upon another common misconception about the book and philosophy. The detractors perpetuate the notion that it is all about love of money (greed in their minds) and that there is no other value.
Respectfully,
O.A.