Ayn Rand: filmmakers will try, try again

Despite the massive failure of 'Atlas Shrugged, Part I,' 'Part 2' is scheduled for an October release.

Strike Productions/YouTube screenshot
The marketing strategy for the first film installment of 'Atlas Shrugged' (with Taylor Schilling, seen here, in a starring role) relied on word-of-mouth and the Internet, and signally failed to bring audiences to the theater.

So the first installment of "Atlas Shrugged," the movie, was a colossal flop that few heard about and even fewer watched. What’s a producer to do?

“Spend even more money on the sequel, cross your fingers and hope for the best,” writes Indiewire, reporting on “Atlas Shrugged: Part 2."

Producers John Aglialoro and Harmon Kaslow just announced that their second installment in the proposed trilogy will hit theaters October 12. Last time around marketers spent almost no money on marketing “Atlas Shrugged: Part I,” instead relying on Internet, talk radio, and word of mouth (a strategy distribution execs called “awful” at the time). They leaned heavily on tea party members to spread word about the movie primarily to libertarian, free-market, and small-government advocates. The result? The movie opened in April of 2011 on 300 screens, then fell off quickly. After six weeks, total ticket sales had not crossed the $5 million mark – less than a quarter of the production budget.

It was a bit of a surprise, as Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” has drawn a passionate following ever since its initial publication in 1957. It is Rand’s last and longest novel, her magnum opus that philosophically explores a dystopian America in which society’s best-performing citizens strike to protest high taxes and government regulation. In modern politics, the book has become a rallying cry for libertarians, conservatives, and tea party members – which is why marketers targeted this group, then scratched their heads in surprise when the first installment didn’t do well.

This time, the $15 million movie has a proper marketing budget. Producers hired Russel Schwartz of Pandemic Marketing. “The industry will take us more seriously now that we have Russel and Bill [Lewis, for theatrical distribution] on board,” Kaslow told the Hollywood Reporter. “Last time we marketed in an unorthodox fashion. This time, in addition to online, we’ll do traditional print, radio, and TV advertising.”

Will things be any different this time? We think there’s a good chance. Kaslow has allocated 10 times more money to market “Part II” than he did for “Part I.” And Schwartz has proven his talent; he was behind the campaigns for “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy, “Hairspray,” “Elf,” and other hit films. What’s more, the film will be released just as the hype over the November presidential election reaches fever pitch, likely drawing more politically-stimulated audiences than otherwise.

And the scenario will likely strike a chord with some politicos.  " 'Part 2' begins with the world’s economy on the brink of collapse,” writes the Hollywood Reporter. “Unemployment in the US is 24 percent, gas is $42 a gallon and the most productive people in the country have begun a 'strike' to protest high taxes, government regulation and lawmakers who demonize success.”

Hmm. A less-than-subtle comparison and a jab at a certain leader? This much is sure, if this premise doesn’t get people into theaters, we’re not sure what will.

Husna Haq is a Monitor correspondent.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Ayn Rand: filmmakers will try, try again
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today