The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by therealblankman.

Fox and friends... they always just skip the foreplay and blow their load immediately.

Do you think—could it be possible—that Fox News lied in order to promote a conservative agenda?

If they did, they still have 60 years of playing catch-up to the libmedia, who work out of DNC hindquarters.

But it's okay to lie...as long as it's for selfish reasons.

The mainstream media lied? Get out of town.

according to Boxofficemojo.com this movie cost 20 million dollars to make, and brought in 3 million so far. So... yeah, awesome success.

If you think the liberal networks make fun of where American conservatism is, you should see what people on British or Australian talk shows say about them when the topic comes up.

Are they DNC mouthpieces too?>> ^quantumushroom:

Do you think—could it be possible—that Fox News lied in order to promote a conservative agenda?
If they did, they still have 60 years of playing catch-up to the libmedia, who work out of DNC hindquarters.

Britain and Australia? Those countries have a two-party system: Socialist and Even More Socialist.

And it's not that the libmedia here "make fun" of conservatives. They distort, lie, omit and cheat the public every day and have done so for 60-plus years. They neither challenge nor question authority when it's a Taxocrat in power. Liberal shills do not good journalists make.

It's odd how the left instantly sees the bias of Fox news but never their own.


>> ^RedSky:

If you think the liberal networks make fun of where American conservatism is, you should see what people on British or Australian talk shows say about them when the topic comes up.
Are they DNC mouthpieces too?>> ^quantumushroom:
Do you think—could it be possible—that Fox News lied in order to promote a conservative agenda?
If they did, they still have 60 years of playing catch-up to the libmedia, who work out of DNC hindquarters.

Sure, it's a lie but it's important to know why it's a lie. Fox & Friends were basing the film's success on the screen average metric, which, for limited release films such as Atlas Shrugged, can sound impressive. Basically, it goes like this...

The screen average is obtained by dividing the box office take by the number of screens it plays on. It's a figure that is meant to reflect how packed the house is and it's something that changes every day. Because of this, it is not something that you typically use to represent a film's popularity over a span of days. It's strictly a per-day metric; it only means something for one-day's worth of exhibition.

In other words, you don't add up 6 days worth of box office and then divide it by the number of screens. That's a useless figure because it greatly exaggerates the number of seats you have filled.

F&F cited $5,640 per screen. This is only true if you add up the first 3 days' box office take. The actual highest screen average for Atlas Shrugged was $2,254.

Production budget for Atlas Shrugged was $20 million. Normally, you double that figure to account for marketing costs but honestly, I haven't really seen any marketing for this flick (and I pay attention to them all) so I suspect the financiers were balking at the prospect of the cost of a proper marketing campaign. This is ironic because in capitalism, the basis of Ms. Rand's tome, one has to spend money to make money.

All figures were computed using boxofficemojo.com

As they said in Foxie, the producers were relying on an internet campaign. I think Foxie got that correct -- I saw a LOT of stuff on the internet, most of it trashing the movie from the very first boring trailer.


>> ^shuac:

Sure, it's a lie but it's important to know why it's a lie. Fox & Friends were basing the film's success on the screen average metric, which, for limited release films such as Atlas Shrugged, can sound impressive. Basically, it goes like this...
The screen average is obtained by dividing the box office take by the number of screens it plays on. It's a figure that is meant to reflect how packed the house is and it's something that changes every day. Because of this, it is not something that you typically use to represent a film's popularity over a span of days. It's strictly a per-day metric; it only means something for one-day's worth of exhibition.
In other words, you don't add up 6 days' worth of box office and then divide it by the number of screens. That's a useless figure because it greatly exaggerates the number of seats you have filled.
F&F cited $5,640 per screen. This is only true if you add up the first 3 days' box office take. The actual highest screen average for Atlas Shrugged was $2,254.
Production budget for Atlas Shrugged was $20 million. Normally, you double that figure to account for marketing costs but honestly, I haven't really seen any marketing for this flick (and I pay attention to them all) so I suspect the financiers were balking at the prospect of the cost of a proper marketing campaign. This is ironic because in capitalism, the basis of Ms. Rand's tome, one has to spend money to make money.
All figures were computed using boxofficemojo.com

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year olds life: "The Lord of the Rings" and "Atlas Shrugged." One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

--Anonymous

Both MSNBC and FOX provide a biased view of events and distort the truth. Everyone knows this, somehow I never see you attributing this on both sides of the fence though.

Socialism is a broad term than means everything to everyone. Yes, countries like the UK and Australia provide more baseline social services like health care provision and social security but that is the only real substantial difference.

The average worker's disposable income is roughly the same:

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/01/taxes_and_dispo.html

Whatever you call them, they're both free market economies, with the same rights for individuals on the things that matter. Using a phrase that can simultaneously refer to a single party regimes based on Marxism like China and Vietnam is misleading and you know it.

How about the other G8 countries? Last time I checked every other country in it: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Russia all had much more in common in terms of civil programs with the UK/Aus than the US.

Distortions aside, the fact of that matter is that most people living in developed countries would consider the views of conservatives in the US far right wing. They would probably consider a publicly subsidized, individual mandate including, private health care system like the one Obama proposed, Romney enacted and Republicans proposed in the 1990s as a right wing proposal. The fact that you probably think it would destroy the economy should be proof enough who's really on the extremity of opinion.

For that matter, I'd be interested in your take on this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-revealed-a-moderate-republican/2011/04/25/AFPrGfkE_story.html

Feel free to point out any inaccuracies you can identify.
>> ^quantumushroom:

Britain and Australia? Those countries have a two-party system: Socialist and Even More Socialist.
And it's not that the libmedia here "make fun" of conservatives. They distort, lie, omit and cheat the public every day and have done so for 60-plus years. They neither challenge nor question authority when it's a Taxocrat in power. Liberal shills do not good journalists make.
It's odd how the left instantly sees the bias of Fox news but never their own.

>> ^RedSky:
If you think the liberal networks make fun of where American conservatism is, you should see what people on British or Australian talk shows say about them when the topic comes up.
Are they DNC mouthpieces too?>> ^quantumushroom:
Do you think—could it be possible—that Fox News lied in order to promote a conservative agenda?
If they did, they still have 60 years of playing catch-up to the libmedia, who work out of DNC hindquarters.

I like this quote best from RottenTomatoes

"Lifeless as entertainment and incoherent as ideology."

If that's the case I'd say it's a pretty faithful adaptation of the book.

>> ^EMPIRE:

according to Boxofficemojo.com this movie cost 20 million dollars to make, and brought in 3 million so far. So... yeah, awesome success.


Very few that aren't in the main studio rotation make a profit, especially during their theatrical runs. A lot of that has to do with politics and the collusion between theaters and distributors. Another big portion of that has to do with funds allocated to marketing, which tends to always be very little for independent films.

For our film, we spent tens of thousands to get it into theaters knowing full well we'd lose that money completely. It was never about making a profit for us, though that would be really nice. It's about exposure and building a career.

The Illusionist only made 2.2 mil with a budget of 17 mil. Does that mean it's a failure? No, because it may make its money back through eventual PPV, rentals and DVD/Blu-Ray sales. Eventually that's where we also hope to make some of our money back.

You're involved in the making of this movie?

"Our movie"????

Please elaborate! I sense an interesting story.



>> ^blankfist:


" For our film, we spent tens of thousands to get it into theaters knowing full well we'd lose that money completely. It was never about making a profit for us, though that would be really nice. It's about exposure and building a career."

>> ^EMPIRE:

You're involved in the making of this movie?


No. No. I made a different movie. Shot it in 2007. It had a limited release in 2010 and 2009. We then ran out of money so we haven't made the DVDs yet.

"Do you think—could it be possible—that Fox New lied in order to promote a conservative agenda?"

Yes but even when commentators are not lying about conservative agendas they're lying about it for them. The idea is that this is the standard that we have to live by...not these people or their corporate overlords.

Conservative and liberals look at things different, They can look at the same thing and see two different things. This causes one side to say the other lies. I listen to both sides and then try to find the facks,most of the time both are truthful to a point,not lies. However,Fox news was taken to court over lies. The supreme court said there is no law against lies,except under oath. That give both side opportunity to lie, which fox does better than the liberal media. The liberals have two dedicated comedy shows dedicated to laughing at the concervatives and their lies. One of the biggest lies is the democrats "tax and spend", when the truth is the opposite, the republicans spend way more, look at the facts. Socialism is just a word that means nothing. Without it, we wouldn't have a great country.

What completely, utterly blows my mind about this clip is the repeated insistence this would appeal to the Tea Partiers, who are very often very religious. Does the Tea Party/Fox realize Ayn Rand was probably more atheist than Karl Marx, and advocated extra-marital affairs so long as it's not hidden from your spouse? (Google Nathaniel Branden!) Good times!

>> ^heropsycho:

What completely, utterly blows my mind about this clip is the repeated insistence this would appeal to the Tea Partiers, who are very often very religious. Does the Tea Party/Fox realize Ayn Rand was probably more atheist than Karl Marx, and advocated extra-marital affairs so long as it's not hidden from your spouse? (Google Nathaniel Branden!) Good times!


What? In order to realize that, first one must be at least somewhat literate, and second one must be able and willing to do some research into actual facts. Neither of these follows the party's platform.

Those TP'ers who do realize such are usually more manipulators than believers, and don't really care what the facts are.

The movie failed because it had no distribution deal. It opened on 299 screens. Thor opened on 3,955 screens. It is also the lack of a distribution deal that prevented an advertising budget.

After all the negative press, my expectations were quite low. So when I found it to be quite watchable, I was pleasantly surprised. It is quite flawed in a number of ways, but the abuse it is taking is without merit, and probably politically motivated. I recommend it to anybody who has read the book without feeling the need to vomit. My personal opinions partially agree with Objectivist philosophy, so I didn't find the book as revolting as many do. My nit-picks with the film are pretty much the same as any book to screen adaptation. Too much plot, not enough character development, things left out or glossed over, that sort of thing.

@shuac - When have you ever seen the per screen metric used on something other than a span of days? Even on boxofficemojo where you got your numbers, it shows the per screen over the opening weekend. Perhaps you are talking about the numbers that get discussed by movie insiders, but as far as the public goes, per screen is always combined Fri-Mon. The only time I have ever seen it discussed on a per-day basis is when a major blockbuster does fantastic numbers on a weekday, and somebody compares those days to the weekend numbers specifically to show how a movie is packing seats during the week. A rare exception.

Can you say "word of mouth"? Word of mouth kept folks away, not some liberal plot.

The. Market. Has. Spoken.

>> ^MaxWilder:

The movie failed because it had no distribution deal. It opened on 299 screens. Thor opened on 3,955 screens. It is also the lack of a distribution deal that prevented an advertising budget.
After all the negative press, my expectations were quite low. So when I found it to be quite watchable, I was pleasantly surprised. It is quite flawed in a number of ways, but the abuse it is taking is without merit, and probably politically motivated. I recommend it to anybody who has read the book without feeling the need to vomit. My personal opinions partially agree with Objectivist philosophy, so I didn't find the book as revolting as many do. My nit-picks with the film are pretty much the same as any book to screen adaptation. Too much plot, not enough character development, things left out or glossed over, that sort of thing.
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/shuac" title="member since March 6th, 2008" class="profilelink">shuac - When have you ever seen the per screen metric used on something other than a span of days? Even on boxofficemojo where you got your numbers, it shows the per screen over the opening weekend. Perhaps you are talking about the numbers that get discussed by movie insiders, but as far as the public goes, per screen is always combined Fri-Mon. The only time I have ever seen it discussed on a per-day basis is when a major blockbuster does fantastic numbers on a weekday, and somebody compares those days to the weekend numbers specifically to show how a movie is packing seats during the week. A rare exception.

As far as this F&F clip, yeah, sickeningly obvious puff piece. The number of screens did go up a bit in the second weekend, then fell off. It will hang around for a while only because of independent theaters who are run by conservative owners.

To compare the per screen numbers he said were "staggering":

Atlas Shrugged opening weekend: $5,640 per screen (299 screens)
Same weekend's number one movie, Rio: $10,252 per screen (3,826 screens)
Fast Five opening weekend: $23,655 per screen (3,644 theaters)

It's only staggering when you were expecting absolutely nobody to see the film.