I don't think the movies are comparable. Atlas Strugged received overwhelmingly negative reviews for poor writing, lackluster acting, and bad filming and editing processes. Miss Sloane was an absolute darling of the reviewers and has already been nominated for awards.
Of course they can be compared. I could give a rats ass about the reviewers. This has to be do about the story overall and the actors in the roles.
The plot of Atlas Shrugged and its sequels is mind-numbing boring. Its from a far right wacko book about freaking trains! You try explaining that to people when trying to get them to go see it. And then the actors in it.. B-actors at best.. top name Taylor Schilling, who most will say who?... including me. Had to google her before I realised it was the chick from an Orange is a the New Black.
Now this "Miss Sloane" movie. Title is yawn, a total failure to describe the plot. I am more reminded of Miss Congeniality, a comedy than anything else. Secondly the plot and the trailers look and sound more like a Saturday TV movie than something you would want to pay massive amount of money to go see in a noisy and smelly cinema. Now compared to Atlas Shrugged, at least they have some sort of name recognition in Jessica Chastain, but lets be brutally honest here.. no one goes to watch a movie with Jessica Chastain as the main lead. Yes she was okay in Zero Dark Thirty, but most of her successful movies have been as a supporting actress and until she finds THE role that will take her out of that category and maintain it, then that is what people will see in her... a supporting role... if they even know her. She is not exactly a household name.
Miss Sloane cost 13 million to make, and got 3.3 million in the US. Once its international run (if any) and its streaming income (and DVD sales) are incorporated, then it will mostly be close to break even.
The Atlas series cost 35 million to make and made around 9 million.... dunno about DVDs or streaming, but it did not go overseas (both Boxoffice Mojo and other sites have zero overseas income). I cant find it on any streaming services here.
Both movies had failure (as defined in big box office opening weekend) written all over them before they were even released, but considering their low budgets it is not a big deal.
It is funny when we talk box office hits.. Waterworld often quoted as one of the biggest failures in movie history and while it only made 88 million in the US on a budget of 175 million, the foreign box office totalled 176 million, so it actually made a nice profit. Ironic no? Or the biggest bomb of all time (for many).. John Carter. 263 million budget but only 73 million in box office in the US. Problem is, it raked in an additional 211 million overseas and actually gave a profit.. go figure. People tend to forget overseas income still... something that they should not