Atlas Shrugged getting several movies

I'd say the correct answer is a poor adaptation of a poor book. Not a fan of the novel but there were a few decent scenes and characters in it. I liked Reardon, he's a man of principals who stands up to insane, cartoonish opposition. Movie Reardon was just a smug jerkass because of the actor.

"But don't give up hope. Everyone is cured sooner or later. In the end we shall shoot you." - O'Brien, 1984

I'd watch almost anything by Robert Rodriguez that didn't involve child spies and numbers greater than 1 in the title.

"War without fire is like sausages without mustard." - Jean Juvénal des Ursins

There's your John Galt casting right there.◊

I'm a skeptical squirrel

I'd watch Atlas Shrugged if it had more Mix-and-Match Critters.

Really, the best chance this story ever had was making a miniseries. There is just so much to digest in the novel that there's really no hope of making it both faithful and marketable. A miniseries would have given them the time they needed to tell this story and do the soapbox stuff.

Who would you sell said miniseries to? Well, obviously they never figured it out. It's a tough sell.

"But don't give up hope. Everyone is cured sooner or later. In the end we shall shoot you." - O'Brien, 1984

No, a miniseries would suffer from most of the same problems as a film trilogy, and, in some likelihood, could face additional problems in having to leave room each installment for commercial breaks. Although, I have to admit, the multiple 43-minute long chapters that would be demanded to "faithfully" cover Galt's speech would be a hell of a lot "better" with cuts to commercials.

edited 8th Oct '13 7:49:00 PM by SeanMurrayI

Although today, in the age of on-demand and full series release on Hulu/Netflix, such a project wouldn't be totally impossible. I binge-watched Breaking Bad and thought it was better than if I had watched it as it came out.

The thing is, in a book as dialogue-heavy as Atlas Shrugged, who can sit around and watch a many-hours-long monologue? Perhaps if it was presented in more of a documentary form?

Atlas Shrugged: Part III', directed by Ken Burns.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

Here's a blank check and some hookers. MAKE THAT MOVIE!

If they made it into a series, I'd think the monologue could be split up over the episodes and intercut between the action, or perhaps being the opener and closer of each episode. By the end of the series, the entire speech would possibly be done.

Insert witty 'n clever quip here.

That could potentially work. Rather than go by chronological order, go with a How Did We Get Here type story. Begin with the world on the brink of falling apart, start with everybody listening to "This Is John Galt Speaking", and then run back and forth through the story showing what led up to that.

If the massive Author Tract does track what happens in the story, that could actually improve the storytelling. Or, intersperse portions of the speech with scenes from the story that highlight the particular point he was trying to make. You'd probably have to cut and paste the speech itself to fit with the storyline.

Based on what's come at this point, I would imagine that's how the third and final part would have to be shot. Part II was bookended with Dagny crashing in Galt's Gulch. So Part III could begin and end in a similar matter.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

Okay, I have no interest in this movie whatsoever but I have one question. Is it true that they're resorting to using Kickstarter to fund part three after the first two bombed?

No, they say that the third film is completely funded. The Kickstarter thing is for fans to show their devotion by shoveling over their money in return for some fanboy stuff.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

And opening a Kickstarter project is a more practical means of just doing this than setting up a store on the production's main website... which they already have, anyway.

They need more money to finish this movie just as much as they still need a goddamned cast, crew, and director. Part III's production is a bigger mess than the previous two movies combined. The producers first projected to begin filming two weeks ago; they should be busy getting scenes shot and printed as we speak, if they're still going to be on time for their desired 4th of July opening. Instead, they're dicking around with making extra cash on KICKSTARTER (which also means they owe a percentage of what they make to Kickstarter, when they could've just promoted THEIR OWN STORE THAT THEY ALREADY HAVE and keep every dime for themselves; bunch of GENIUSES).

edited 14th Oct '13 2:30:20 PM by SeanMurrayI

Okay. I heard about the Kickstarter thing and I thought the people making this movie had no damn clue what the actual message of the book is.

Wait, it's supposed to have started filming already but they don't have a cast at all? What the hell?

Well, to be fair, they're not asking for "donations" on Kickstarter, they're selling things like the right to attend the premier. Whether the prices they're asking is worth it is a question for the buyer. It seems totally in line with Rand's thinking. Use whatever advantage you have to squeeze as much money out of people willing to give it to you. Then laugh all the way to the bank. Preferably while holding big bags with dollar signs on them.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

I know, I'm saying that initially I thought they were just asking for donations which is something that violated Rand's "Greed is good" philosophy.

Saint Rand spent the last few years living on social security so it isn't that big of a stretch.

4x Yes, the original timetable that was reported detailed an Autumn 2013 film shoot, which would give post-production departments more than half a year to get the movie out by Independence Day 2014, but if they still haven't named a cast, crew, or director NOW, there's not going to be any way they're gonna be able to start filming until January, by my earliest estimation.

& It's not just the idea that they're getting around the whole "Kickstarter is for project-funding donations" thing by claiming it as something else; it's that they'd have to pay the Kickstarter website a percentage of the money they raise just for having the project up, anyway, when they could still just sell tickets to a premiere event screening^note Even though this is an odd thing to be doing, anyway, because there's no way the movie's potential audience (or the people that they're expecting to find interest in this over the INTERNET) is so localized that they'd all be living within a relatively short driving distance from whatever theater would be picked to host an event. Are these "not donations" also including booked hotel and air travel expenses for anyone who would have to travel from as far away as, say, New York to Los Angeles to make it to the screening they already paid for, or are they just handing out the theater tickets and expect everybody who pays for them that CAN'T get there by car in a shorter time than the movie's projected length to just figure shit out for themselves? through their own website and keep more money for themselves.

EDIT: Mind, if they are offering tickets to a premiere screening at exorbitant prices, the money that would be going to Atlas III Productions, LLC is just going to have to be reinvested in the costs for renting out whatever theater that will be paying host to their private party, anyway. It still pans out as a fan-donated expenditure.

edited 15th Oct '13 7:34:07 PM by SeanMurrayI

I had an odd thought about Rand's naming scheme. You ever notice how the names of Rand's characters seem to follow some sort of pattern to them. Their names seem to have a distinctive "sound" or "feel" to them, at least it seems so to me.

Anyway, I noticed that a common element is that her characters either have a single syllable or, in the case of multisyllabic names, are either trochees or dactyls. I.e., they emphasize the first syllable over the second and third (if any).

Dagny Taggart, Orren Boyle, Wesley Mouch, Hank Rearden, Ken Dannagger, Midas Mulligan, Richard Halley, etc. etc.

The only exception it seems is Francisco d'Anconia, whose first and last names are amphibrachs. (Thank you Wikipedia).

I don't know if it was deliberate or a coincidence.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

Say, for once, a new name has FINALLY been added to Part III's credit listings on IMDb... a special thanks.

Likely someone who donated to the Kickstarter campaign who took it upon himself to add that notice to his own IMDb profile.

So, to recap...

• Still no principal cast or crew named.
• The projected start for a Fall 2013 film shoot has already been missed by over a month (and will probably be further delayed until well after the end of the winter holidays, if not the entire winter season, by this point)
• The Kickstarter campaign for a supposedly "already funded" project now looks like an even bigger lie, and the additional half-a-million dollars hasn't done anything to help move the project any further forward than where it was already without the donor support of gullible idiots.

Assuming the producers are still committed to a 4th of July 2014 release, I look forward to seeing how the mad scramble to grind through the film shoot at the start of the new year and the subsequent rush through various post-production houses (only leaving behind a hurried, muddled final project) will cause more harm to them at the box office through self-infliction than anything those nasty critics and mainstream, liberal thinkers may have done to previous films.

edited 8th Nov '13 7:30:34 AM by SeanMurrayI

I just noticed that Netflix lists AS 1&2 under the "Sci-Fi & Fantasy" and "Political Thriller" categories and describes them as "Cerebral", "Controversial" and "Suspenseful." I'd say they're accurate about the Science Fiction part, but "Political Thriller"? In the same category as The Hunt For Red October and The Constant Gardener?

edited 30th Nov '13 12:45:53 PM by Lawyerdude

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

From that, I'm just amused that the films being commercial flops and almost universally panned by critics gets the franchise labeled as "controversial".

"Controversial" doesn't really mean anything anymore. Now it's just a label to entice people to see something they may not be interested in otherwise. In the olden days, "controversial" meant that it caused some sort of major public disagreement. Nowadays they'll label anything that people may dislike as "controversial". I get especially irritated when the creators of something advertise a new thing as "The Controversial New Work by so-and-so," before it's even been released.

Reasonable people know that neither the novel nor the films are nearly as monocle-popping as Rand's supporters would have you believe.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

Y'know, I might just see this film when it's released on Netflix. (Not in theaters. No way in hell am I directly giving money to Objectivists if I can help it.) Honestly, with this much going against it, this movie is probably going to be one of the most spectacular failures of Film since Sharknado.

Hey, Sharknado, to its credit, provides SPECTACLE, and its filmmakers made use of film as a VISUAL medium to give viewers something to look at.

On the other hand, all you get with Atlas Shrugged movies is dumb talk, talk, talk with very little action occurring before the camera to ever catch the eye. I shouldn't even have to remind anyone that the climax of this story is a monologue, and the only thing anyone who watches Part III has to look forward to is MORE TALKING.

These two kinds of beasts just don't compare. One is made for gathering with some friends and downing a couple beers and having some laughs. The other is dull, unenjoyable torture.

edited 28th Nov '13 6:24:56 PM by SeanMurrayI