Atlas Shrugged getting several movies

Yeah, no surprise. And the sad thing is they're the only ones really in any mood to even go out of their way to talk about it on Amazon, IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, anything with user ratings and input, you name it; nobody else out there wants to bother seeing these movies or, on top of that, giving input on it or assigning their own rating. Notice how few users on these sites are posting ratings and reviews compared to figures ten times that amount or greater that get drawn in by any real movie that's released—not just the pet project for some film industry novice millionaire that can't find a better way to blow away millions of dollars.

Practically nobody is watching these movies or giving any real form of critical analysis of these movies (even this thread largely consists of just scoffing at the mere existence of these things and their box office shortcomings), except for the choir toward which is being preached.

edited 28th Feb '13 8:32:17 PM by SeanMurrayI

Well, Part III has finally been announced, and if you had already lost faith in the Atlas Shrugged film franchise after Parts I & II, the financial backers want to win back your trust with a Youtube video giving insight into their production meetings in preparation of this final cinematic chapter.

This is truly special.

We open with a title card, "Harmon Kaslow... discusses the challenges of adapting the book for Part III". A good start, knowing that John Galt's climactic speech (and surely a centerpiece of a Part III in this sort of a trilogy) would certainly provide some challenge. Obvious questions for this discussion (even in the minds of those who only have the vaguest understanding of the narrative, like myself) could include: "How do we go about trimming a speech that takes six hours to recite down to 10-15 minutes of a 90-120 minute movie?", "How do we make such a preachy setpiece palatable to those new to Rand's ideas (or have not yet discovered them) while remaining true to the devout purists?", "Do we have to beat our audience over the head as severely as Rand had originally done, even when most anybody who would watch this shit already believes in the message?", and "Does it even matter what we do? We could fit our entire paying audience inside the Staples Center, and they'd show up no matter what."

On the contrary, Mr. Kaslow instead puts forth the following groundbreaking ideas for this adaptation:

• We can lift dialogue from the book to fit in the movie.
• We can lift scenes from the story to fit in the movie.
• We can convey the message of the book in the movie.

How substantial. After all the shortcomings of the first two movies (from both production and box office standpoints), I'm sure all the Randroids have regained their confidence in this production team, who are surely going to be taking their prized novel in new, bold directions.

Oh, and they had a mouse cursor take part in the discussion, too, @ 1:37-1:49.

And last, but not least, my man, exec producer John Aglialoro, who I trust to know a thing or two about investing money wisely after failing to make back, at least, half of a $10 million budget on Part II gives us this quotable gem:

Yes, because nothing speaks of "professionalism" and being "collaborative" like being willing to intermittently contract six people for one incredibly short-term job while giving the sack and dishing out severance pay for five of them.

edited 11th Sep '13 9:52:59 PM by SeanMurrayI

Wait... someone made a part 2? Does it have pirates in it or did that get cut?

I need to ask, has anyone here actually watched these movies? And, if so, how is the experience of watching them?

Rotpar said a few words on the previous page about having streamed Part I, after it was illegally uploaded to Youtube last October. He didn't seem to find much enjoyment in it.

The real highlight from the Youtube debacle (before Atlas Productions flagged it for copyright infringement), however, was in reading the numerous user comments from people who (apparently) approve of Ayn Rand's message but were, in fact, grateful that this was uploaded by somebody who was not the rightful creator of the work yet was essentially giving it away for free and felt proud to be taking a "pro-capitalist action" by watching the movie in this fashion.

edited 5th Jun '13 3:46:22 PM by SeanMurrayI

It was apparently so bad that even fans of the book disliked it. Well, some fans. The sort of fans that complain any time a movie adaptation removes something important to them from the book, especially this kind of book.

edited 5th Jun '13 4:56:47 PM by Nettacki

I've watched Parts I and II, both streamable on Netflix. Technically the second part is subtitled "The Strike", and isn't made by the same company that made Part I, even though it picks up the story, and of course, has an entirely different cast.

To be specific, Part I was made by "Atlas Productions". Part II was made by "Atlas 2 Productions".

I really don't know what to think of it all. Part II does have d'Anconia's "Money is the Root of all Evil" speech, even though it's pared down to less than 5 minutes. It was also funny to see Robin Scherbatzky's father as the US Head of State.

I'm tempted to argue that the disjointed, uncollaberative mess that they made is an echo of the story's themes put into practice. Filmmaking, like any other large-scale enterprise, is inherently collaborative. If you get a bunch of people who adhere to the "my way or the highway" mentality, you're going to accomplish nothing.

I agree with Roger Ebert's review. It was just dull, emotionless, aimless, and not even bad enough to be funny. I really had no strong emotional reaction to it at all. In that sense, they're true to the book. The characters are both too perfect and too self-absorbed that I didn't feel sympathy for any of them.

Anyway, Part II ends with Dagny crashing in Galt's Gulch and finally meeting John Galt in person. The way they film and score the scene it's almost like she's meeting Jesus; a highly ironic presentation, I think.

edited 24th Jul '13 9:50:50 AM by Lawyerdude

Technically, given that these movies are being produced independently by the adaptation rights owner John Aglialoro (who does not work in the movie industry by trade and has no ties to any movie production houses), there is no actual "company" making any of these movies, period.

The "company" names "Atlas Productions, LLC", "Atlas 2 Productions, LLC", and "Atlas 3 Productions, LLC" only mean that Aglialoro is keeping separate financial books for all three particular movies and isn't investing in setting up an actual production house that would work full-time on multitudes of projects. Aglialoro just wants to adapt the book for which he own the rights, and he wants to avoid having an entire film trilogy count as a business loss towards one single entity.

I can't imagine why he would do that. I'm not a tax or accounting specialist, but I don't know why he would structure it like this. If a single entity suffers a total loss, you can't write the excess off against profits from another entity, as far as I know. Unless he's got some very good accountants working for him.

What is his motivation? To tell the story, to make a profit, both, either or neither? If he wants to go the whole Uwe Boll route and make a series of Ayn Rand films that tank in the hopes of pulling a Springtime for Hitler, more power to him, I guess.

Aglialoro's principal motivation (at least, initially, when he put Part I into production) was just to get a movie made before he'd lose the rights to do so (Aglialoro had already been sitting on the adaptation rights to Atlas Shrugged for 20 years prior to that point, and the rights agreement was close to expiring, unless he actually made a movie; kinda like the situation Bernd Eichinger was in when he commissioned that Fantastic Four movie in 1994, except Aglialoro actually released the movie afterward). After that, I think his aim is just to finish adapting the book by any means possible.

As far as WHY Aglialoro set up a different LLC for each movie... Your guess is as good as mine. Hell, when news of a trailer for Part I broke, the Atlas Shrugged: Part I title card at the end named the "company" involved in its making as "The Strike" Productions, so Atlas Productions, LLC wasn't even an official name for anything when Part I was in the filming stage!

As convoluted as Aglialoro is making this part of filmmaking out to be though, I think it might be a sign that this will be the first trilogy every where all cast roles and crew positions are refilled between each installment. According to IM Db, the only people involved in all three chapters of this trilogy, apart from Aglialoro, are his co-producer Harmon Kaslow, screenwriter Brian Patrick O'Toole (who has collaborated on these scripts with, at least, one other writer per film), and the founder of the Atlas Society, David Kelley, acting as a script consultant.

edited 11th Sep '13 8:39:16 PM by SeanMurrayI

Clearly John Aglialoro is either a mad genius, or he's just trolling film nerds. Or both.

You're giving him too much credit.

Although, despite its defects, it does manage to keep the plot running fairly well, and it hits on the major elements from the book. I don't see how even the greatest filmmaker of all time could make "This is John Galt Speaking" even remotely watchable. It's a voice over a radio droning away for hours on end. Unless you dig up Sir Laurence Olivier or something.

The Fountainhead was already made into a movie. If you want a movie espousing Rand's <ahem> philosophy, either make that again or invent a whole original story.

Do a Bioshock movie that deconstructs Bioshock and reconstructs Rand.

Alternatively, animated musical Anthem for the kiddies.

Get Rush to make another concept album based on Atlus Shrugged.

edited 27th Jul '13 6:24:44 PM by Nettacki

Rand's philosophy was already deconstructed in a documentary called The Smartest Men in the Room, about the whole Enron debacle.

Surely, in Part III, John Galt would be invited as a guest by Sean Hannity on his NOT FOX News program just to liven things up just a bit.

edited 29th Jul '13 1:24:58 PM by SeanMurrayI

I also noticed how they updated the time. It now clearly takes place in an alternate present or near-future, where oil shortages have caused the abandonment of long-range air travel and the resurgence of railroads. I assume that the original novel took place in an alternate 1950s or the near-future.

The politics of the book and film raise a lot of questions. For example, instead of the President of the United States, he's called the Head of State. I know that was present in the book, and she never called Congress by its name, just "the Legislature". The US government in the book and film are really removed from how they work in the real world, which tells me that the "point of divergence" between the story and the real world would have to be significantly earlier than the time they're set.

I remember one theory that argued the point of divergence in the book was pre-World War II. Perhaps the film takes place In a World… where the Soviet Union never broke up. Or maybe the massive political changes were brought on suddenly because of the global oil shortage outlined in the first part's opening.

I'm not sure that makes sense. Even with expensive oil, I'm pretty sure rail travel would be less efficient for many things than air travel, due to the expense of laying out track.

I looked at it again last night. It explicitly begins in late 2016, and the opening screens say that the Middle East has imposed an oil embargo on the US.

Of course the book, and by extensions the movie, depend a whole lot on Strawmen in order to happen.

Again?!? Even as someone who has rewatched something as unfathomably stupid as Johnny Mnemonic countless times, I'm incredulous that anyone would watch THESE movies multiple times.

edited 31st Jul '13 9:41:33 AM by SeanMurrayI

For certain definitions of "watch". In my case, it's more "put on as background noise while I do something else."

I support you could play the Atlas Shrugged drinking game.

Rule 1: Drink as much as you can while watching Atlas Shrugged.

Rule 2: Quit when you start to enjoy the movie.

edited 31st Jul '13 10:47:57 AM by Lawyerdude

I take it from Rule 2 that these movies don't lend themselves too well to riffing and mocking with fratboy derision a la standard MST 3 K fare.

That's what I most feared about these movies, already—that watching them is an intensively laborious chore, even when pissed drunk.

Yes, like I said, these movies aren't even bad enough to be fun to riff on. It's why I like so many The Asylum movies, or Showgirls or The Room. They're so over the top awful that they wrap back around into comedy. And Atlas Shrugged isn't even good enough where you can nitpick out certain issues or problems but enjoy the film as a whole.

For example, the actors themselves are all right. They're mainly veteran, professional TV actors who probably just did it for the paycheck. They work with what they have, which honestly isn't much. At some points it seems like they're sleepwalking through their roles.

From a technical standpoint, the film isn't that bad. The set designs, costuming, sound, props, cinematography and so on are just fine and believable. I actually liked a lot of the visual elements.

But no matter how good your actors are or how well the technical is, the story, plot and dialogue just aren't engaging.

I suppose that's the lesson you can take from this. Story, characters, and dialogue matter. Make the audience care. I've seen plenty of cheap movies and TV shows that were ten times more engaging because of the story.

edited 31st Jul '13 1:04:23 PM by Lawyerdude

Ever since I first laid eyes on the trailer for 'Part I' every single facet of these movies strikes me as comparable to the quality of the stuff churned out by Golden Era Productions—the media branch of the Church of Scientology.

(1) The visual elements and effects strike me as trying to emulate Hollywood sheen and lavishness but can't hide the fact that its all a much cheaper imitation and is a lot more gaudy that it appears. Without even doing a lick of research about shooting locations, I'm almost convinced that large chunks of these movies are filmed in Aglialoro's own high-end real estate (if not, an equally wealthy friend's or associate's).

(2) Everything is driven by an underlying philosophy/ethos/etc. that gets beaten over an audience's head through substantial, droning exposition, dialog, and testimonial. In Part II's case, they've even built up a much more eclectic mix of "celebrity" to draw the gullible in. "What's this? Sean Hannity, Biff Tannen, Leland Palmer, Alex Mack, Teller (but not Penn), The Emergency Medical Hologram & More (Including, funny enough, Ex-Scientologist Jason Beghe) have an important societal message that I must hear? Sign me up!"

edited 1st Aug '13 9:51:49 AM by SeanMurrayI