Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Invictus

"Atlas Shrugged" Movie

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

The good thing about those comments is that they're so out of whack that they'll be dismissed by newcomers to Objectivism who watch the trailer. Another good thing is the 1000+ "Likes" vs 500 or so "Dislikes".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I don't expect that will be the case for most people--but if they are attacking it that hard there, it will probably be attacked elsewhere (like on the trailer page for the movie itself) with the same "talking points".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read through a lot of comments on the YouTube page. There seems to be an orchestrated effort on the left to push three or four things: the line that Ayn Rand was infatuated with some mass murderer, the thing about her accepting social security, some quote comparing it to lord of the rings, and people complaining part 2 will be the speech. The fact that there are multiple iterations of Part 2 will be the speech (no one gets it right; whatever speech there will be is in part 3) tells me they are all being spoonfed by some orchestrator. No sooner does someone refute the point and it drops down about 200 comments, than somone else posts the same comment--verbatim.

The left is after this one big time.

...So, a regurgitation of every single ass-hatted smear ignorant twats try to use to discredit Rand? In bleating gibbering droves? In reply to something in praise of her? And on YouTube no less?

Seems fairly par for the course.

I honestly find that the acting and direction is all over the place. Rearden and Eddie look decent, but Dagny is wooden, and a lot of the lines are delivered in very... odd fashions. The cinematography looks sharp though. I would comment here that sharp colors and nice camera work stapled to poor performances and a shoddy script can't win you an Oscar, but, well, Avatar.

Looks like a C job, overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point was that it appeared to be an orchestrated campaign--and I think we'll see more of the same.

I agree about "Dagny". I don't see that she is performed well. Also, it is of course a mistake for her to be claiming she is gambling on the metal--it's clear in the book that she has *confidence*--justified confidence--in the metal. And this line about destroying someone...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point was that it appeared to be an orchestrated campaign--and I think we'll see more of the same.

I agree about "Dagny". I don't see that she is performed well. Also, it is of course a mistake for her to be claiming she is gambling on the metal--it's clear in the book that she has *confidence*--justified confidence--in the metal. And this line about destroying someone...?

Ya but Rearden's response is good - "I'm staking my business on it." However, I do think there will be lots of details that are wrong just because it doesn't seem most people examine the book or the philosophy in much detail. I hope just for some good concrete instances that make the book's ideas more real to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha, that's an interesting case of coming to a correct conclusion for entirely the wrong reason!

Just because someone was previously a TV actor doesn't mean they can't do movies.

However, in previous talks of making a screen project from the book (mind you YEARS ago, before these actors were even being considered), many, I believe including Rand herself, thought that a mini-series would be the best way to go about it (simply because it would allow for more material).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let the haters pour their vitriol on it. People with any desire to check their premises won't listen - and the people who conform with what everyone else thinks won't benefit from the movie anyway.

The more the haters spew hate, the more attention the movie gets, the more people with working minds will think, "What the heck is all of this really about?"

Not everyone who sees it will be inspired to learn more either - and that's ok too.

We're not missionaries. We're not out to save the world. We're out to save ourselves. We only need thinkers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone else find that "If you double cross me, I will destroy you." line more fit for an Oliver Stone villain than an AR hero?

I understand that a novel doesn't translate onto film without some adaptations. Even so, I'm dissapointed that I didn't recognize much dialogue. "If we want to take down Rearden we've got to do it from the inside." Is this to let us know who Mouch is? Or a set up for the Unification Plan? Isn't there a less obvious way to accomplish this?

I would rather have seen movie with a truer script (not that I've seen anything more than the trailer) -- this lets the force of Rand's own words, not just her ideas, impact the viewer. Mouch can be shown to be an inside man, or the "bad guys" can be shown to be out for Rearden, without having to add such an unconvincing line.

In the novel I don't recall Ellis Wyatt yelling at Dagny when they first meet. The full force of his emotion was conveyed in his words, even more so I'd say by his CONTROL of emotion coupled with those steady words. I don't know if this was a failure of the director of the actor, but the Wyatt I've seen so far is a FAR CRY from the Wyatt I've read about... and I fear that's how I'll feel about this movie, in general, if I decide to see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In general, my view on movie adaptations of novels is this: the script and dialogue is already written, it's the job of the directors and actors to realize it. I understand the need to add some supporting dialogue or lines, if a lengthy or particularly abstract narrative cannot be tanslated otherwise.

Consider the scene when Rearden walks home one night, contemplating his life in general (when he imagines "Rearden Life"). Not a word was spoken by him in the novel. And I understand that a movie can't just have a man walking alone at night, appearing to be thoughtful. So how to translate that scene into a movie? I'm no director, but I can picture a sort of hazy-around-the-edges memory montage, with the audience hearing Rearden narrate his own thoughts; or even less explicitly, perhaps just showing us visually his thoughts via his neon signs (amongst other visual clues, as well as sounds/music), ending with "Rearden Life" and implying their meaning to the audience. I'm sure there are better ways than what I've just mentioned. But I can imagine in this movie an entire replacement scene, where Rearden and Dagny perhaps have dinner (or are met elsewhere for whatever reason) and Rearden merely shares his thoughts out loud to Dagny, as a device to reveal to the audience what was revealed in the novel. That's the same level of obviousness (as well as the level of artistic laziness, imho) I see in the "We've got to get him from the inside" scene from the trailer.

Jesus Christ, what a piece to work with! Based on this trailer, I feel like watching this movie would be like expecting the Stoddard Temple, but instead getting his Home for Sub-normal Children. I am almost afraid to see it. Nonetheless, I do hope that the complete production surpases my expectations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not like the trailer. It's difficult to articulate why , other than to say I sensed I was watching a video clip produced by www.theonion.com (with the same caliber actors). It contained all the proper ingredients; it just wasn't baked right.

Edited by Socionomer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the whole the trailer feels better than I had expected, however it's still solidly in "wait and see" territory.

A few bits that make me cringe:

-That longggggg opening line of clunky dialogue. You can feel him running out of breath to spit it all out.

-Out of place guitar riffs. Hollywood has such a boner for edgy guitar riffs in trailers lately, but it didn't work in Clash of the Titans and its way out of place here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the line at the beginning is a little clunky, would have been better to say "I am the man who loves his life" or something like that.

I thought the trailer looked pretty good, better then expected. I didn't notice the portrayal of Dagny as bad at all (I'm neutral), but I thought Rearden was quite well done (if perhaps a bit too happy, but I liked it nevertheless). As for Wyatt- he's a little old, but I always got the sense he was an intense sort of man in the book (so while perhaps he didn't yell in the book, I thought it sort of suited him- he did blow up his oil field after all). And finally, for that "take down Rearden from the inside", I don't see why it's bad really (indeed, if they play it right, with no one actually referring to Mouch directly, like they kind of did in the book there, it could be good).

Indeed, the only thing I could possibly see that might be a problem is the feel of it. However, things did get progressively worse as the book went on. Things weren't horrible in Part 1, not really (and they could give little hints that aren't really addressed specifically in dialogue about the world's problems in Part 1, which from what I've read is what they plan to do).

Overall, I am cautiously optimistic about how this movie will turn out. I just wish/hope it could get a nationwide distribution (maybe for September 2nd after its April 15 limited release?, idk) so they could make enough money to make the rest of them (which will definitely need larger budgets than part 1).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for Wyatt- he's a little old, but I always got the sense he was an intense sort of man in the book (so while perhaps he didn't yell in the book, I thought it sort of suited him- he did blow up his oil field after all).

Intense? Absolutely. But in the novel, Wyatt "won" in that scene not because he out-shouted Dagny, but because of the intensity of the words he spoke: intense, not because he was angry, but intense because they were weighted with truth and reason. Indeed, characters restraining intense emotions is a mini-motif played throughout the novel. What does it tell about the movie if they change Ellis Wyatt from the measured producer who refuses to live on "their" terms into the (seemingly) hot-headed oil field blower-upper?

Will they change the scene where Rearden hits Francisco in Dagny's apartment into a fist fight? Or will they instead zoom in on his hand on the table and have Dagny say "Wow Francisco I can see how hard it is for you to keep yourself from hitting him back, it must be because you know he's falling for your playboy act and according to that setup he had every right to hit you...."

I hate to knock an entire 6-hour production based on a two-minute trailer, but those fake mash-up trailers that are out there seem to hit the artistic target with much more accuracy and skill, while this one seems to... well, de-rail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider the scene when Rearden walks home one night, contemplating his life in general (when he imagines "Rearden Life"). Not a word was spoken by him in the novel. And I understand that a movie can't just have a man walking alone at night, appearing to be thoughtful. So how to translate that scene into a movie? I'm no director, but I can picture a sort of hazy-around-the-edges memory montage, with the audience hearing Rearden narrate his own thoughts; or even less explicitly, perhaps just showing us visually his thoughts via his neon signs (amongst other visual clues, as well as sounds/music), ending with "Rearden Life" and implying their meaning to the audience.

Of course now all I can see in my mind's eye is that scene from Boogie Nights where the kid dreams up the pron name Dirk Diggler and imagines it in exploding neon lights. But with Readen <_<

All the clips I've scene of this and the interviews I've read tell me this is going to be awful on a level rarely achieved.

I'm talking Showgirls without the gratuitous nudity. Or the camp factor.

I'm torn. On the one hand I want to see it out of morbid curiousity. On the other hand I don't want to give these people a dime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course now all I can see in my mind's eye is that scene from Boogie Nights where the kid dreams up the pron name Dirk Diggler and imagines it in exploding neon lights. But with Readen <_<

All the clips I've scene of this and the interviews I've read tell me this is going to be awful on a level rarely achieved.

I'm talking Showgirls without the gratuitous nudity. Or the camp factor.

I'm torn. On the one hand I want to see it out of morbid curiousity. On the other hand I don't want to give these people a dime.

And that's a crying shame that we, who had great expectations that a great movie could be made from a great book, may ultimately not get to see such movie.

We get a TV star from a cancelled FOX show "Mercy" playing the role of Dagny Taggert. We get a very young (or he seems so) actor playing the very important part of Hank Rearden. We get an inexperienced director and a cheesy looking trailer.

Fans of Rand deserve much, much better. This was her most important book!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com/atlas-shrugged-movie-scene-henry-rearden-comes-home

Selected scene from the movie - Rearden comes home. I thought they captured Lillian's reception to the bracelet PERFECTLY.

That was a great scene. It made me feel sad for Rearden like I did when reading the book. Which then makes you ask "Why does he put up with it?" which leads straight on to the ethical code that's destroying society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm impressed; that scene was exectuted perfectly. I especially liked the meeting between Rearden and Phillip. My expectations of the full movie have increased.

Incidentally, I think there's something oddly sympathetic about the actor that plays Paul Larkin. Can't put my finger on what.

Edited by ENikolai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com/atlas-shrugged-movie-scene-henry-rearden-comes-home

Selected scene from the movie - Rearden comes home. I thought they captured Lillian's reception to the bracelet PERFECTLY.

I agree, Lillian did do a good job. I wasn't overly fond of Rearden though. Its been a few years since I read AS, granted, but I remember him being a lot more earnest about wanting to try and make his family happy, and his family being a lot more condescending, particularly his brother. In this he just seems mildly annoyed with them and they largely apathetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, Lillian did do a good job. I wasn't overly fond of Rearden though. Its been a few years since I read AS, granted, but I remember him being a lot more earnest about wanting to try and make his family happy, and his family being a lot more condescending, particularly his brother. In this he just seems mildly annoyed with them and they largely apathetic.

Not at first, IIRC. At first he tends to accept their rebukes as proper and in turn they aren't quite so harsh with him. As he starts to understand what Francisco is telling him through the book he becomes less interested in appeasement and they in turn get nastier.

That's how I recall it anyway...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's good to see that the movie is getting some publicity. Here's an article in this morning's Washington Times: http://www.washingto...as-fans/?page=1

Another article, this one by conservative Cal Thomas on TownHall.com: http://townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/2011/04/14/atlas_shrugged_the_movie

Edited by gags

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...