Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Invictus

"Atlas Shrugged" Movie

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Since it is going to be a trilogy (last I've heard), wouldn't a 15-20 minute Galt be speech be feasible if not preferable?

And if the first two parts become huge succeses, they could get away with even more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool! Who is that guy anyway? I still picture cuffy like el-duche ( http://www.urbandictionary.com/author.php?author=El+duche ) ;-) in 50's biker gear. Maybe the scientology stuff can be suspended for the sake of reason? ps. never thought about walburg as galt, not a bad idea, sort of the "planet of the apes" revisited, revisited. Cuffy Miegs(thanks for correct spelling) is sort of an ape-man (sorry to the geico neanderthal)

Edited by L5Vision

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cool! Who is that guy anyway? I still picture cuffy like el-duche ( http://www.urbandictionary.com/author.php?author=El+duche ) ;-) in 50's biker gear. Maybe the scientology stuff can be suspended for the sake of reason? ps. never thought about walburg as galt, not a bad idea, sort of the "planet of the apes" revisited, revisited. Cuffy Miegs(thanks for correct spelling) is sort of an ape-man (sorry to the geico neanderthal)

I couldn't tell if you were replying to my post, but the actor I chose for Cuffy Meigs is Ned Beatty. I don't know what the picture I chose is from, but that's pretty much what Meigs looks like in my head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the Money Speech in a length fit to a film:

"So you think that money is the root of all evil? Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value.

Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants; money will not give him a code of values, if he’s evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if he’s evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent.

Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth – the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve that mind that cannot match it. Is this the reason why you call it evil?

Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper’s bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another – their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun.

Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns – or dollars. Take your choice – there is no other – and your time is running out.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then, you actually agree with KendallJ. From the part you quoted, he meant movies were still the last place remaining to find good music, not that they were last place to look.

Ah...I suppose so. Just read that one wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I definitely agree with the following that I have seen so far:

Danny DeVito - Orren Boyle

Liam Neeson - Hank Reardon

Billy Zane - James Taggart

Antonio Sabato Jr. - Francisco (looks only, since I don't know his acting skills)

Adrian Brody - Ellis Wyatt

I have seen the suggestion of a black Galt, which I am in favor of. I only care about the acting skills of the person in making me believe in what they are saying, so may I suggest the following?

Djimon Hounsou - John Galt

Val Kilmer - Ragnar

Halle Berry - Lillian Reardon

Johnny Depp or Robert Downey Jr. - Reardon's brother

I was just thinking too, it might be that Hounsou just captivates me and cannot act at all, so I could be wrong :worry:.... nah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On IMDB, the release is set for 2008. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480239/

I am SO excited!!! :) If it really is a trilogy, then I think it will be awesome. I didn't like "The Fountainhead" movie very much because I thought it moved too quickly. I realize that they had to cut out many parts to fit the entire novel into one movie, but the excitement then vanished. If they condensed "Atlas Shrugged," I don't think they'd be doing justice to the novel.

And Angelina Jolie is apparently officially playing Dagny. I can't really see her as Dagny!! :)

Edited by Mimpy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Angelina Jolie was recently interviewed about the progress of the film (excerpts below). I like what she says, but I'm instinctively skeptical. If she really understood Objectivism, wouldn't a short summary have been doable?

Cinematical: Can you give an update on Atlas Shrugged? What sparked your interest in developing it?

Jolie: I think it's a wonderful book. I'm a fan of her writing. I think it's an amazing project. It's, in many ways, a controversial and complicated project and I think it needs to be done right. There's been a lot of talk as to how that can be and "what are the important reasons for making it?" There's a lot of really great people involved. It's being written now, and we'll see as the script comes out, how close we are. Then we'll know how close we are to possibly making it. Everybody involved, the producers involved, we all sat down around a table and we all agreed that if we couldn't do it right, if we couldn't do it justice, if along the way any one piece didn't come together like the right director or the right script, then we would all just fold it and not do it. So that's where we're at right now. We're taking it step by step, and we're going to make damn sure that it's done right.

Cinematical: What are the 'important reasons' you referred to?

Jolie: I think it's too complicated to get into, because I think the discussion about that project, the misconceptions about her [Ayn Rand], different interpretations of her, that script ... it is a huge subject. So I'd be tentative about speaking lightly about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is so complicated about it? Sheesh, lol

Heh, yeah. I wonder if there's not some bigger mind behind the movie who's told her to say that if questioned on Objectivism, to keep her from misspeaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is so complicated about it? Sheesh, lol

My take is that she's not getting into a succinct statement because of marketing reasons.

"Who is John Galt?" is an intensely wonderful marketing element. A great tease if you will. If I were marekting the movie, even if Jolie could articulate any elements of Objectivism, I'd not want her to do it. For those who konw and love Rand, it doens't matter. For those who don't, 1) it might make them decide against or 2) would spoil some of finding out who John Galt is...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Who is John Galt?" is an intensely wonderful marketing element. A great tease if you will. If I were marekting the movie, even if Jolie could articulate any elements of Objectivism, I'd not want her to do it. For those who konw and love Rand, it doens't matter. For those who don't, 1) it might make them decide against or 2) would spoil some of finding out who John Galt is...

I wonder, though, that if it's going to be a trilogy, if it'd make sense to use that phrase to catch people's attention. If they did, and split the movie into three parts, then the viewers would not learn of John Galt's identity till the last movie. It might be too early to advertise for that for the first movie....definitely for the third movie it would make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, while I'd really like to know, in her own words, what she thinks Objectivism is (because it's not about helping starving African children), I think I may have done the same thing in her position. As readers, we don't know the full context. As an Objectivist (or student of Objectivism), I certainly don't want to debate philosophy with every person who jumps down my throat for being a Capitalist. Sometimes, when a person is giving off certain vibes, I just say that I don't want to talk about it. It is a complicated issue, and if one doesn't cover all the bases, some people misinterpret or think of some way around the argument. And especially since she is speaking as a layperson, it really would look bad if she said something that was a little bit unclear, was attacked, and wasn't able to defend it.

I'm not saying that I think she'll do a good job. I personally don't think she's right for the role at all, both philosophically and physically. I do, however, think this interview speaks in her favor.

Thanks Charlotte.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She said she admires Rand. How so? In a general kind of way for being a famous writer and strong woman? Or in the way that she really enjoys Rand's works and tries to implement her philosophy in her daily life?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard that, in several contexts, she has said that she enjoyed reading Atlas Shrugged and admired Rand--I presume, by the context, as an author and philosopher.

One thought, though: If they try to do a trilogy, you know that as soon as the first movie comes out and leaves everybody hanging on "Who is John Galt?", people who have read and hate Rand will be broadcasting, "He's a ****ing capitalist engineer. He works for Dagny as a menial laborer. Save your time and money, don't see the next two films."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pro-non-trilogy. 'Who is John Galt?' is a brilliantly suspenseful element, but it would take something really intense to hold an audience's attention through three movies, not to mention the inevitable year or so between each being released...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
She said she admires Rand. How so? In a general kind of way for being a famous writer and strong woman? Or in the way that she really enjoys Rand's works and tries to implement her philosophy in her daily life?

John Allison, CEO of BB&T who is an explicit Objectivist spoke at OCON about talking to CEO's about Objectivism. He said that most executives he's spoken to have ready AS, and "admire" it greatly. They think its a great book. However, as his concrete attempts have shown that is a very far cry from actually dealing with the ideas of Objetivism in a serious manner.

I think that this is the best sort of "admiration" you can hope for. Odds are that it is nothing more.

I'm pro-non-trilogy.

I too am "pro-non-trilogy". :blush: (i think...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've heard that, in several contexts, she has said that she enjoyed reading Atlas Shrugged and admired Rand--I presume, by the context, as an author and philosopher.

A reader can admire a novel for its plot, yet disagree with any ideas presented by the author. Atlas Shrugged has a good plot, very well developed and presented. There are several conflicts facing the characters, too, all of which get resolved one way or another.

Therefore admiration for AS and/or Ayn Rand as an author doesn't mean much without a more explicit explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pro-trilogy. If they can't do it justice in one film (and I don't think anyone could do Atlas Shrugged justice in one film, unless it were 6 hours long), they oughtn't do it at all.

"Who is John Galt" as a marketing element isn't defeated by doing a trilogy. Everyone knew Frodo was going to chuck the ring in the volcano; it's a similar device. "Who is John Galt" is the motivator of the whole plot. It unfolds slowly, layer by layer in the book, so why shouldn't it do the same in the movie? The amount of material that would have to be excised in order to tell the story in less than 160 minutes would make the ending incomprehensible. It might could be done in two pictures, but the drama isn't right; it's really a 9-act story.

-Q

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently saw the two Pirates of the Caribbean movies. After watching them, I reflected on what I have seen of Johnny Depp's work. Willy Wonka, Nick of Time, et al. I think he is one of the best modern actors out there, and I would pay two or three times more per ticket if he were Galt, or even Ragnar. Depp yes. Pitt no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I recently saw the two Pirates of the Caribbean movies. After watching them, I reflected on what I have seen of Johnny Depp's work. Willy Wonka, Nick of Time, et al. I think he is one of the best modern actors out there, and I would pay two or three times more per ticket if he were Galt, or even Ragnar. Depp yes. Pitt no.

I think Depp would be great in the AS movie. I read in an interview once, though, that he is done with the whole pirate thing after PoC. As for Galt...I'm not so sure. I wouldn't mind seeing him as Francisco, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, Depp is a great modern actor. I don't know if I'd want him for any other role than Francisco though. He certainly cannot play Ragnar, because people will keep imagining him as Jack Sparrow in Pirates of the Caribbean. As for Galt, I dunno, I just don't think that he could do John Galt all that well. I do, however, think that he would be great as Francisco. It's just kind of his style.

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...