Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Atlas Shrugged cast

Rate this topic


Daniellecs

Recommended Posts

I was going to make a list, but found it too hard. The problem is disassociating the actors/actresses with their characters. There's hardly an honest actor in Hollywood. Much less a director that can do a (non-existent) good screenplay of AS justice. The only actress and character that jumps out at me is Kelly Macdonald to play Cheryl Taggart. That, and maybe Phillip Seymour Hoffman to play Wesley Mouch. That guy can play v-illain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that Charlie Kaufman is an amazing screen writers.

Also - fight club, Apocalypse now, A clock Work Orange and The Godfather are all books originally. It's possible to find a person that is talented enough to write a script and stay loyal to the origin.

Other than that, the film industry doesn't end with Hollywood.

What do you think about javier bardem as Francisco?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that Charlie Kaufman is an amazing screen writers.

Also - fight club, Apocalypse now, A clock Work Orange and The Godfather are all books originally. It's possible to find a person that is talented enough to write a script and stay loyal to the origin.

Other than that, the film industry doesn't end with Hollywood.

What do you think about javier bardem as Francisco?

The size of Javier's head would suck the rest of the cast into its orbit. I love Charlie Kaufman, sure, but I can't think of any screenwriter working today that would be willing to write a decent screenplay of AS.

But for discussion's sake, I'd like to imagine a Kaufman rendition of AS. Boy oh boy would that get convoluted quick. Since we're on the subject of Kaufman, what did you think of Synecdoche, NY? I thought it was beautifully written, and had me feeling about as depressed as I've been in a long while. The credit sequence fucking crushed me:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am going to be ashamed, sit in my corner and say that I've never seen it.

Therfore Ill refuse to watch the video.

Javier is one of the best actors today.

I think that Christian Bail would be a decent John Galt.

I'll admit it's not for everyone. I'd say, watch the video, it's just the song played over the credits. Maybe it's not as sad without the context of the movie, but I find myself listening to it often.

Javier's getting too old, I think, and he can't clean up his accent enough to match Francisco's "perfect English". He's a fantastic actor, to be sure. I can't come up with a decent actor who fits the Iberian/Spanish look.

Christian Bail is a good choice as Galt (Ps: how is his last name spelled? Google accepts both 'Bail' and 'Bale'. Maybe it's a SAG thing?); I'll nominate Sam Rockwell (in lots of ugly make-up) as James Taggart, and Betty White as Rearden's Mother (for comic relief).

The only reason I'm willing to discuss a dream-cast is because the recent film adaptation was a huge let-down. I understood the reasons for doing it low-budget and with a relatively unknown cast, and it really could have been good. But I'm beginning to think a proper AS will need a real Hollywood budget, with some decent Hollywood talent working in front of the camera, and serious talent behind the camera.

We can dream, can't we?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A movie doesnt need a big budget in order to be good.

A movie need a good script, good actors and a good director.

It seems like no one of these actors could actually act, and no one on the set read Atlas Shrugged.

This movie was lack of talent, creativity and abilities, which makes me very sad. The person that wrote the script obviously doesnt know how to turn thoughts to actions, picture and sound, he probably have nothing to do to cinema language which makes me sad. I'd love to make my own version one day.

I think that Javier is sexy enough and it's possible to work on his accent, I don't think it's that bad. In the movie, it's fine to have the slight accent.

Sam Rockwell... I think he is too young and pretty, to be James. I thought more of alec baldwin =] his lyfe syle and the way he acts could easily suit both James and Guy Francon.

and you are right, it's Christian BALE. I checked it on IMDB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leaving aside my views of quality of the movies mentioned ( Fight Club, A Clockwork Orange etc) : Sure it is possible to realize movie versions of apparently good books. Even to create movies based on those books which a lot of people enjoy.

Then again, if they were going simply for things people these days enjoy , it would probably be full of explosions, stupid stoner scenes and CGI for the sake of it *. And of course it would be done in 3D just for the sake of it .

Sarcasm and annoyance over what sort of movies are made / widely seen these days aside though...

Atlas Shrugged is a far more difficult book to convert to movie than any other book I can think of, much more so that I gather than the other books mentioned in this thread. I am no expert in such things, however from what I have seen it would take far more talent ( at least in certain areas ) than that exhibited by the creators of those films. It is a mammoth and complicated book which is not well suited for conversion into a movie in the first place.

Not all good books *should* be attempted to be made into movies. Sometimes one has to realize books and movies are very different art-forms and that what works well as one of them will not ever work well when converted to the other, at least not without a titanic struggle that might not be worth it.

I dont know that it would be impossible to make a good AS movie, however I am not sure it is worth it. It would almost certainly not do the book or its theme sufficient justice. I would think it might be better to do a movie based on a story based on a simplified theme/plot.

A movie doesnt need a big budget in order to be good.

A movie need a good script, good actors and a good director

I have always said that I would prefer a low-budget movie with crappy special effects, as long as it had a compelling story with compelling, well-acted characters. Special effects help, but they are too often an excuse not to do what actually counts properly ( cough cough Star Wars Prequel Trilogy).

* At least if you went off purely box office figures, which is NOT necessarily an intelligent thing to do to accurately assess whether or not a movie is positively received upon viewing , let alone determining if it is a good movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leaving aside my views of quality of the movies mentioned ( Fight Club, A Clockwork Orange etc) : Sure it is possible to realize movie versions of apparently good books. Even to create movies based on those books which a lot of people enjoy.

Then again, if they were going simply for things people these days enjoy , it would probably be full of explosions, stupid stoner scenes and CGI for the sake of it *. And of course it would be done in 3D just for the sake of it .

Sarcasm and annoyance over what sort of movies are made / widely seen these days aside though...

Atlas Shrugged is a far more difficult book to convert to movie than any other book I can think of, much more so that I gather than the other books mentioned in this thread. I am no expert in such things, however from what I have seen it would take far more talent ( at least in certain areas ) than that exhibited by the creators of those films. It is a mammoth and complicated book which is not well suited for conversion into a movie in the first place.

Not all good books *should* be attempted to be made into movies. Sometimes one has to realize books and movies are very different art-forms and that what works well as one of them will not ever work well when converted to the other, at least not without a titanic struggle that might not be worth it.

I dont know that it would be impossible to make a good AS movie, however I am not sure it is worth it. It would almost certainly not do the book or its theme sufficient justice. I would think it might be better to do a movie based on a story based on a simplified theme/plot.

I have always said that I would prefer a low-budget movie with crappy special effects, as long as it had a compelling story with compelling, well-acted characters. Special effects help, but they are too often an excuse not to do what actually counts properly ( cough cough Star Wars Prequel Trilogy).

* At least if you went off purely box office figures, which is NOT necessarily an intelligent thing to do to accurately assess whether or not a movie is positively received upon viewing , let alone determining if it is a good movie.

I personally think that A clock work orange and the godfather [1 and 2 not 3 and apocalypse now] are masterpieces. They hold a huge talent anywhere you look on it, so if you like these movies or not you can't say they don't do justice to the books.

So far, any attempt to create an Ayn Rand-based-movie ended up bad.

but if the right person will come it will be possible to create an amazing movie.

I hate 3d and I hate big effects. A movie that holds a good cinema language doesnt need special effects at all.

This thread was made to amuse ourself by building a dream cast for Atlas Shrugged, by the way

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not seen A Clockwork Orange, and the superficial information I do have suggests I would not like it. I do think Godfather was pretty good for what it was. Fight Club...been too long since I have seen it and I am not sure what I would think. I have read none of the books however, so I cannot rationally claim any knowledge of how much justice they do to the books.

The point I was making was that the fact that even if those flims are a great adaptation of the books, they at best prove what I already knew : That some great books can be made into great movies ( when I was a kid, I thought Jurassic Park was a good example of this. I loved that book, and the movie was a pretty good adaptation ). Atlas Shrugged is on another league entirely though, and the fact that it worked for those movies says little about the feasibility of doing such a thing with AS.

Though as I said, I do not think it is necessarily impossible, just that I am not sure it is feasible enough for anyone to bother. Not unless they are the Galts of the film industry, and even then it would be pretty damn hard.

I hate 3d and I hate big effects. A movie that holds a good cinema language doesnt need special effects at all.

Well, I do not see any reason why movies need 3D. Sure, it was a fun gimmick at first, however the novelty wears off fast and then it becomes annoying and if anything it harms ones immersion in a movie ( at least it does for me). Not that there are many immersive movies being made.

I like good special effects, if they are are icing on a good movie and are used sparingly, no more than is necessary to make scenes just a little more visually appealing.

As far as the actual topic of the thread goes : I could not really say much on this. Christen Bale as Galt though? Hmm, not a bad actor by any means, though I am not sure anyone might think he could pull off Galts role. Though you did say "decent", not necessarily ""amazing" ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I say Big Budget, I don't mean in a Transformers sense, but more along the lines of Doctor Zhivago, or any of the old MGM epics. It takes money to make a sweeping, visually striking, well acted film. AS is obviously an epic in every sense of the word. It's sprawling, occurs over many years, contains romance, intrigue, villainy, mystery, philosophy, and yes, action sequences (the gunfight at Rearden's plant would be pretty cool to see).

Hire a good screenwriter, director, cinematographer, crew, and actors; on-site shooting and studio space, props, set design, wardrobe. To keep it a period piece you'd need to rent hundreds of old cars, build art-deco sets, and do all that good stuff. This would be a huge film crew, and a large supporting crew. We're talking serious money, and this doesn't touch on the salary good actors would be asking.

Epic is a dirty word in Hollywood these days, and Ayn Rand is downright vile.

PS: a young Rutger Hauer would have made a great Ragnar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I say Big Budget, I don't mean in a Transformers sense, but more along the lines of Doctor Zhivago, or any of the old MGM epics. It takes money to make a sweeping, visually striking, well acted film. AS is obviously an epic in every sense of the word. It's sprawling, occurs over many years, contains romance, intrigue, villainy, mystery, philosophy, and yes, action sequences (the gunfight at Rearden's plant would be pretty cool to see).

Hire a good screenwriter, director, cinematographer, crew, and actors; on-site shooting and studio space, props, set design, wardrobe. To keep it a period piece you'd need to rent hundreds of old cars, build art-deco sets, and do all that good stuff. This would be a huge film crew, and a large supporting crew. We're talking serious money, and this doesn't touch on the salary good actors would be asking.

Epic is a dirty word in Hollywood these days, and Ayn Rand is downright vile.

PS: a young Rutger Hauer would have made a great Ragnar.

What, an intelligent movie based on a complicated and intelligent plot / theme? One without explosions / car chases / shooting / scenes of people sitting around in bars drinking every five minutes? I dont think Hollywood would go for that ;)

As for "keeping it a period piece" - that is unnecessary. It is not a period piece. Despite the fact that trains and other sort of out-dated things are central to the plot / show up, it is not really a period piece. In fact, it is a "timeless piece" that Ayn Rand said should be read as though it was something that could happen sometime in the future relative to the reader ( say five or ten years down the track ). I think the movie would be best to try to stick to this, even if it means modernizing the movie somewhat. After all, making it a period piece makes it seem less relevant today than to whatever period it was meant to be set in. If there was to be a good movie, it should seem to be something that could be happen in the future, not something that might have happened fifty years ago or something.

Edited by Prometheus98876
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really think that it should have been kept as a period piece, but for completely artistic reasons. Transporting in time adds yet another layer to what should have be a visually striking film; the Johansson adaptation looked like a child versed in making turkeys with water color found super-8. Not to mention, Johansson is a second-rate bit actor of television and was an untried director, handling a massive and incredibly difficult subject.

Sorry I'm railing it now; I missed out on the thread about the movie.

PS: I'm just adding actors as I think of them, but how about Casey Afleck as Eddie Willers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dwayne!!!! A clock work orange is an amzaing movie. You should give it a try

The only problem I have with it is the viewers that dont understand it and mistake Alex for a good character.

Anyways, You should try watching it.

Some actors could sometimes surprise you, with the right director

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hhmm...well I think it is best as a "Timeless piece". That way I think that it would be easier for viewers to relate it to their situation, no matter in which decade/century the film was to be released. While I am struggling to see any particular advantage to making it a period piece. Perhaps you could elaborate on some advantages?

As for "A Clockwork Orange" - I suppose I shall have to give it a try. I indicated that what I have heard leaves me skeptical as to whether or or not I will enjoy it - however it would be nice to put that one to rest. Perhaps I will be pleasantly surprised! :)

As for Casey Aflek : He does not have the right "look" IMO. The character always struck me as an honest , hard-working "average man". Nobody with amazing ability, but a hard worker. Preferably an actor that has an "ordinary" look and has an "honest look" to his face or something. I would not be able to pick a particularly suitable actor off the top of my head though.

I do not have a huge problem with the choice of a black Eddie. I do think the particular actor chosen just did not have the right look however...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hhmm...well I think it is best as a "Timeless piece". That way I think that it would be easier for viewers to relate it to their situation, no matter in which decade/century the film was to be released. While I am struggling to see any particular advantage to making it a period piece. Perhaps you could elaborate on some advantages?

Do you refer to Atlas Shrugged?

And stanly kubrick is probably one of the top 5 most talented directors all time, each one of his movies is the best in its genre. Well, ex. Full Metal Jacket that was second best to Apocalypse now. [and still is one of my favorite movies all time]

A clock Work Orange was not only full of talent, it's influence over people was historical.[even though people saw whatever they want to see nad not what he ment with it]

The script is genius. The directing is spotless. His cinema language is one of the best - all time. Even if the movie will not be your cup of tea, you will respect it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, yes I was talking about AS. Looks like I neglected to make that clear. I would not know about A Clockwork Orange in this regard.

As far as Kubricks talent goes : For sure he is right up there. All of his movies are pretty great for what they are. Love or hate the premises of his movies , I think one has got to admit that they are well executed. So I will may well end up concluding that applies to A Clockwork Orange as well.

Though Space Odyssey was a colossal bore and too much like what I imagine a drug-trip would be like. Not even a very interesting drug-trip :( Pretty good special efffects for the time though...and I cannot say it is run-of-the mill or ordinary...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need to watch it again. I think it's one of his best films if not the best one.

Also, his Lolita was the best version to the book, the newer one upset me.

I think that making it a period piece [40's] would be more loyal to the book, and that way many parts that are important to the plot will make more since. Like when Dagany walks to find a phone, or why the trains take so much time to reach from a place to a place or why communicating took so much time.

I don't think that if youll have it period would effect the "timeless" factor of the movie/book.

Don't you think that Winona Ryder would be a perfect Kira?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, I might get around to watching it again at some stage. It has been a long time since I have seen it , so I cannot rule out something I missed / am forgetting entirely. I guess...

I am not convinced that any important part of the plot depends on a movie adaption necessarily being a period piece. Alright, it has trains in a prominent role, which might suggest that it is way in the past. However, one could argue that "in the readers" future ( which is what Ayn Rand said it should be viewed to be ) , at some point trains become prominent again ( possibly for economic / technological improvements in train technology). One could change the time taken I think, or change the phone scene so that Dagny has a cell , including making her go to get it if need be. Though I am not saying "Dont make it a period piece and make silly changes to prevent it being one", simply that for the reasons stated I think it is better off not being one and that I think it may be possible to make changes to make it better fit being a "timeless piece".

I do not think that it can be a timeless period piece though, it seems to be one or the other, when it comes to this movie anyway. Sure, it can be done I suppose. Not in the sense I mean "timeless" anyway. However, I am not an expert on film studies/writing, so maybe I am wrong.

Winona Ryder might be a decent choice for Kira. She could pull it off visually I think ( meaning, I think she has "the look" ). I do not really have much of an opinion on how well she would handle the other aspects oft the role.

Edited by Prometheus98876
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Winona Ryder is a great actress, I think that role is perfect for her, though I don't know whats going on with her lately.

You are right, for the period thing, however, when I saw Atlas Shrugged something felt wrong for me, when I saw they decided to have it modern.

If the movie will be timeless, this time will consider to be period to =] , and if youll try to do it futuristic then people in the future will make fun of it, as we try to create a fail future.

so it doesnt really matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I agree that it would be a mistake to modernize it for the sake of it. I do think that there are possibly valid reasons why the story may work better if some things are made to seem more "modern" ( eg, more modern trains than Ayn Rand might have intended or the book seems to suggest exist). But no more than is necessary to make the story seem to fit more into something that might happen in the future, albeit a future that might be relatively low-tech due to economic stagnation perhaps ( a good reason not to modernize a great deal at this point ). Making it very futuristic would be a mistake though I agree.

Is that important? Not necessarily...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I am saying is that Ayn Rand apparently said that we should pretend as though Atlas Shrugged is set at some stage in the future. Some feature where a lot of the rest of the world has succumbed to socialism ( or such) and or are suffering economic stagnation and ruin. This starts to happen in Atlas Shrugged, as evidenced very early in the book. Things become progressively worse, and a lot of technology is completely abandoned by the end of the book. Presumably because some of it is too expensive to run / the supporting technology / infrastructure required to operate it has broken down / become infeasible to use. Or one could simply blame regulations driving industries out of existence.

One could easily imagine that perhaps one might expect air travel to be more prominent in the future. But perhaps in the future presented in Atlas Shrugged, air travel has become too costly due to regulations on the fuel / air industry. And vice versa for a lot of other stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But don't forget that she also wrote it back in the 50's, where the technology was, as you know and to understate, not as developed as we have now.

She wrote it as if its in the future but it's still obvious that the setting was USA in the 50's [except the inventions Galt created.]

Link to comment
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...