Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

"Atlas Shrugged" Movie

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 728
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Most people on this forum don't think with their nuts anyway.

I just watched it about five minutes ago. Part one of the three piece film will be released in only two months. Who else has seen it - (and who is looking into it now because of this post)? Good.

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?

Posted Images

One of the articles from IMDB says that this movie is being made just so the owners can retain the rights, and that there is a likelihood that the final product won't even be sold on DVD.

Apparently, a version of Fantastic Four was made in the 90's for the same reason (which nobody ever saw).

Sort of a relief really, and the most plausible explanation for the level of superior crapiness.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the articles from IMDB says that this movie is being made just so the owners can retain the rights, and that there is a likelihood that the final product won't even be sold on DVD.

Apparently, a version of Fantastic Four was made in the 90's for the same reason (which nobody ever saw).

Sort of a relief really, and the most plausible explanation for the level of superior crapiness.

Is there no other way to renew the rights? Sounds like a waste of money...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno about the rights. I looked up the old fantastic four movie and a lot of people seem to think that it was just really so horrible, made by a cheap-o crappy studio, that no one wanted to publish it.

But $5million? Hell yes, movie budgets are often in the $100s of millions. At the least, they could sell it to another studio that someday might want to tackle the project. Despite the hatred, AS is a huge property and a classic work. It's like having the rights to Gone With The Wind (assuming there wasn't already a classic amazing movie made).

More research is obviously needed. I does seem like the studio is just trying to get the film done for the sake of getting it done. They can't be expecting to make money off of it that way.

Although I suppose it could be a TV movie. Maybe that's its destiny. It'll end up on Syfy, after EARTHQUAKE...S 2012 VS. ANACONDA-SHARK.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
Atlas Shrugged isn’t a real world – this is a science fiction world because there is no world that is completely black and white. People aren’t just all bad Wesley Mouches or all good Henry Reardons. There’s no such thing as that. We have different shades of grey. And [as for Rand's] world, she had to create a very polarized vision of the way people lived.
Link to post
Share on other sites
And the laissez faire capitalism she was preaching doesn’t really work either, to be honest with you. People say it does, but that relies on Rousseau’s natural man theory - or Adam Smith – that everyone’s going to be working with pure intentions, and that’s not true either.

Of course, left undefined is the crucial term of what it means for something to "work".

Edited by brian0918
Link to post
Share on other sites

*sigh*

I'm not sure what is worse. The Director missing half the point of... everything, or the the way they abused poor Nietzsche. Seriously? I'm fairly certain that is not what the phrase "beyond good and evil" meant.

I do appreciate the passion this guy has, and his drive to make a meaningful piece and stylized piece. I do like the idea that he wants the movie to force people to question their lives, to ask them if they can stand up to the heroes.

What I don't like is the idiot way he treats the material. I'm kind of afraid that his insistence that this is some sort of not real place or event may really just turn these characters into the cardboard cutouts that everyone accuses them of being. He also seems to have missed about half of Rand's arguments for bloody everything.

Oi, just... oi.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like the sound of this. This new director seems to be relatively unexperienced, and they're making it in two parts instead of 3. Also, the Dagny and Rearden actors are actually pretty decent un terms of what I thought they looked like, but the guy playing Galt looks like a tool. This doesn't look good (in more ways than one.)

This should lay some concerns to rest. It's from the interview with the Libertas Film Magazine:

GM: Really? I thought you’re playing John Galt. That’s what Variety reported.

PJ: No, I don’t know why the producers put that in. John Galt is never seen … No , I only took on John Galt as a part because you see the back of my head and a hat – you never see John Galt’s face, ever. I don’t think you should see his face. John Galt is a sort of enigmatic guy in Part One. We should get the sense of him as an accumulation of all great men in Rand’s mind – that’s what John Galt is to her … he’s the Reardons, the Roarks, the Ellis Wyatts – he’s all of them rolled into one guy.

GM: Yes, he’s a symbol.

PJ: So I don’t really want to give him a face, you know what I mean? In the next movie they can hire any actor to do it because it’s not going to be me – you know what I mean? It should really be somebody who exemplifies those things.

Rand might take issue with the comment on how Galt is all her other characters rolled into one guy, though. I got a mental image of Galt saying "We are the Borg; We have added your distinctiveness to our own."

Edited by ENikolai
Link to post
Share on other sites

Forbid that I transgress and speak the unmentionable (or beat a dead horse). But, don't you hate the way that libertarians fawn over AS but always always qualify - almost in a celebratory way - that "of course it isn't like this in real life and Rand's vision isn't perfect and not all of it is that good.". It's like a catechism of Libertarianism.

Edited by ZSorenson
Link to post
Share on other sites

Forbid that I transgress and speak the unmentionable (or beat a dead horse). But, don't you hate the way that libertarians fawn over AS but always always qualify - almost in a celebratory way - that "of course it isn't like this in real life and Rand's vision isn't perfect and not all of it is that good.". It's like a catechism of Libertarianism.

This isn't limited to Libertarians. Its considered faux pas to agree with anything in our post modern culture. Almost anyone who isn't a self identified Objectivist will preface their commentary with some sort of dig at Rand or some vague proclaiment that no, of course they don't take all of it seriously. After all, the only reason anyone would ever agree in any signifigant manner with a person is by slavish cultist irrational worship, and anyone who agrees with Ayn Rand is obviously suffering from this.

:dough:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not showing Galt's face might not work well. One of the biggest twists later in the book is that you find out that Galt has been the guy talking to Eddie the whole time.

I see the fact of not showing Galt's face as to be consistent with the book.

Galt doesn't even "talk" in the first part. When he's talking with Willers

you only get a glimpse of the questions he make, when Willers repeats them.

I have a image in my head, from reading the book, of a dark 50's cafeteria,

the ambient denoting economical depression, and so badly iluminated

than you can't see Willers's interlocutor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a image in my head, from reading the book, of a dark 50's cafeteria,

the ambient denoting economical depression, and so badly iluminated

than you can't see Willers's interlocutor.

That might work for the movie. However, someone is sure to come along and point out that it is the exact opposite of how Rand described the cafeteria.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't limited to Libertarians. Its considered faux pas to agree with anything in our post modern culture. Almost anyone who isn't a self identified Objectivist will preface their commentary with some sort of dig at Rand or some vague proclaiment that no, of course they don't take all of it seriously. After all, the only reason anyone would ever agree in any signifigant manner with a person is by slavish cultist irrational worship, and anyone who agrees with Ayn Rand is obviously suffering from this.

Close but I disagree somewhat.

It is perfectly acceptable to agree with something as long as that something is self negating. :P

I'm finding it hard now to quibble about things like actors, budget, representation of Galt now that I know the director believes Rand's philosophy and therefore the entire message of Atlas Shrugged to be wrong. After his statement about John Galt being some sort of collective soul (and trying to say that is what Rand intended) I know that I no longer have any desire to see it but will probably do so anyway out of a mixture of curiousity and perversity... like poking at a snake in the garden with a stick to see if it's really dead...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only question I have now is how can the ARI get the rights to the movie back?

I would assume the only hope would be to purchase the distribution rights post-production. Whoever owns the distribution rights can decide to have it never see the light of day.

That would be expensive I imagine.. but I would happily make a donation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im gonna throw my two cents in this if you guys dont mind. I think the idea of an atlas shrugged movie is a terrible idea and heres why: no movie would be able to capture everything about atlas shrugged and it would leave everyone with a feeling of something lacking. I think the best option is a remake of the fountainhead, its pretty much just like atlas shrugged in its theme but way less grander and therefore a better movie candidate. dont get me wrong i would love to see atlas shrugged on screen in its entirety but theres just way too much involved i think for it to be a viable movie.

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...