Big news on the “Atlas Shrugged: Part 2” movie today.
“Atlas Shrugged: Part 2″ will be released on October 12, with a proper amount of print and broadcast advertising, contrary to the approach used to promote its predecessor, which relied mostly on word-of-mouth and endorsements from conservative commentators.
The production costs on “Atlas Shrugged: Part 2″ were reportedly $5 million less than the first film, perhaps to free up the extra money to market. According to THR, producer Kaslow says they will spend 10 times more money on the P&A for this one.
The production costs on “Atlas Shrugged: Part 2″ were reportedly $5 million less than the first film, perhaps to free up the extra money to market.
Bear in mind that they reported one figure for the “production costs” of Part 1, then reported a notably higher figure (about double) that included the cost of the rights along with other stuff, presumably to make it look better. If I recall correctly, it first was $10M, then $20M, meaning, if you can follow my logic, it looks like they’re spending $5M more on production this time.
Not a good sign.
I wish they would have let their filming rights lapse, realizing that a quality film was not possible given all of their circumstances.
I believe the rights are already locked in, that was the whole point of making Part 1 when and how they did.
Abomination part 2? no thanks.
Yeah, uh-huh, sure; you’ll be in the theater during the opening weekend and so will I, who do you think you’re kidding?
Hey! … doesn’t mean I won’t be complaining about it in the harshest terms I can think of!
Yeah yeah, just bustin’ your chops. My evaluation of part 1 (you can look it up, it’s somewhere on OL from the time of the opening weekend) was that it wasn’t good enough. I didn’t feel I could recommend it to people who weren’t already going to be seeing it anyway. But it wasn’t a complete washout, and I think there’s a reasonable basis to hope that the next one will be notably better. I know I’ll be going to see it.
Yeah yeah, just bustin’ your chops. My evaluation of part 1 (you can look it up, it’s somewhere on OL from the time of the opening weekend) was that it wasn’t good enough. I didn’t feel I could recommend it to people who weren’t already going to be seeing it anyway. But it wasn’t a complete washout, and I think there’s a reasonable basis to hope that the next one will be notably better. I know I’ll be going to see it.
I found the first movie to be extremely awful to the point of being offensive and insulting. They took what I consider to be one of the greatest works of art ever created, if not the greatest, and turned it to some mean little ripped off political piece, and a very poorly done one at that. This kind of book deserves the very best, but this was just a cheap little rip off done with complete disrespect to the book.
At first glance it looks like two skeleton bones upright. At second glance it looks like two pillars from classical architecture (the kind that Roark disliked). I guess it’s just a Roman numeral without any symbolism, though. In any case, horrible unimaginable work.
I assume it’s supposed to be something along the lines of a shining railroad in the midst of a dark and corrupt world. It’s still terrible though, especially since even my interpretation doesn’t really make sense for the second part where Taggart Transcontinental is no longer any shining beacon. I also hate the Atlas symbol they’ve chosen.
At first glance it looks like two skeleton bones upright. At second glance it looks like two pillars from classical architecture (the kind that Roark disliked). I guess it’s just a Roman numeral without any symbolism, though. In any case, horrible unimaginable work.
Y’all do notice, I assume, that these “skeleton bones” are hovering over the shadow of the letter “s”, thus forming a dollar sign…what’s interesting is that on my Iphone it’s really obvious, on my desktop monitor less so.
I don’t think they were trying for a dollar sign. Their unappealing version of Atlas holding the world appears in the background. The sinuous form they chose suggests weakness to me and, when viewed at reduced size, looks a bit like an S.
This isn’t better than a 15-year-old girl would do for a Social Studies class project.
When I Googled it, I saw a dollar sign. In this thread, I see Atlas. Either way, it’s amateur. No more from these producers, please! EDIT: Oh, I see now a dollar shadow is over Atlas… if it is Atlas.
Alas for you, as you have no say in the matter. I hope it’s great, and you find yourself gracefully dining on crow come October. More realistically, it’ll probably be better than part 1, but still somewhere between ok and fairly good; hopefully, at best, it’ll be good enough to recommend to anyone without blushing.
I just checked at imdb.com and I see that Part I and Part II have exactly zero actors in common. I head heard that the actors playing Dagny and Rearden had been changed but I’m amazed to learn that not a single actor from Part I will appear in Part II. Will Part III have yet another completely different cast? Who is John Galt?
My biggest concern is that even if part II is really good, it’s not going to do well at the box office since people who haven’t seen part I of any series will hesitate to go to a part II, expecting that they’ll have missed too much.
