PDA

View Full Version : Atlas Shrugged Movie



DavidZahir
04-22-2011, 01:11 AM
Did anyone else know about this? Here is the trailer: Atlas Shrugged Part One (http://youtu.be/6W07bFa4TzM?hd=1)

And here is the IMDB page (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480239/). No joke. There is also a website (http://www.atlas-shrugged-movie.com/) of course. More than one (http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com), actually. Evidently it opened in a few hundred theaters this last Friday.

JoNightshade
04-22-2011, 01:26 AM
Sssssssoooooooo....... boooo.........rrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiinnnnnngggggggggg.. .....

I might be a Philistine, but I don't care. :tongue

maxmordon
04-22-2011, 01:34 AM
Have been following this on the TVTropes forums. The trailer is hysterical, never government regulation of railroads have never been so EXCITING!!!

Also, the poster. I mean, I glad the Lucasarts dude got a second job and all, but I have done better stuff. And on MS Paint.

PS: The guy who does the voice of Andrew Ryan in Bioshock is in this, adding a nice layer to the whole thing.

robeiae
04-22-2011, 01:35 AM
I saw it some time ago at a private screening. It was okay. Fans of the book will likely enjoy it. It's very true to the book. And it's only part one (of a planned trilogy).

It did okay, I think, for a limited release. I read somewhere that the box office numbers mean it must have had very full showings.

I'm sure it will do okay in DVD sales, eventually. Should be enough to warrant the making of the sequels.

The acting ranged from good to adequate, imo. The cinematography, however, was quite good.

strictlytopsecret
04-22-2011, 01:35 AM
I was hoping to see it, but the nearest theater is still too far for my taste.

~STS~

Zoombie
04-22-2011, 01:59 AM
Ah, so the third movie will be the monologue!

strictlytopsecret
04-22-2011, 02:55 AM
Ah, so the third movie will be the monologue!

Oh my heavens. I was about ready to rip my hair out just a few pages into that. LOL!

~STS~

blacbird
04-22-2011, 03:20 AM
YAWNNNNNNNNNNNNN . . .

When do we get Plato's Republic? Smith's Wealth of Nations? Hobbes's Leviathan? Kant's Critique of Pure Reason? Sartre's Being and Nothingness?

TerzaRima
04-22-2011, 03:45 AM
Man, it's a shame that MST3K has closed up shop.

JohnnyGottaKeyboard
04-22-2011, 03:55 AM
Man, it's a shame that MST3K has closed up shop.Maybe they'll do a reunion show. Some fruit is too luscious not to be picked.

BenPanced
04-22-2011, 04:52 AM
Atlas Shrugged Part One (http://youtu.be/6W07bFa4TzM?hd=1)
And, apparently, so has the audience.

defcon6000
04-22-2011, 05:01 AM
Heard about this, dunno if they're showing it near by (probably not). The actors don't quite look like what I had in mind from the book - annoying, I know. :tongue

robeiae
04-22-2011, 06:02 AM
I apologize for my previous post. I obviously misunderstood the point of this thread.

TerzaRima
04-22-2011, 07:42 AM
You know what would be cool is if they did a musical version, a la Moulin Rouge, and maybe they could have a big production number where the refrain is "You are your highest value!" and everybody does jazz hands. Plus: A power ballad where whosis, Dagmar, sings about the rough sex she has with Galt and what a magnificent bastard he is.

The shit that occurs to me when I can't sleep.

benbradley
04-22-2011, 08:13 AM
This movie being was discussed a week ago among friends. I once again mentioned my problem with the unrealism I saw in the movel after having read 30-50 pages, and someone told me what was going on ... essentially, the guy has an "enabler."

blacbird
04-22-2011, 10:57 AM
I apologize for my previous post. I obviously misunderstood the point of this thread.

Which was, exactly what? in your "understanding"? Did you expect universal adulation for this movie, and its literary basis? I ain't about to watch the remake of "Arthur" for exactly the reason I ain't about to watch "Atlas Shrugged". I don't give a rip if he shrugged, or yawned, or farted. It's based on a literary work that is a novel only in veneer, and is a politico/philosophico tract at heart. And will be received by a popular audience about as big as that interested in a BBC documentary about how shoes are manufactured in the Orkney Islands. Too bad that view irritates you.

Zoombie
04-22-2011, 11:36 AM
Now, if they adapted Bioshock, which takes Atlas Shrugged and adds mutant abominatinos and people who can shoot bees out of their hands, then we'd have a film worth watching.

As someone who has read the book and played the game, it makes for a HUGE improvement.

nighttimer
04-22-2011, 12:31 PM
I saw it some time ago at a private screening. It was okay. Fans of the book will likely enjoy it. It's very true to the book. And it's only part one (of a planned trilogy).

It did okay, I think, for a limited release. I read somewhere that the box office numbers mean it must have had very full showings.

I'm sure it will do okay in DVD sales, eventually. Should be enough to warrant the making of the sequels.

I wouldn't be so sure.

The movie opened in 14th place, earned about $1.7 million in the 300 screens it played and pulled down a pitiful 7 percent "fresh" reviews on Rotten Tomatoes.com.

Yikes. :e2tomato:

That's a far cry from when Clint Eastwood was supposedly interested in directing and Angelina Jolie and Charlize Theron were vying to play Dagny Taggart (Taylor Schilling, come on down!). Here's what executive producer John Aglialoro said in 2008:

Susan Paris: Is Angelina Jolie firmly committed to the project?

John Aglialoro: Yes, she is. Here is what she told us: “Dagny Taggart is the most relatable character to me of all the extensive literature I have ever read.”

SP: What other actors, if any, have committed to the project?

Aglialoro: We have had discussions with Russell Crowe to play the part of Hank Rearden. He has read the script. He’s very much in demand so we’ll have to see if he likes the script enough to fit this project in.

SP: Are you still planning three parts?

Aglialoro: No. It will be one movie, lasting roughly 2 hours.

Double yikes. :e2tomato::e2tomato:

The Hollywood Reporter (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/atlas-shrugged-first-movie-target-175724) has a story about the tortured path Ayn Rand's ponderous book finally made it to the mulitplex. It wasn't easy.



Despite years of cinematic interest and high hopes for stars and funding, the film was made for less than $10 million, with Taylor Schilling — who appeared on NBC’s short-lived Mercy — playing protagonist Dagny Taggart.

By Hollywood standards, the marketing budget is tiny, so word-of-mouth from Tea Partiers sympathetic to the film’s message is crucial to its success.

The film was directed by Paul Johansson. Some might find it off-putting that the director, known for his work in television, voted for Barack Obama. But John Aglialoro, the businessman who financed, co-wrote and co-produced the movie, didn’t ask Johansson about his politics.

“I read it when I was 17, and it changed my life,” says Johansson, who also appears as the shadowy John Galt in the film. “It gave me permission to be who I am. It taught me that it’s OK to stand alone and not be part of a group.”

Lots of Americans might agree: A 1991 survey by the Library of Congress and the Book-of-the-Month Club determined that Atlas Shrugged was the second-most-influential book in history behind the Bible. The next three works of fiction on that list — To Kill a Mockingbird, The Lord of the Rings and Gone With the Wind — have already become Hollywood blockbusters. Don’t expect Atlas to replicate that sort of success, though. Aglialoro needs only to make some money with it, or the subsequent two installments will be scrapped and the novice filmmaker will abandon other projects on which he’s working.

“If it bombs, I will not make another movie,” he says.

The first installment of Atlas was 44 years in the making because Rand and Hollywood couldn’t agree on how to bring the book’s 1,168 pages to the screen.

Through the years, big names have attached themselves to film or TV versions, but the film was made without A-listers and is being distributed by a Utah-based indie with an affinity for political and religious themes.

Aglialoro, who paid Rand’s heir Leonard Peikoff $1.1 million for rights to Atlas in 1992, ended up rushing it into production to prevent them from reverting. He beat the deadline by two days; Peikoff lost faith in the filmmakers over 19 years and said through a colleague that he fears the film doesn’t sufficiently reflect Rand’s philosophy.


Everything about this project from its no-name actors and 102 minute running time screams "made for television" which as a mini-series is where it probably should have played. Time ran out on Aglialoro and the final product is an undertalented, underfed and underwhelming film that will be a fading memory within a few weeks.

It's quite possible with a budget of less than $10 million, the movie will earn back its investment, but will that be enough to justify two more installments? Better directors and screenwriters (which Rand was) couldn't solve the problem of turning a 1,000 plus book into two hours of entertainment, especially the 70 page speech John Galt delivers that would stop any movie dead in its tracks.

Don't hold out hope for the sequels. Read the book instead.

Atlas Shrugged is a big book. Atlas Shrugged Part 1 is a small movie.

robeiae
04-22-2011, 03:24 PM
Which was, exactly what? in your "understanding"? Did you expect universal adulation for this movie, and its literary basis? I ain't about to watch the remake of "Arthur" for exactly the reason I ain't about to watch "Atlas Shrugged". I don't give a rip if he shrugged, or yawned, or farted. It's based on a literary work that is a novel only in veneer, and is a politico/philosophico tract at heart. And will be received by a popular audience about as big as that interested in a BBC documentary about how shoes are manufactured in the Orkney Islands. Too bad that view irritates you.
Well, no. I expected the discussion to be about the movie, not a series of drive-bys about politics. You don't go into a discussion that you have no interest in contributing to just to be a dick. Well, most people don't. You've got nothing to add, here. It doesn't irritate me, it makes me sad.

As I said, I thought the movie was "okay." That's hardly adulation.

robeiae
04-22-2011, 03:32 PM
I wouldn't be so sure.


The movie opened in 14th place, earned about $1.7 million in the 300 screens it played and pulled down a pitiful 7 percent "fresh" reviews on Rotten Tomatoes.com.

Yikes. :e2tomato:

That's a far cry from when Clint Eastwood was supposedly interested in directing and Angelina Jolie and Charlize Theron were vying to play Dagny Taggart (Taylor Schilling, come on down!). Here's what executive producer John Aglialoro said in 2008:

Susan Paris: Is Angelina Jolie firmly committed to the project?

John Aglialoro: Yes, she is. Here is what she told us: “Dagny Taggart is the most relatable character to me of all the extensive literature I have ever read.”

SP: What other actors, if any, have committed to the project?

Aglialoro: We have had discussions with Russell Crowe to play the part of Hank Rearden. He has read the script. He’s very much in demand so we’ll have to see if he likes the script enough to fit this project in.

SP: Are you still planning three parts?

Aglialoro: No. It will be one movie, lasting roughly 2 hours.

Double yikes. :e2tomato::e2tomato:
2008? I don't know what to tell you. Aglialoro didn't say anything like that at the screening. He seemed pretty intent on the sequels. Maybe he finally came to grips with the fact that he'd never get big names and the best he could do was a second tier project.

As to the box office numbers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged:_Part_I):



The film opened on 300 screens on April 15, 2011, and made $ (http://absolutewrite.com/wiki/United_States_dollar)1,676,917 in its opening weekend, finishing in 14th place overall[37] (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/#cite_note-36), but when compared on a per-screen basis, it finished 3rd (among films in wide release), with $5590 per screen.

There's no question it's small-time.

JohnnyGottaKeyboard
04-22-2011, 03:36 PM
I actually had never heard anything about this being made into a flick until a few days ago and now it's come at me from several different venues. Was there a media push?

I'm sticking with my initial reaction. The basic politics are not so different from any number of well(enough)-received dystopian sci-fi flicks (and--egads!--especially scif-fi and fantasy video games). If they make a movie about the plot it might be serviceable. If they stick too close to the book and make it a polemic, they're in trouble.

They did a good thing with the trailer and gave it a slight steampunk feel. But that first exchange of dialogue in the trailer ("Who's asking?" "Someone who knows what it's like to work for himself and not let others feed off the profits of his energy...") does not give me much hope.

Manuel Royal
04-22-2011, 04:26 PM
I wonder if Paul Ryan went on opening day?

I read Atlas Shrugged about 38 years ago, when I was a child and would read anything. Every few years there's been talk of adapting it, and now that someone has -- somehow it amuses me that it's getting so little attention. (Though that's always something of a shame; even a mediocre movie involves the hard work of a lot of skilled people.)

Jcomp
04-22-2011, 05:31 PM
The box office for this is a little hard to get a bead on right now. The per-screen average was strong in its debut for a limited release with minimal marketing (they pretty much went "grass roots" targeting Tea Party faithful). It has some positives and negatives. Some analysts are praising it, some are seeing signs that it won't be able to make the turn into the mainstream, but until the numbers come back after it expands into more theaters, it won't be known how successful it truly is and whether it will genuinely warrant a second and third film, or whether a second and third film will just go straight to DVD instead of getting a theatrical release.

The thing about sequels (unless you do it LOTR style and essentially film it all at once) they're almost always more expensive to make.

robeiae
04-22-2011, 05:48 PM
Well, if they go straight to DVD, Steven Segal might get a part...

Jcomp
04-22-2011, 05:52 PM
Well, if they go straight to DVD, Steven Segal might get a part...

Plus Cuba Gooding Jr. and Val Kilmer.

Really though, it's not like "Straight to DVD" is a terrible option. There's a reason why tons of "straight to DVD" movies come out every year: they make pretty good money.

Jcomp
04-22-2011, 06:07 PM
Now, if they adapted Bioshock, which takes Atlas Shrugged and adds mutant abominatinos and people who can shoot bees out of their hands, then we'd have a film worth watching.

As someone who has read the book and played the game, it makes for a HUGE improvement.

Alas, the Bioshock adaptation is liable to be stuck in development hell for quite some time. It was actually listed in "pre-production" for a moment and had Gore Verbinski attached. Problem is, the budget required to effectively recreate the environment of the game would be so huge it would all but necessitate a PG-13 rating (and probably some "dumbing down" of the source material). And then you'll piss off the established fan base since the material clearly isn't meant to be PG-13.

Zoombie
04-22-2011, 09:41 PM
I don't know, you can imply a lot in a PG-13 rating. I'd be fine with minimal gore...to be honest, the spurts of blood were not really why I enjoyed Bioshock.

Jcomp
04-22-2011, 10:06 PM
I don't know, you can imply a lot in a PG-13 rating. I'd be fine with minimal gore...to be honest, the spurts of blood were not really why I enjoyed Bioshock.

True, but you'd still have to deal with the grotesquely mutilated faces of many splicers, you'd have to forego the famous "golf club a man to death' scene (or cut away), you'd have to trim a ton of stuff with the Little Sisters because even sans gore, the idea of explicitly menaced / murdered children (even creepy little slug-implanted zombie girls who gorge themselves on human blood) tends to get a harsher look from the MPAA. You'd have to cut away damn near anytime a Big Daddy wanted to drill somebody, or just not have any Big Daddies kill anyone.

In short, you'd damn sure have to do a lot of implying to get a PG-13. I just don't see someone pulling it off terribly well. At the end of the day, while the story was very interesting, it's still a Mature first person actioner that goes heavy on the violence and goes out of its way to encourage the player to engage in creative kills. I think most fans would expect the movie to at least be close to the same league.

nighttimer
04-22-2011, 10:37 PM
Plus Cuba Gooding Jr. and Val Kilmer.

Really though, it's not like "Straight to DVD" is a terrible option. There's a reason why tons of "straight to DVD" movies come out every year: they make pretty good money.

True, but there's still a sort of second-rate rap that gets laid fairly or unfairly on the "straight to DVD" label. You can often find some hidden gems among them that look positively brilliant compared to some of the crap that gets a major release.

I really think this book was made for the small screen where a television mini-series wouldn't have to be squeezed for time. Reading through the somersaults this production went through it's kind of sad how it scaled down drastically from John Aglialoro's ambitious plans in 2008 to "just get something done" in 2010 when he was about to lose the rights to an Atlas Shrugged movie.

This is the same reason 20th Century Fox is rebooting Daredevil and probably will do the same for The Fantastic Four and Elektra properties it owns rather than allow them to revert back to Marvel Comics and Disney. You get movies that are driven by fear of the lawyers getting involved instead of a filmmaker's vision.

I'm indifferent to the political motivations behind making Atlas Shrugged into a movie. Tea Party types should have their own movies just as much as fans of Tyler Perry playing Madea. It's not for me, but I'm okay if somebody else gets some enjoyment out of it.

Jcomp
04-23-2011, 12:53 AM
True, but there's still a sort of second-rate rap that gets laid fairly or unfairly on the "straight to DVD" label. You can often find some hidden gems among them that look positively brilliant compared to some of the crap that gets a major release.

Oh certainly. I'm just speaking from a financial standpoint. I mean the film already has the "second-rate rap" going against it, so at that point what's it hurt to go straight to DVD in future installments if necessary? Most of the objective reviews of the film I've read come in at "barely adequate at best if I feel like being pretty damn generous" vibe, or much worse. Even Kurt Loder (yes, that Kurt Loder) over at the Libertarian zine Reason essentially calls it insipid and amateurish in his review (which prompted the editors to add an addendum showing positive quotes from other obviously partial reviewers--might as well have been a public apology for Loder's negative review). So if it makes enough money to warrant creating sequels, even if said sequels go straight to DVD, I'd say that's a win. Not a big win, but a win.



I really think this book was made for the small screen where a television mini-series wouldn't have to be squeezed for time. Reading through the somersaults this production went through it's kind of sad how it scaled down drastically from John Aglialoro's ambitious plans in 2008 to "just get something done" in 2010 when he was about to lose the rights to an Atlas Shrugged movie.

This is the same reason 20th Century Fox is rebooting Daredevil and probably will do the same for The Fantastic Four and Elektra properties it owns rather than allow them to revert back to Marvel Comics and Disney. You get movies that are driven by fear of the lawyers getting involved instead of a filmmaker's vision.


Yeah, that happens. There's an unbelievably bad Fantastic Four movie from 1994 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fantastic_Four_(film)) (insert jokes about "So it's just like the most recent movies then?") that was made specifically so the studio wouldn't lose rights to the film. As in, there was absolutely zero intent to try to release the movie from the moment it went into pre-production. The estimated budget was $1.5 million... less than a tenth of the budget of Dumb and Dumber, the latter having substantially fewer super-strong humanoid rock formations and flying men on fire. It might be the most egregious example of what you're talking about in film history.

maxmordon
04-23-2011, 04:00 AM
I don't know, you can imply a lot in a PG-13 rating. I'd be fine with minimal gore...to be honest, the spurts of blood were not really why I enjoyed Bioshock.

Personally, if they make a Bioshock movie I think the next things should be changed:

1) Cut the whole airplane sequence, if you think about it, sending someone to (supposesly) America from the Mid-Atlantic, giving them US money and a gun, make them take a plane to Europe, and shooting down the plane with the coordinates really doesn't make much sense. For me, it's better if Jack remembers the plane crash but wakes up in the bathysphere and having the plane sequence being another false memory. (perhaps even playing with it, like adding Rapture citizenry as plane passengers seen from behind...)

2) Cut the vita-chambers and downgrade the Plasmids; I like to shoot bees from my wrists like the average Joe. But let's get real, people. It's hard to transfer that joy and glee to the silver screen. I visualize them more akin Steroids on Cocaine! (or is it Cocaine on Stereoids!?). Basically, something that enhances your physical or mental skills/speed/etc. that is also highly addictive and has horrid side effects.

3) The Mime Hero Problem. This is an issue all movies based on FPS have and pretty much a majority of video game adaptations. Does Jack have a personality? Someone to talk to? Memories?. I see this only two solutions: Having Jack joining a Rapture Resistence-type (perhaps with Tennenbaum and others who ignore Atlas is as Irish as corned beef) or him trying to use his happy memories as a clutch to go on and out of Rapture.

I am not happy with some of these ideas either, but I think some drastic changes are needed if making a Bioshock film is wanted.

DavidZahir
04-23-2011, 06:16 AM
I'm not paying money to see this. Honestly, Anthem had an incredible and life-saving impact back in my teens, and her first two novels deservedly have their fans. But Atlas Shrugged is a prime example of someone preaching at me, which frankly I don' t like even when agreeing with the preacher. That I believe Objectivism inherently flawed and frankly subject to extreme distortion anyway especially given current events.

Mind you I might take a gander at it in some other venue.

maxmordon
04-23-2011, 09:06 AM
If you want to see a good cinematic adaptation of an Ayn Rand book, I recommend The Fountainhead. With Gary Cooper as Howard Roark and directed by King Vidor.

Albedo
04-24-2011, 04:26 PM
Sounds like this movie is doing for Objectivism what Battlefield Earth did for a certain other belief system...

The comments on any particular newspaper review of this movie are ay-may-zing. Who ever knew there were so many fifth-columnists and commies in the media? People who loved Critics Shrugged: Part Only sure do.

benbradley
04-28-2011, 08:14 PM
Some may find this enjoyable, others maybe not... but this is a few minutes of Neal Boortz speaking before the opening of Atlas Shrugged in the Atlanta area:
http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2011/apr/27/atlas-shrugged-screening/

Manuel Royal
04-29-2011, 07:57 PM
Ah, Neal Boortz. Since I haven't listened to local talk radio in a while, I forgot he was part of the Atlanta scene.

I'll have to wait 'til I'm home to see the video, but if I recall, Boortz is one of those folks who are just smart enough to be Libertarian, but not smart enough not to.

BenPanced
04-30-2011, 10:49 AM
If you want to see a good cinematic adaptation of an Ayn Rand book, I recommend The Fountainhead. With Gary Cooper as Howard Roark and directed by King Vidor.
OMG. I saw that movie and wondered why I'd want to read the book...

maxmordon
05-05-2011, 03:54 AM
OMG. I saw that movie and wondered why I'd want to read the book...

It's Any Rand heaven; everyone men wears a three piece pinstripe suit and women are born with cigarettes attached to their fingers and everyone lives in a penthouse. Who doesn't look smoking sexy like that?

nighttimer
06-26-2012, 09:26 AM
It's quite possible with a budget of less than $10 million, the movie will earn back its investment, but will that be enough to justify two more installments? Better directors and screenwriters (which Rand was) couldn't solve the problem of turning a 1,000 plus book into two hours of entertainment, especially the 70 page speech John Galt delivers that would stop any movie dead in its tracks.

Don't hold out hope for the sequels. Read the book instead.

Atlas Shrugged is a big book. Atlas Shrugged Part 1 is a small movie.

Never underestimate the determination of a man with money.

Atlas Shrugged Part II is on it's way, though the teaser trailer (http://www.avclub.com/articles/atlas-shrugged-part-ii,81767/) doesn't tell you diddly about the movie.

Though this is officially part two, all of the actors and the director of Atlas Shrugged have been replaced. The "stars" of the second installment are Samantha Mathis, Jason Beghe, Esai Morales, Paul McCrane, Ray Wise and D.B. Sweeney as John Galt.

The $10 million budget of the first installment has been eclipsed by the $15 million budget of the second.

Can't you feel the excitement in the air? :e2woo:

J.S.F.
06-26-2012, 09:46 AM
Never underestimate the determination of a man with money.

Atlas Shrugged Part II is on it's way, though the teaser trailer (http://www.avclub.com/articles/atlas-shrugged-part-ii,81767/) doesn't tell you diddly about the movie.

Though this is officially part two, all of the actors and the director of Atlas Shrugged have been replaced. The "stars" of the second installment are Samantha Mathis, Jason Beghe, Esai Morales, Paul McCrane, Ray Wise and D.B. Sweeney as John Galt.

The $10 million budget of the first installment has been eclipsed by the $15 million budget of the second.

Can't you feel the excitement in the air? :e2woo:
-----

Heavy dose of sarcasm in the last line, n'est pas? I'll admit to liking the way Ayn Rand wrote. Dry and crisp with no excess to it. Whether one agrees with her philosophy or not is actually beside the point. I just like the way she wrote.

Having said that, I read Atlas Shrugged many years back as well as her other works. All I can say about Part I is it should never have been made. The acting was wooden, the direction lifeless, and the philosophy stated so heavily even an Objectivist would have cringed after watching this piece of made-for-TV crap. If Rand were alive now this adaption of her seminal work would have killed her.

Read the book because even if Part II is made and it's better than Part I, it still won't be worth watching.

Who is John Galt? If I were him I'd use change my name after sitting through this turkey.

Gobble gobble.