Atlas Shrugged is now a movie! [Archive] - Literature Forums at Literature Junction

intellectualammo

02-12-2011, 08:09 PM

Hi, Jezebel!! :D

Eh, looks like a "Big Business is evil and controls the world!" type of movie. I hope I'm wrong, but I can't imagine Hollywood would put out a movie even remotely close to Rand's book. Seems like the whole point of making the movie is to subvert and pervert Rand's messages.

Right, that's why it's a good thing this ISN'T done by Hollywood.

The movie rights alone were a million dollars to purchase off of the former Ayn Rand Institute's Leonard Peikoff (Yaron Brook is the executive director of ARI now). He had 15 years lease on the movie rights. There is more about it in this interview, which has a video in it about all that, it's interesting, let me link to the interview and embed the video if I can:

http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/101123-aglialoro-atlas-shrugged-movie.php

ooOfe_-5TlY&feature=player_embedded

I am not sure of what theaters will be showing this movie, and in what cities, etc. I haven't found out a lot of info on it, since I just found out about it. This was a surprise to me. There is talk in an Objectivist online community I have been a part of for years now, I will hang out and find out more.

As far as the casting, I think the woman playing Dagny, Taylor Schilling, is a very good choice, and Jolie would NOT have made a good Dagny, esp since she doesn't have blonde hair, she has big lips, tattoo's, and she is an advocate of "education is a human right" stuff. Also John Galt's face is never shown in the movies, and he's NOT Brad Pitt btw as many thought might play him, but someone else. It's all talked about on the site and videos more. Good decision not to go with "big time" actors/actresses, since they already have a certain "air" about them or whatever, which might interfere with their credibility, believability, you know?

I think there was a premiere in NY recently. I'm trying to find out what people have said in reaction to seeing it. I have much confidence in it being done a fair amount of justice from what I have gathered so far.

In more disappointing book to movie news, Thirteen Reasons Why is apparently being optioned as a "vehicle" for Disney starlet Selena Gomez. :( Not even close to my Hannah.

Nor mine. Thank you for telling me about it, though. No idea about the movie.

intellectualammo

02-12-2011, 10:06 PM

Reviews! Here are three from those that attended an 8 minute preview, maybe that's the one I mentioned before, which happened on Dec. 7, 2010, but here they are:

http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/101208-gleaves-atlas-preview.php

http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/101213-cookinham-atlas-preview.php

http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/101220-albanesi-spirit-atlas-shrugged.php

Jez

02-13-2011, 12:06 AM

Whew, well, that makes me feel a lot better about the movie. I'm now guardedly hopeful, whereas before I was expecting to be outraged. :p I know exactly what you mean about an actress like Angelina Jolie. Aside from all of the physical reasons why she just doesn't work, she is on the opposite end of the political spectrum. It would be like casting Ronald Reagan to play Jimmy Carter in a biopic. It would be an affront, but it would also be very difficult to believe the actor in that role.

Phantom Paragrapher

02-13-2011, 12:34 AM

Hey Ammo,
Welcome Back :) This looks like it could be good , will have to check it out further and Jez I have to agree with you - Selena Gomez doesn't fit my profile of Hannah either , I think Rachele Brooke Smith would be a good Hannah.

intellectualammo

02-13-2011, 01:39 AM

Whew, well, that makes me feel a lot better about the movie.

:good:

I know exactly what you mean about an actress like Angelina Jolie. Aside from all of the physical reasons why she just doesn't work, she is on the opposite end of the political spectrum. It would be like casting Ronald Reagan to play Jimmy Carter in a biopic. It would be an affront, but it would also be very difficult to believe the actor in that role.

You do know exactly what I mean then. You make me :)

Hey Ammo,
Welcome Back :)

Hey, thanks! :) I'm just coming around for a bit, though, I think.

This looks like it could be good

Have you read the novel?

Phantom Paragrapher

02-13-2011, 03:47 AM

Its good to see you pop up its been ages lol. No I havent actually got round to reading the book -but been meaning too and now that a movies being made no time like the present

intellectualammo

02-13-2011, 04:05 AM

Its good to see you pop up its been ages lol. No I havent actually got round to reading the book -but been meaning too and now that a movies being made no time like the present

Glad I asked, because then I have at least one persons opinion of the movie trailer without having read any of the book. I was wondering how it would appear, on it's own.
When a reader looks at the sheer thickness of this book, it may be intimidating, but you are a fast reader, so nothing probably intimidates you! :p I hope you can enjoy it not only for it's literary merits, but maybe also for at least some of what the heroes and herione's say and do in it. Most of the time I find polarized responses, I guess I would call it - either loving or hating the work.

Winifred

02-13-2011, 04:17 AM

Phantom, have you actually waded through Atlas Shrugged, the book?

Jez

02-13-2011, 05:20 AM

Phantom, have you actually waded through Atlas Shrugged, the book?

I think with Paula's reading speed it would be more of a "zip" than a "wade" :p

Phantom Paragrapher

02-13-2011, 08:48 AM

:) Hey lol, Ive picked it up a couple of times to read but of course due to the size ive started and not finished as others things kept getting in the way- My goal for 2011 is to finally read the whole of Atlas Shrugged.

Winifred

02-14-2011, 03:02 AM

I think with Paula's reading speed it would be more of a "zip" than a "wade" :p

I saw PP's saying that she hadn't read it after I posted!! Gizmo started the book, and bogged down, says the writing is terrible. I admire his effort, but haven't even tried. Maybe "zip" is the way to go. Good luck, Phantom!

Jez

02-14-2011, 02:50 PM

I saw PP's saying that she hadn't read it after I posted!! Gizmo started the book, and bogged down, says the writing is terrible. I admire his effort, but haven't even tried. Maybe "zip" is the way to go. Good luck, Phantom!

It doesn't really seem like your or Gizmo's type of book. :)

Winifred

02-14-2011, 03:52 PM

It doesn't really seem like your or Gizmo's type of book. :)

Ah, but eclectic is my middle name!

intellectualammo

02-16-2011, 08:05 PM

Ah, but eclectic is my middle name!

Hey, nice middle name. :good: Pretty sounding. :)

Here are two short behind the scenes vids I found on the film:

u9RTi_Lwz0U

5Njv4uVQHyY

Seems like a lot of directing, working, to make this happen.

Some people's comments that I have seen in the O'world, aren't exactly happy at what they see so far, but the director, screen writer(s?), etc. and the decisions they made, at least from what I remember the director I think saying before, that he will support his decision, but they have to be made, and however they are made, it's probably going to make some people happy about it, others not so much. It's just what happens, esp. when the film is on such a lengthy novel, heavy in philosophical thoughts, and with some of the speeches in it. I'm wondering how Galt's speech will be done later? I know in The Fountainhead film, all of Roark's courtroom speech was included, except for maybe one line, I think. Regardless of how the production is done, it's bringing even more attention to Rand's work, to any parallel's in our culture today, etc. even though the novel was first published in 1957. Even if people do not agree fully with Objectivism, or capitalism, many might at least be able to appreciate her as a writer, on other points as well. There are other novels of hers too that people might also enjoy. My personal favorite right now is, We The Living. I really love the spirit that Kira Argounova has. There was a film made illegally or without permission I think in Italy? many years ago of it, when Rand saw it/found out about it, I think she really liked how it was done. It was banned in Italy, and then the Nazi's I think banned the movie and/or book as well. I've never seen it, but it's been made available in DVD now. More about the history of We The Living can be found here, I haven't read all this page, but give you more info:
http://www.wethelivingmovie.com/history.php

intellectualammo

02-22-2011, 09:11 PM

More about the film, photos that I have not seen before, and also a clip I have not seen before, can all be seenhere:

oh and even the green chain/bracelet is shown in the clip:

http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/110222-atlas-shrugged-movie-trailer.php

intellectualammo

04-12-2011, 06:37 PM

Well, it's coming this week, people! NPR just did a writeup about it, and one of the twins at work says she's hearing and seeing more and more about the movie. I think the Tea Partiers are urging for people to form movie parties or something, too.

A reviewer wrote about the film in this super fantastic journal, The Objective Standard, so this issue gives one an idea of what the Ayn Rand Institute itself think about the film, which is what I've been waiting for, since they are the major force in our culture today, in promoting the ideas of Ayn Rand:

http://theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2011-spring/atlas-shrugged-part1.asp

One thing that I think is interesting is this comment in the NPR article:

The movie is being marketed not just as a film, Burns says, but as a political event

I sincerely hope this film stirs things up, gets people talking, gets people READING...

the message of the book is relevant to what's happening in the news right now

If you look at the sales of the novel in the last few years, the sales are way more than in any of the other years since 1957. I think that this film, could be a major event to really get her ideas out there even more than they already are and it's good timing, too, considering the economy in the recent years.

(both of those last quotes are from: http://www.npr.org/2011/04/12/135171116/the-rampant-rise-of-ayn-rand-o-mania)

So who plans on seeing the film? or should I say EVENT!

I might go see it this weekend, because I just remembered that I have $20 in my wallet from Christmas money. I'm decidedly going alone to see the film as well, if I do. It'd spike sales for the film on it's first weekend which is important, too. It will help to get the two other films on it (this is Part 1, there is to be a Part 2 and Part 3 to hopefully follow) and maybe even be able to get the film onto more and more and more silver screens since it's limited right now if there is $$ to be made in it.

To see if it is coming to your area, look here:
http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com/theaters
You can also demand the film be shown in your area to see if it can shown there as well.

Jez

04-12-2011, 07:10 PM

intellectualammo

04-12-2011, 08:10 PM

One of the stadium theaters near me is playing it, so we'll be going there. I'm not sure if we'll be going opening day or not. I'd like to show support with opening weekend numbers, but...people. I usually see movies right before they're about to leave theaters so it's practically empty.

Hi, Jez!

Yes, people... I will try to see if it's playing durng the daylight hours at the theatre in the Pittsburgh area, gosh, it's been so damn long since I went to a theatre, it's going to feel all weird there, but I'll adjust.

I'll try to keep you posted, I have to find out if I will be off this weekend, I assume I wil be, since lately my hospital has dramatically reduced overtime, since there has been a lot of positions approved for hiring (10 more) so when I find out about that, then I will be able to better plan a trip to the theatre.

Enjoy the show with Evan! :)

Winifred

04-20-2011, 12:21 PM

Here's an interesting article on Ayn Rand: http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/145819

Apparently, she regarded a famous serial killer of her era as a type of Superman, due to his blatant disregard for social norms. From the article: "Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should," she wrote, gushing that Hickman had "no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel 'other people.'"

Which is a total misinterpretation of the Nietzschean term....

Warning: the murder description in the 2nd half of the article is graphic.

Jez

04-20-2011, 01:35 PM

Nice hit piece from a biased source with an agenda to push. ;) I mean, seriously? You actually believe that article is anywhere close to accurate or honest? The very first line pegs it as an editorial with an agenda. Shall we post up the latest "Anally probed by aliens" article from a supermarket rag and believe that now too?

Winifred

04-20-2011, 03:36 PM

Well, in the interest of a fair and balanced view, I went looking. I'm actually about to listen to a collection of her essays, but , in the meantime, I did find this, which says that "she later refuted that view" - so, please note that it doesn't say that her support was a false claim....so I will be looking further: http://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2010/07/17/ayn-rands-love-of-a-serial-killer/

P.S. Where is your source that Ms Rand was anally probed by aliens?

Jez

04-20-2011, 04:17 PM

Listening to a collection of her essays is a better approach. ;) People love twisting Rand's words around and projecting their own interpretations on what she actually said. It is extremely easy for them to read what they want to hear and not what she actually says. If possible (though given the other article you linked I'm not holding my breath) try not to do that when listening to her essays. Otherwise, what's the point?

As far as alien probes, I wasn't referring to Rand.

intellectualammo

04-21-2011, 10:39 AM

People love twisting Rand's words around and projecting their own interpretations on what she actually said.

Indeed.

Let's look at EXACTLY what she wrote and in the context in which she'd written it in, shall we?

And I quote Rand:

The model for the boy [Danny] is Hickman. Very far from him, of course. The outside of Hickman, but not the inside. Much deeper and much more. A Hickman with a purpose. And without the degeneracy. It is more exact to say that the model is not Hickman, but what Hickman suggested to me.

Here is what David Harriman(the editor) says some about her in regards to Hickman in his preface to her Journal:

At the age of twenty-three, AR knew that she was not ready to portray her ideal man. Her goal here is less ambitious; she wants only to project her ideal man's sense of life. The protagonist, Danny Renahan, is an independent, uncompromising, nineteen-year-old boy with a passionate hunger for life. Some of Danny's characteristics are based on an actual nineteen-year-old boy, William Edward Hickman, who was the defendant in a highly publicized murder trial that had just taken place in Los Angeles. Hickman was accused of kidnapping and murdering a young girl. He was found guilty and sentenced to death in February, of 1928; he was hanged on October 20, 1928.

Judging from the newspaper accounts of the time, Hickman was articulate and arrogant, and seems to have enjoyed shocking people by rejecting conventional views. The public furor against him was unprecedented. For reasons given in the following notes, AR concluded that the intensity of the public's hatred was primarily "because of the man who committed the crime and not because of the crime he committed." The mob hated Hickman for his independence; she chose him as a model for the same reason.

Hickman served as a model for Danny only in strictly limited respects, which AR names in her notes. Danny does commit a crime in the story, but it is nothing like Hickman's. To guard against any misinterpretation, I quote her own statement regarding the relationship between her hero and Hickman:

[My hero is] very far from him, of course. The outside of Hickman, but not the inside. Much deeper and much more. A Hickman with a purpose. And without the degeneracy. It is more exact to say that the model is not Hickman, but what Hickman suggested to me.

There is more mention of the things she says in her journal, but shall we talk about the FILM? Hello, that's the topic of this thread. I think what I quoted should be enough.

I still haven't seen the film yet! :o

Winifred

04-21-2011, 11:30 AM

Yes, I found the same thing here: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=13686162 ( a thoughtful and lively discussion going on there, btw).

I am ready to concede that the initial article I quoted is skewed for effect by the author. I'm also still searching for the quote "Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should," she wrote, gushing that Hickman had "no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel 'other people.'" Which I think is absolutely a definition of psychopathology (and some other diagnoses, mostly based on an inability to understand communication cues from others).

Perhaps this discussion could be continued in the philosophy thread, I-ammo is right, this is for movies. Rand is just such an easy topic!

Jez

04-21-2011, 05:39 PM

I still haven't seen the film yet! :o

I have. I liked it. I feel a little funny saying this, but her message wasn't quite as clear as it should have been (funny because Rand really beat her points home in her books. I would say almost to a fault, but look at how many people still don't get it!). The movie was a good faith effort, but it was a little lacking in comparison to her book. Which is really to be expected. How frequently do book to movie adaptations do the book justice? Not often. Some things were shown out of order and some revelations about John Galt were given much earlier than they are in the book.

I think people not familiar with her points will be lost with the movie. They won't understand a lot and they'll misinterpret things. The acting wasn't incredible, but it wasn't any worse than most movies/tv shows these days. Dagny and Rearden weren't perfect, but I liked them and they were empowering. The people looking to bitch and pan the movie will find enough fodder here, but they would have done that no matter what.

I am ready to concede that the initial article I quoted is skewed for effect by the author.
You're reading to concede now? So does that mean when you posted it you thought it was a legitimate source to take seriously? I really am confused. I thought you were better at identifying articles than that. I realize that probably sounds insulting over the internet, but I'm honestly confused and not trying to be insulting. That article was so obviously biased and poorly argued. Do you realize the article said that Rand's approach is only wrong because the majority of people don't agree with it? Ergo, if the majority of people suddenly believed in it, then Objectivism would be right and reasonable. Surely you see how an appeal to the majority like that is an illogical baseline for evaluating accuracy? It isn't what is being said that I'm even taking issue with as much as the fact that it's just a ridiculously bad source.

Even if she did worship serial killers (which she didn't) it wouldn't matter. So what? What does that change? And if she did (which she didn't), then there are appropriate journalistic methods of disseminating that information that do not need to sink to the level of a supermarket editorial tabloid. If I were a professor and a student attempted to use that as a source, I would laugh at them and give them a whopping zero. Why not use a horoscope as a source? It would be on par. I'm just so confused that you thought, even for a minute, that this was a legitimate source.

I'm also still searching for the quote "Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should," she wrote, gushing that Hickman had "no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel 'other people.'" Which I think is absolutely a definition of psychopathology (and some other diagnoses, mostly based on an inability to understand communication cues from others).

No, that isn't the definition of any psychological disorder. The same exact sentence could be applied to many types of people in many situations, none of which would qualify as a true "psychopath." This is the problem with non-trained persons skimming the DSM and then attempting to apply what they've read without actually understanding it. The words don't mean what a layman thinks they mean. Just look at the over-diagnosis of ADD and autism.

You also don't seem to understand the values Rand held. You're actually doing almost exactly what one of her (bad) characters does and which she makes a point of illustrating. It would almost be amusing if it weren't so disappointing.

intellectualammo

04-21-2011, 06:51 PM

I am ready to concede that the initial article I quoted is skewed for effect by the author.

Thank you.

I'm also still searching for the quote "Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should," she wrote, gushing that Hickman had "no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel 'other people.'"

Search no further, why not just go straight to the source, by taking a look inside of her Journal for where she talks about him, in her own words and context.

Perhaps this discussion could be continued in the philosophy thread, I-ammo is right, this is for movies.

Thanks.

Such a discussion doesn't really interest me, though. Her quote is enough for me, and what she says, including what you are searching for, all fall under that quote, if the context is kept intact, I think.

I have. I liked it.

Oh Jez, when did you go!

I feel a little funny saying this, but her message wasn't quite as clear as it should have been (funny because Rand really beat her points home in her books. I would say almost to a fault, but look at how many people still don't get it!).

Right hahaha! I think it's focus was more on the political than moral I think it was said. Some scenes were well acted, others not, some parts were cast wrong, and so forth, that I have heard from people who have read her and watched the film. And then I heard that if one is not familiar with her work, they may very well have been lost on things and on Galt's approach. These are the kinds of reviews that I think are most genuine.

I think people not familiar with her points will be lost with the movie. They won't understand a lot and they'll misinterpret things. The acting wasn't incredible, but it wasn't any worse than most movies/tv shows these days. Dagny and Rearden weren't perfect, but I liked them and they were empowering. The people looking to bitch and pan the movie will find enough fodder here, but they would have done that no matter what.

I think so to. When I read some articles in newspapers and mentions of it online, I can tell that they are trying to get people not to see the movie with their review, and it perhaps is just thinly disguised sometimes, that the real reason why is because of what they think about her philosophy, more so than the movie. I think the review in The Objective Standard seems to be right in line with what you said about the film, while it does have it's merits there are also some flaws/faults. As I quoted the director and his decisions he had to make in the filming and adapting of the novel earlier in this thread, it's not going to make everyone happy, but they can back up why they put what in the film, etc.

I'm unsure when I am going to see it right now...

Jez

04-22-2011, 03:22 AM

Oh Jez, when did you go!
This past Sunday, so the Sunday of opening weekend.

Right hahaha! I think it's focus was more on the political than moral I think it was said. Some scenes were well acted, others not, some parts were cast wrong, and so forth, that I have heard from people who have read her and watched the film. And then I heard that if one is not familiar with her work, they may very well have been lost on things and on Galt's approach. These are the kinds of reviews that I think are most genuine. Pretty much exactly. Though I wish the "bad guys" were are little more hard hitting. She's so bold in her books and pulls no punches in laying out exactly how they behave and what they say. It was a lot more subtle and glossed over in the movie.

I think so to. When I read some articles in newspapers and mentions of it online, I can tell that they are trying to get people not to see the movie with their review, and it perhaps is just thinly disguised sometimes, that the real reason why is because of what they think about her philosophy, more so than the movie. I think the review in The Objective Standard seems to be right in line with what you said about the film, while it does have it's merits there are also some flaws/faults. As I quoted the director and his decisions he had to make in the filming and adapting of the novel earlier in this thread, it's not going to make everyone happy, but they can back up why they put what in the film, etc. Yes, exactly. I've seen a lot of reviews that were pretty transparent. They want the movie to fail. At the end of the day it was no worse than any other Hollywood movie out there in terms of production quality and acting. There are very few amazing performances anymore and this is just another example of a less than amazing performance. So it really doesn't stand out in that way, unless you want to consider the fact that it's on par with movies who spent many times Atlas Shrugged's budget. In that case it comes out ahead for giving the same quality at a fraction of the production cost.

I enjoyed it more than most movies I've seen recently.

I'm unsure when I am going to see it right now...

See it sooner than later as it's a limited run show. It's a good opportunity to speak with your money. New York surprised everyone with how many tickets were sold.

intellectualammo

04-22-2011, 09:29 AM

See it sooner than later as it's a limited run show. It's a good opportunity to speak with your money. New York surprised everyone with how many tickets were sold.

Do you have sales stats?

Check out this information I found online:

Movie ticket sales company FANDANGO is reporting that the movie ATLAS SHRUGGED has the 3rd highest number of tickets pre-sold of any movie in history. This is pretty amazing given several factors.

ATLAS SHRUGGED is only showing in about 10% of the major movie theaters nationwide.
A small independent producer made the movie.
ATLAS SHRUGGED has no big name stars, in fact it has no stars but rather used TV actors and actresses.
The movie was made on a tiny (by Hollywood standards) budget of only $20 Million.
Professional movie critics hate the movie, but individuals who have seen it overwhelmingly like the movie.

And there are going to be many many more theatres added than the 300 or so on opening day, quote taken from http://www.atlas-shrugged-movie.com/:

This weekend, 428 theaters. Next weekend: One thousand.

This weekend the Atlas Shrugged movie will be in 428 theaters — working its way up to 1,000 theaters by the end of the month.

The primary bottleneck, apparently, is the number of prints they have for the film. It sounds like the producers originally had ~428 prints made, and are getting more made as quickly as possible.

Also this week:

Three different forms of the Atlas Shrugged novel — kindle edition, paperback, and audiobook — currently top the “Classic Literature & Fiction” section in Amazon’s bestseller list

Rotten Tomatoes lists more than 5,000 user ratings with a total of 86% saying they “like it,” while the critics’ average is a disastrous 7%.
. . .
According to Kaslow, the second and third parts of the film are in the active planning stages, with the second part scheduled to go into production this June for release on April 15, 2012, and the third to follow the same timeline the following year. “The green light decision is ultimately John’s,” says Kaslow. “If we learn there is no commercial interest in the film, I doubt there will be a second or third one. But at this point, we’re the third most ticketed film on Fandango, so I don’t have any reason to believe that we won’t be successful.” (from: http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2011/04/15/will-conservatives-make-atlas-shrugged-a-hit/

and I am currently listening to this:

jfr7vzSx1lU

I'll be better able to decide when I will be seeing it soon.

Jez

04-22-2011, 02:24 PM

Do you have sales stats?

No, I can't find the articles anymore. This is the closest I can find: http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2011/04/17/atlas-shrugged-earns-1-7-million-at-weekend-box-office/

It does look like another theater has been added in my area too.

intellectualammo

04-22-2011, 03:09 PM

No, I can't find the articles anymore. This is the closest I can find: http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2011/04/17/atlas-shrugged-earns-1-7-million-at-weekend-box-office/

It does look like another theater has been added in my area too.

Another one added in the Pittsburgh area as well. Total right now is at 423 according to the site.

Jez, what's the clifhanger in it like? Someone just mentioned something about it, and maybe that will get people interested in reading the book, instead of waiting until next year for Part 2? (of course assuming it will be done, all signs point to yes, at least so far) Might explain some of the spike in sales, too, but I'd liek to know what the clifhanger is like in order to better judge that more.

Jez

04-22-2011, 05:26 PM

Oh gosh, it's a devastating part to stop, but it really makes you want part II right now. So, yes, I can see it sparking interest in reading the book, especially because Dagny is so devastated and confused as to why what was done was done (and so too is the viewer if they haven't read the book). If I said "I'm leaving it as I found it. Take over. It's yours" is that clear? I don't want to give spoilers for anyone who might care.

intellectualammo

04-22-2011, 08:50 PM

If I said "I'm leaving it as I found it. Take over. It's yours" is that clear? I don't want to give spoilers for anyone who might care.

Yes, clear, thanks! :)

Hey Jez, you'll get a kick out of this, they are selling Dagny's bracelet, and guess what, they are so in demand that they are on back-order! Now, if it really was made of Rearden Metal, I bet he could get 'em made without such a delay! Hahaha! :good:

http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com/bracelet

Looks different than I pictured from the book, but the deviation is trivial as the meaning is still the same. In that color, it could probably match many more outfits, too! :)

Jez

04-23-2011, 12:34 AM

Haha! That's great! :P

Yes, it does look different from how I pictured it, but the point is made.

intellectualammo

04-23-2011, 09:15 AM

Haha! That's great! :P

:)

"The intention is plain selfishness, if you ask me," said Rearden's mother. "Another man would bring a diamond bracelet, if he wanted to give his wife a present, because it's her pleasure he'd think of, not his own. But Henry thinks that just because he's made a new kind of tin, why, it's got to be more precious than diamonds to everybody, just because it's he that's made it. That's the way that he's been since he was five years old - the most conceited brat you've ever seen - and I knew that he'd grow up to be the most selfish creature on God's earth."

intellectualammo

04-25-2011, 03:29 AM

Dagny I hope becomes iconic, idolized, because she is really a woman that can be admired on the silver screen for me, so strong and independent!

Take a look at her in this scene and one can see that come through:

o8MVFoiw-dw

Nice to see a character/woman like her grace the silver screen.

Jez, what about the soundtrack? How's it? I like this:

aV2mULGktiw

Also I wonder how intentional this was, the AS Logo and that of the Obama Logo? I've heard mention of this, but I finally looked up to see what they were talking about:

http://www.signatureillustration.org/illustration-blog/wp-content/obama-logo.jpg

http://www.atlas-shrugged-movie.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/AtlasLogo.jpg

Jez

04-25-2011, 04:06 PM

Dagny I hope becomes iconic, idolized, because she is really a woman that can be admired on the silver screen for me, so strong and independent! Most people don't idolize those qualities. They want to tear them down. Unfortunately. I liked her very much and I liked the actress they chose. That isn't even her best scene.

Jez, what about the soundtrack? How's it? I like this:

It didn't stand out to me either way.

Also I wonder how intentional this was, the AS Logo and that of the Obama Logo? I've heard mention of this, but I finally looked up to see what they were talking about: Hm, I hadn't heard that. It seems like a stretch though. The movie also doesn't make any attempt at connecting the actions in the movie with the actions of the current administration. They didn't do the best job in really outlining the "bad guys" and their actions. That was my biggest problem with the movie. Actually, I think a lot of people who don't already get it might very well interpret things as "Evil big business," which is so wrong.

intellectualammo

04-25-2011, 04:47 PM

I liked her very much and I liked the actress they chose. That isn't even her best scene.

Really, great! Plus, I like the way she dresses, too! :embarrass

Hm, I hadn't heard that. It seems like a stretch though.

I don't see it as a stretch. The Atlas logo, I think the lines on the globe would be train tracks, there are lines in the Obama logo, too, but I think it'd be more akin to the stripes in the flag. The colors reflect "America" in Obama's logo. The color used in the Atlas one, is for "America" to, as in the novel America stands for "to make money" unlike any other system in history, I gather. (Let me find a quote or something that will make more sense than I do with that!*) Eh, perhaps I am seeing way more into it than is intentional, but still, I can for I have a poetic liscense. :p

Also I found a site that shows how much money is being made daily on this film:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=atlasshrugged.htm

Unfortunately, even though even more theatres are showing this film:

Ticket sales dropped off significantly in its second week of release, despite opening an additional 165 screens. The per-screen average dropped 71% from $2,254 dollars on the opening Friday to $660 one week later, with the result that despite the increased number of screens, the total revenue actually dropped by 54%.(source:Wiki)

* Found it, it's from d'Anconia's money speech:

“If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose, because it contains all the others, the fact that they were the people who created the phrase "to make money".No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity, to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words "to make money" hold the essence of human morality.”

So then... maybe if America was like that, Atlas would be able to "support" it, in the sense that Atlas's would not actually be supporting America, as such, DIRECTLY, but in a sense, indirectly. If that makes sense. I don't know. *shrugs* ;)

Jez

04-25-2011, 05:52 PM

Really, great! Plus, I like the way she dresses, too! :embarrass I do too. :)

I don't see it as a stretch. The Atlas logo, I think the lines on the globe would be train tracks, there are lines in the Obama logo, too, but I think it'd be more akin to the stripes in the flag. The colors reflect "America" in Obama's logo. The color used in the Atlas one, is for "America" to, as in the novel America stands for "to make money" unlike any other system in history, I gather. (Let me find a quote or something that will make more sense than I do with that!*) Eh, perhaps I am seeing way more into it than is intentional, but still, I can for I have a poetic liscense. :p
I can see it, but I can also see it being a coincidence.

Also I found a site that shows how much money is being made daily on this film:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=atlasshrugged.htm

Unfortunately, even though even more theatres are showing this film:

(source:Wiki) That's a shame, but to be expected. The media panned it when they weren't outright ignoring it. It isn't cool to like or see the movie. They win again.

I just hope it does well enough to make the other two movies.

* Found it, it's from d'Anconia's money speech:

“If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose, because it contains all the others, the fact that they were the people who created the phrase "to make money".No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity, to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words "to make money" hold the essence of human morality.”

So then... maybe if America was like that, Atlas would be able to "support" it, in the sense that Atlas's would not actually be supporting America, as such, DIRECTLY, but in a sense, indirectly. If that makes sense. I don't know. *shrugs* ;)

You make sense. Atlas would not be supporting America. America would be supporting America.

What makes it so frustrating and laughable about the idea of "class warfare" promoted right now by the administration and the like is that the US was one of the only nations in the world where class was a flexible thing. You were not born into your class with no hope of upward mobility, or downward. In the US anyone could be anything and class was only a temporary label of where you were in the present. It mattered little because the individual had the freedom to change their class. There was no need or even conception of class warfare because there were no static "sides" in any "war."

We eschewed titles and the trappings of class most definitively in the creation of our country. It is only now that socialism has taken hold that the European idea of static classes and class warfare has also taken hold. The two go hand in hand. They are the very people who superficially rail against the idea of "the rich" as a distinct class the "non-rich" can never hope to achieve, all the while destroying the very system that did not allow for permanent class divisions. They want the poor to stay poor and their system requires the rich stay rich (all while their system acts to remove that wealth...an inevitable outcome they cannot seem to fathom). The masses are too stupid to see that and so they only move to strengthen the very thing that is responsible for their situation.

intellectualammo

04-25-2011, 06:33 PM

You make sense. Atlas would not be supporting America. America would be supporting America.

Yes.

intellectualammo

04-27-2011, 09:28 AM

Well...

Ummm...

The critcs reviews are really making the producer think about striking - the next two parts.

From the LA Times (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/2011/04/atlas-shrugged-producer-critics-you-won-hes-going-on-strike.html)

Twelve days after opening "Atlas Shrugged: Part 1," the producer of the Ayn Rand adaptation said Tuesday that he is reconsidering his plans to make Parts 2 and 3 because of scathing reviews and flagging box office returns for the film.

"Critics, you won," said John Aglialoro, the businessman who spent 18 years and more than $20 million of his own money to make, distribute and market "Atlas Shrugged: Part 1," which covers the first third of Rand's dystopian novel. "I’m having deep second thoughts on why I should do Part 2."

"Atlas Shrugged" was the top-grossing limited release in its opening weekend, generating $1.7 million on 299 screens and earning a respectable $5,640 per screen. But the the box office dropped off 47% in the film's second week in release even as "Atlas Shrugged" expanded to 425 screens, and the movie seemed to hold little appeal for audiences beyond the core group of Rand fans to whom it was marketed.

Aglialoro attributed the box office drop-off to "Atlas Shrugged's" poor reviews.

Though the film has made only $3.1 million so far, Aglialoro said he believes he'll recoup his investment after TV, DVD and other ancillary rights are sold. But he is backing off an earlier strategy to expand "Atlas" to 1,000 screens and reconsidering his plans to start production on a second film this fall.

"Why should I put up all of that money if the critics are coming in like lemmings?" Aglialoro said. "I’ll make my money back and I'll make a profit, but do I wanna go and do two? Maybe I just wanna see my grandkids and go on strike."

Jez

04-27-2011, 02:27 PM

Well that's pathetic. Disgustingly pathetic.

"beyond the core group of Rand fans to whom it was marketed."

Well, duh. I thought these people were supposed to understand capitalism? They did a piss poor job of marketing the movie beyond a tiny group of Rand fans and they're surprised it's not successful outside of that group? Of course the critics are going to pan the movie--it's in their political interest! Before the movie was even released we knew that would happen. If the movie makers were smart, they would have countered for that in their marketing strategies. Instead, the only exposure the average person has to the movie is the critics' poor reviews because the movie makers were too stupid to bother marketing it properly. How are we supposed to believe their message when even they can't figure out how to follow it? The critics sure didn't help them, but the failure ultimately is on the movie makers--and they deserve it.

intellectualammo

04-27-2011, 06:51 PM

Well, duh. I thought these people were supposed to understand capitalism? They did a piss poor job of marketing the movie beyond a tiny group of Rand fans and they're surprised it's not successful outside of that group?

Only way I found out about it was an email by the Atlas Society not long before April, and then I started this thread when I found out. I have NO IDEA how or even IF they marketed the film at all. I'm going to mention this on a different forum, the marketing of it, which is a good point at least in regards to SALES.

If the movie makers were smart, they would have countered for that in their marketing strategies. Instead, the only exposure the average person has to the movie is the critics' poor reviews because the movie makers were too stupid to bother marketing it properly.

Had I not gotten an email, I'd of eventually of seen mention of it in the Pittsburgh newspapers. Most of the reviews and mentions are seemingly getting more and more attacking of Rand and her philosophy. The one I read last night in fact said something like she's made a philoosphy out of the way one is when young, and most people grow up and out of the selfcenteredness, hero worshipping stage. What they are doing is twisting the meanings of Rand's virtue of selfishness, rational self-interest, with that of self-centeredness, and the degree of narcissism that may be present in youth.

The critics sure didn't help them, but the failure ultimately is on the movie makers--and they deserve it.

Well, I don't think the movie makers have to counter critics or anything like that or even market the film, more a make it and they will come approach. They have a site, but I have no idea if they actually marketed it at all or the movie at all, or if it was just the word of mouth that had gone around from it. I didn't even know it was under production when it was, only knew that it was going to be released shortly before it was. Let me go look a little further into all this, too many things I don't know in regards to all this.

Jez

04-27-2011, 10:18 PM

Only way I found out about it was an email by the Atlas Society not long before April, and then I started this thread when I found out. I have NO IDEA how or even IF they marketed the film at all. I'm going to mention this on a different forum, the marketing of it, which is a good point at least in regards to SALES. I'll be interested in what they say.

Had I not gotten an email, I'd of eventually of seen mention of it in the Pittsburgh newspapers. Most of the reviews and mentions are seemingly getting more and more attacking of Rand and her philosophy. The one I read last night in fact said something like she's made a philoosphy out of the way one is when young, and most people grow up and out of the selfcenteredness, hero worshipping stage. What they are doing is twisting the meanings of Rand's virtue of selfishness, rational self-interest, with that of self-centeredness, and the degree of narcissism that may be present in youth. Unsurprising. It's the "You're stupid if you believe this" approach to shame people into not seeing or supporting the ideas. Classic, predictable, and effective.

Well, I don't think the movie makers have to counter critics or anything like that or even market the film, more a make it and they will come approach. And look at how that's working out for them.

If they want the movie to be successful, then they absolutely must take measures to combat critics. I don't mean arguing against critics, I mean advertising their product so it appeals to people despite the critics' reviews. They haven't done that effectively. Obviously.

Maybe they don't care. But if they want the movie to be successful and reach many people, then they have failed in their goal and this is exactly why.

intellectualammo

04-28-2011, 08:30 PM

I'll be interested in what they say.

So far, it looks like that did in fact not market it as it pretty much was a word of mouth thing, where even the main distribution of the movie in theatres was done by saying for people to demand it in their theatre, you can see that on their site, they even have counts up for the number of demans for the movies in certain states, my state is the top one for demanding it. The word of mouth directed people to their site, youtubes, etc. I guess that's how it got started. I think this is interesting and glad I am looking into it, as I suspect a reason behind it now. I see nothing to counter the critics, nothing to promote the film directly, or anything. Not sure if an ad in the paper is their advertising, or the theatres advertising, as I would think they would have a selfish stake in promoting it, or advertising for it. The "make it and they will come" approach I think is basically how it went, is what I gather so far. I still have to look into it myself some, maybe I will try contacting them, I've been spending much time in my other discussion with you here, so it's taking away from time looking more and more into this part of it. I'm not complaining, just saying. :)

Jez

04-28-2011, 10:29 PM

That's what I thought. It's a shame they did it like that. They really shot us all in the foot with their approach. It would have been better if they hadn't made it.

intellectualammo

04-30-2011, 11:57 PM

That's what I thought. It's a shame they did it like that. They really shot us all in the foot with their approach. It would have been better if they hadn't made it.

Not sure I agree with that part.

But I was just kindly provided some information a moment ago by someone who recieved it from the movie promoters and I quote:

NOT. DONE. YET.

TV... here we come. Not that kind of TV. Commercials. Yep. This fight isn't over by a long shot.

Whether the mainstream media networks like it or not, we're on TV. I bet you can guess which networks are approving our spots and which aren't.

Now THAT'S the free market. Well done. Of course, we support their right to say "no" to our ads, or any ads for that matter, for whatever reason they see fit but... you be the judge... would you disapprove our ad?

I've been wondering as to what if any marketing they had, and now I see them going to seemingly really start it now.

Maybe they thought the word of mouth would have been enough or for some other reason initially? Why'd they wait? But regardless, it's on now.

And it's getting interesting according to what I just found here:

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2011/04/29/atlas-shrugged-producers-the-ad-msnbc-cnbc-cnn-refuses-to-air/

Interesting because the commercial is ALL word of mouth besides that picture...

and why are networks rejecting it for "editorial reasons"? Maybe this is why the marketing of it just wasn't really happening then...

I want to read this, but I can't since I am talking to my mom on the phone right now! :p
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2011/04/28/exclusive-atlas-shrugged-producers-intend-to-complete-trilogy-cnn-msnbc-reject-their-ads/

Theatre counts went DOWN, too. Now only 370 showing it as of right now.

Jez, you listen to the voicemails they have out? I only am right now, I guess the idea is, that since they are on strike, when you call, you get a message from them, at least I gather that just from listening to a d'Anconia voicemail, I'll look more into them on the movie site:

5W8v8V_t9yI&feature=related

Someone mentioned before about an "onine campaign" but I am unsure if that was really done by word of mouth, too. Regardless, they have a facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/AtlasShruggedMovie) which I like the whole "Movement of Ones" but I am not on facebook, never have been, so I don't know what theirs really looks like. They feature events too, with the cast, I think, at places. Oh boy I'd love to see Schilling! Wonder if she is attenidng an event?