I like the cards I saw. I think conservatives would like the cards. Ayn Rands words or a dollar sign on a business card might not hit home for some.
"What would you do if you could stop the engine of the world?" See Atlas Shrugged Fall 2014 That is powerful and catchy. Where would i put it? Everywhere.Just some initial thoughts.. .

And what would that be?

I want to try the most cost efficient way first.

Just invite them out to see a Thriller/Mystery/Romance movie. When the find out the actual movie title, you could offer to reimburse them if they didn't find they got good value for their price.

That sounds good It won't work with the people I know they have it in their head it is a left right thing.

Just tell them it's a story about: 1) A love affair (you don't need to say that it's a love affair with freedom), 2) A thriller - who will be the ultimate winner, or 3) A mystery - Famous people are disappearing, mysterious forces are blowing up mines, and a mysterious "pirate" is sinking ships.
Remember, most of the masses are what Rush calls "Low Information Voters" and need to be engaged via the most basic sensory level, NOT via the cerebrum.

>(Psssst. Got a hint for you. A really good movie — a successful movie qua movie, as a solid example of writing, directing, casting, and editing — is precisely one that does NOT lead an audience member to say, "Gee, I'd love to read the book on which it's based." Instead, it leads audience members to say, "Gee, that was great! I'd love to see it again!"

I watched the movies twenty times on Netflix I wanted to see what happened next, I couldn't wait, I bought the book.with a gift card to the book store.Then I joined this because I wanted to know more.

I began with the bad publicity because it spread through the left. I know because my daughter a Democrat nearly lost her mind when I suggested she watch the movies, a month ago. I have another Democrat friend that acted the same way when I brought up the movies. I have done my very best to show that the movies portray issues that they might understand, like globalism. Now I’m thinking that approach is wrong because that is using rationalism. You talk to people that are run by feelings by appealing to their emotions. This is the third movie so they need a synopsis..
Francisco and Dagny are friends that grew up together during the summers he came to America to stay at her family’s house. Even as children they were fascinated by the way things work, so they planned on learning their father’s trades. When they grew up Fransisco came to America to start college and they fell madly in love. Fransisco's father died(should have been in the movie) so Fransisco goes to work in his father's copper mine in Argentina. The government officials pressure him for money to put his competitor out of business. Fransisco didn't want to do business this way so he decided to turn the tables on the officials. He can't tell Dagny because there are people in America connected with this scheme and he doesn't want to see her hurt. So he asks her to trust him but ignore what she may hear without any further explanation.
Years go by, Dagny is now working in her father's business under her brother, who does next to nothing. She struggles day after day to keep the business afloat. At this point so many businesses have made deals with politicians to put their competitors out of business that she can't even get parts to keep the railroad going. Many of her suppliers and other people she worked with start to disappear. This is happening everywhere. Even artists and musicians disappear. So many people disappeared they have a saying" Who is John Galt?"
Dagny’s brother works with the politicians against Dagny’s wishes. Politicians start passing laws so they have total control over raw materials. Anyone that fights them is accused of being a greedy and an enemy of the people. Politicians partnered with other governments to benefit businesses interest in other countries while destroying businesses in their own countries. Gas prices reached $43.00 a gallon.
Dagny meets Hank Reardon a steel manufacturer. Hank is supporting his family who have become very close to the rich and powerful. They treat Hank like dirt because he works for a living. Hank made a new metal he can't sell because the bigger steel mills have the politicians working to stop him. Dagny starts buying metal from Hank to repair her railroad. They go on a trip to see about a company that made motors. The company is shut down but Dagny finds a motor that could be the answer to the energy crisis. She tries to find the person who made it or someone who can get it working, but they’ve all disappeared.
Fransisco comes to town but now it appears he is working with the politicians. Little does Dagny know Fransisco is spinning a web to get the politicians and crony capitalists to invest in phony business prospects. Since they never worked a day in their lives, they have no knowledge about what they invest in, they just invest by insider trading. Over the years Fransisco has gone to great lengths to play the part of a playboy rolling in money. He has everyone eating out of his hand, except Dagny.
Fransisco meets Reardon at a dinner party and observes how his family and the guests treat him. He tries to get Reardon to see that he doesn’t deserve to let these people treat him like that. This is the beginning of a friendship, but Fransisco doesn’t know Dagny and Reardon are having an affair.
Dagney finds an engineer to work on the motor in secret. Months later the engineer starts to get the motor working, so he calls Dagny to come and see it. Then he realizes this will give more power to the politicians. He hires a private jet to take the technology far away, but as he is getting on the plane Dagny is landing, so she chases him. The second movie ends with her plane crashing and a stranger reaching for her. He tells her he is John Galt.
If you can get that message to people, they might listen. The question becomes are they trying to sell a movie or a philosophy. I believe Ayn Rand knew she was talking about globalism.
Maybe if that cute guy could talk to the left wing media the word would spread. I would even stress how much of one persons money was invested to make this movie.

>Me, then I went bought the book. I am waiting til the movies are a three pack to buy those.

Well, then, there you go! You have no reason to gripe about how the irrationality of the public, and the philosophical corruption of the critics, "killed" the movie and caused it be unsuccessful, right?

rlewellen and Rozar both thought the movie was compelling enough to buy the book — furthermore, they both intend to buy the DVDs of the trilogy — so it follows that the movies were successful!

Thanks for setting everyone straight on that.

(Psssst. Got a hint for you. A really good movie — a successful movie qua movie, as a solid example of writing, directing, casting, and editing — is precisely one that does NOT lead an audience member to say, "Gee, I'd love to read the book on which it's based." Instead, it leads audience members to say, "Gee, that was great! I'd love to see it again!"

No one watches "Gone With The Wind" and says, "Wow! I'm going to buy the novel and read it!" No one says after Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange", "Awesome! Kinky! It makes me want to read the book!" If AS intrigued you enough to buy the novel and read it, it's because it didn't make you want to run out to the box office and immediately buy another ticket. A movie adaptation of a novel is not intended to be an advertisement for the novel. If it makes you buy the novel, it means the screenwriting was not complete enough and you thought [correctly] that you'd find out more from the book.

You unwittingly agreed with me that the film versions of AS, qua movies, were unsuccessful.)

>I think it was successful in the aspect that I liked it.

A breathtaking example of Primacy of Consciousness.

("It pleased me, therefore it was successful." Nope.)

>What modern audiences look for in a movie is sex, shiny effects, shock, and reinforcement of politically correct dogma. A story is handy, but far from mandatory.

Wrong. Last summer (to take just one example of many) there were many action movies with big stars, lots of sex, lots of special f/x, and lots of politically correct dogma. They all flopped.

Mainly because the stories sucked.

"Audiences today are looking for exactly the same thing they looked for 50 years ago:"

I call BS. Oh, it may be true that both eras are looking for "a good movie", but what they define as "a good movie" is wildly different. Most audiences from the 1950s would walk out on most modern blockbusters. There may even have been riots over, say "Avatar".
"The Golden Compass" wouldn't have flown in the 1950, although Narnia would have.

What modern audiences look for in a movie is sex, shiny effects, shock, and reinforcement of politically correct dogma. A story is handy, but far from mandatory.

It's not exactly their fault; it's more their parents' fault. Parents, who, when challenged on their cultural values and mores by the anti-American left, couldn't or wouldn't defend them. Parents who allowed the dumbing down of schools, who allowed themselves to be guilted into lowering the superior to the least common denominator in all aspects of life. Until we turn out generation after generation of dull-minded drones, for whom stimulus is more relevant than thought.
It's why James Bond was transformed from a sophisticate into a thug. It's why the most notable things about Tony Stark is his bedding everything with an opening and his irresponsible partying.

Like with everything modern, flash triumphs over substance; titillation over story.
Look at modern remakes. They take a story that worked in its day, and at the expense of the story insert violence, flashy effects, obnoxious music, sex, and political correctness. How many times have you heard people say, "Oh, I hope they don't do a remake of <insert film>" when they hear about a remake being made, today?

>What do you think they could do to make it more successful financially?

Financially successful movies are those that have lots of positive "word of mouth" advertising. ("Did you see X? No? You should. It was amazing. Really interesting story . . . I'd see it again. Wanna go on Saturday?" If people like the movie, they will talk like this to friends, family, and acquaintances, in spite of anything negative published by any professional critic.)

And the way to make a movie that people talk about is to make a good movie. After the hodgepodge approach of Kaslow-Aglialoro, I'm now convinced they not only didn't really know what they were doing, they didn't really set out to make a good film. Not sure why.

Like any commercial product, a film has to be marketed, but the idea that "good marketing" will make a "good film", or that "successful marketing" will make a "financially successful film" is nonsense.

Think about if a moment. Never mind the choppy screenwriting, wooden acting, unimaginative directing, and unintelligible editing. Just think of the casting:

You don't find it just plain wacky to have 3 different casts in 3 films, all purportedly telling one unified story? I mean . . . it's weird.

Guaranteed, after this is over, the AS trilogy will be remembered by people as, "Oh, yeah, I remember that! Wasn't that the one that had a different cast for each episode? I don't remember the story, but I remember thinking that was pretty funny!"

C'mon. That's how the trilogy is going to be remembered by the public at large. And it's the public at large that make a film financially successful, not the small niche markets (e.g., committed Objectivists) who bought a few tickets and a few DVDs.

It's probably too late for this trilogy. Part 3 will flop at the box office and garner the usual disdain from the professional film critics.

Traveling backward in time, the things that should have been done differently to obtain a better result might have been:

1) Remove David Kelley from the production. I've never heard of a movie — whether literary adaptation or original screenplay — that had a "philosophical consultant" on it, advising the creative team as to the philosophical purity of their creative choices. I'd expect that sort of unprofessional nonsense from Scientology but not from Objectivism.

2) If I were on the producing team, I'd fight for one of two alternatives regarding the kind of adaptation that would best serve the intent of the novel and the objective requirements of dramatic storytelling for the screen: (a) either adapt the novel to a multi-part TV series (e.g., 10 episodes), which would permit more granularity in the storytelling (more detailed presentations of subplots and their various characters); (b) or write one single, integrated, unified movie — 2 hours, no more than 2.5 hours — in which a main character is presented (e.g., Dagny), along with her main struggle (e.g., to save her railroad from financial ruin due to a collapsing economy and culture); and in which the writers would obviously have to omit many subplots as simply not contributing directly this main storyline. That would be less granular than a TV miniseries, but more focused.

I understand that Randall Wallace (who wrote "Braveheart") wrote such a screenplay, but it was rejected in favor of a kitchen-sink, hodgepodge approach to which the public was treated in parts 1 and 2.

It would be very interesting to read Wallace's take on the novel. Apparently, he spent a lot of time on the affair between Dagny and Rearden as being central to who these characters were. I don't know how he dealt with the motor, the gulch, etc.

In either case, (a) or (b), you spend a year, if necessary, concentrating on the casting, after there's a serviceable draft of the screenplay finished.

You don't need established stars for this. You just need careful casting. But before the careful casting, you need much better writing; then you can worry about bringing an imaginative director on board. But even good directors know the fundamentals: it all begins with good writing.

>I don't think they can do more. I read a few reviews and it was clear there was political bias.

Rozar didn't ask how to garner greater critical acclaim; he asked how to get more people to buy tickets. In the movie trade, it's known as "asses in seats."

"Asses in seats" has nothing to do with what the film critics like or don't like, since the public doesn't read them or care what they think. The public cares what their friends think.

What makes a movie financially successful is what makes a novel like Atlas Shrugged financially successful: word of mouth.

I don't think they can do more. I read a few reviews and it was clear there was political bias. I think they rejected it as soon as they realized they were the looters.

>The cast looks fine to me

Well, that's a relief! I was worried there for a minute.

So, you're not bothered by the fact that Dagny had an affair with a character (Francisco) now played by an actor 20 years too old for the part? Isn't an important part of the story the fact that Francisco and Galt had been contemporaries at the Patrick Henry University? How could they have been contemporaries if they're 20 years apart in age?

You don't find it weird that the producers claim to be making a close adaptation of the novel (they even have a philosophical consultant on the producing staff to ensure conformity with Objectivism), yet they deviate so wildly from Rand's original vision of what her characters were supposed to be like?

Me, then I went bought the book. I am waiting til the movies are a three pack to buy those.