Can Atlas Shrugged/Galt's Gulch ever become a hit series?

Posted by $ dhinet 10 years, 3 months ago to Movies
37 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Could Atlas Shrugged ever be the basis for a TV series? Can storylines be written that would educate and still entertain? The series House of Cards is a big hit for NetFlix. Would the AS series be better off with a continuing storyline or short segments? Would John and Joan Aglialoro be interested in continuing to promote the Ayn Rand book?
Would the public be interested a series about Galt's Gulch and getting there? Does Atlas Shrugged have more to say than just three 2 hour movies?
There are many outlets searching for new and interesting content. Is anyone interested in making it happen? Set up a group to make a framework?

All Comments

  • Posted by mmb 9 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If the action of the new shows could be placed in time leading up to the disappearances such as Mulligan, Wyatt and Galt the audience might be shown when the decision by a new person might be made. We saw Galt's decision in Atlas III, when did the homeschooling mother decide? When did the doctor decide? What led up to the decision? Who spoke to them and told them about Galt's Gulch? The leading up to the decision is the most important part!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by mmb 9 years, 8 months ago
    In a series there would be much more time to develop themes in depth istead of being force to allude to them,
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by mmb 9 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Again we're setting up or thinking up an idea and looking for someone with "unborrowed vision" to help. I just think the idea of showing people choices in logic could help, but know nothing of TV either.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by mmb 9 years, 8 months ago
    I absolutely do! If story lines were made up so that viewers had to make a choice in ethics or logic and then see how Aristotelian or objectivism could guide the choice versus fuzzy thinking I would say yes!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ dhinet 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Knowing what they are being told you can shape your conversation to enlighten them.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ dhinet 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    but Robbie, maybe you need to see what the others are watching, the ones not watching balanced coverage
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Let's see, all other news outlets besides FoxNews - "It was all Bush's fault", "Tea Party wacko's", "Republican obstructionists". No, I really don't need to, as they are all predictable.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    BSG 2 had nothing to do with the original, other than the names of the characters and a starship. Not sure why they even kept the name. For me, the name itself kept me away to begin with. The original show was so campy (but not intentionally so like Batman) and sophomoric that I didn't want to invest any time in the reboot. Only after getting one of the "Movie" versions did I find that it was very intriguing and full of intellectual challenges.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ dhinet 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You may be right, but you mixed up the network, if you want to see depressing, go to MSNBC or CNN.
    24 had many eyeballs and now you can watch a continuing story on Netflix without the problem of missing an episode, ie House of Cards. Also, on demand and DVR. Times have changed,
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Back in the prime of episodic TV, shows had as many as 28 episodes per season. And soap operas have new episodes every weekday - even on holidays. Only when pre-empted by other events such as football bowl games is that violated, even today. So, I think that even the volume of material in AS could be done, logistically, via a TV episodic venue.

    That said, I don't think it could work either commercially nor structurally. Episodes need to be self-contained, so that there is a premise, action, and resolution. They would also need to carry a theme that advances the story line but without alienating the audience should they miss an episode or two. That was why I always found 24 so frustrating during the TV presentation. I might miss an episode or two and when I got back, would be totally lost. When I could get the DVD's and watch in sequence, it was much more enjoyable.
    The other thing is commercial success. A show needs eyeballs and eyeballs need a compelling reason to watch. Who wants to watch the depressing dystopia of the world of AS? If that's what I want to see, I can just turn on FoxNews.
    So, no, I don't think this could ever be a commercially successful episodic TV series. Perhaps mini-series.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    What about the quintessential show implementing changing actors for a single character... Doctor Who?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ dhinet 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    there are groups of shepherds planning their grazing areas and groups of sheep following their shepherd?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Working in groups is a necessary but not at all sufficient condition for collectivism. Collectivists are a subset of people who work together.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I don't understand Maphesdus' comment.. Avoding collectivism doesn't mean avoiding groups. It just means not blinding following groups.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ dhinet 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think so too.
    But, $ Maphesdus Posted:
    Get a group of individuals together? Careful, you're starting to sound like a collectivist... ;)
    With my reply: How can a series be made without a group working together. How can Taggart get new rails without Rearden Steel? How is a movie made without a large group?
    and Maphesdus Posted Reply:
    They can't. That's my point.


    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ dhinet 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    How can a series be made without a group working together. How can Taggart get new rails without Rearden Steel? How is a movie made without a large group?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -1
    Posted by $ Maphesdus 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Get a group of individuals together? Careful, you're starting to sound like a collectivist... ;)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    " if the TV series was a totally new story with a new setting and new characters, and didn't try to be Atlas Shrugged"
    I'm thinking of something along the lines of the re-imagined BSG. It didn't try to be BSG even though it was about the exact same thing.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo