17

What would you consider the number one priority in the making of Atlas Shrugged Part III?

Posted by sdesapio 1 year, 5 months ago to Entertainment
751 comments | Share

We want to hear from you. What would you consider the number one priority in the making of Atlas Shrugged Part III?

A. Casting
B. Getting the message of Atlas Shrugged right
C. Cinematography
D. Special Effects
E. Hiring the right Director
F. Other

Leave your answer in the comments below.


Add Comment


All Comments

  • 26
    Posted by vickiejc 1 year, 5 months ago
    A. Casting!!!

    Please, please, please bring back Taylor Shilling to play Dagny and Grant Bowler to play Henry Rearden. Taylor seems to have a confidence and maturity about her that Samantha Mathis lacks. Grant Bowler was also great in the role of Henry Rearden. Would like to see them both return.
    Reply | Permalink  
    • 14
      Posted by gmcase 1 year, 5 months ago
      My sentiments also, especially regarding Dagny. The last one always seemed to be ready to burst into tears. I thought the first Dagny was cast quite well.
      Reply | Permalink  
      • Posted by gblaze47 1 year, 5 months ago
        Agreed, Taylor Schilling was great! I also liked Grant Bowler as Rearden.
        Reply | Permalink  
    • 13
      Posted by Bowleggid 1 year, 5 months ago
      ABSOLUTELY casting. Taylor was far superior in playing Dagny. Samantha always just looked overly concerned & stressed to the breaking point, & didn't project her strength of character the way Taylor did.
      Reply | Permalink  
    • 13
      Posted by JWeaver 1 year, 5 months ago
      I completely agree!!! I really liked Taylor Shilling. And Grant Bowler. I didn't like the casting change at all.
      Reply | Permalink  
    • 10
      Posted by live2themaks 1 year, 5 months ago
      Absolutely bring them back! The recast of Dagny, Henry, and even Eddie in the second film made me really frustrated. Also why is Eddie black?? I feel like this really changed the dynamic between him and Dagny ESPECIALLY in this third one where you find out his true feelings for her!
      Reply | Permalink  
      • Posted by Rex_Little 1 year, 5 months ago
        Do you know that Eddie's feelings for Dagny will be shown in part 3? They could leave that out without spoiling the story at all.

        My problem isn't that Eddie is black, it's that he's the ONLY black in the cast. Makes him seem like a token. A couple of the disappearing businessmen, like Ken Danagger, could have been black. Better yet, a Denzel Washington type (obviously they weren't going to get the real thing) would have been perfect for Ellis Wyatt.
        Reply | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  EitherOr 1 year, 5 months ago
          Seconded. Also, Eddie is supposed to be capable but timid, afraid to take the risks Dagny does. He just looks like a loyal bodyguard in the second film, which reinforces the "token" role.
          Reply | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  khalling 1 year, 5 months ago
        wait-what the heck? ESPECIALLY in the third one when you find out he has feelings for her? You cannot be serious! Last time I checked any color of Man has the capacity for reason and to love
        Reply | Permalink  
        • Posted by live2themaks 1 year, 5 months ago
          No, it is just directly against what AR wrote. She described how Eddie looked along with all the other characters. If she didn't specify I wouldn't care but it's like making Ron from Harry Potter black just for the sake of it, when he's described clearly in the book as a red-head. Eddie is described as a Germanic looking guy so why are they changing it? Do they have some protocol where they have to have at least one black person a movie? Why?
          Reply | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  khalling 1 year, 5 months ago
            why not? He tried out and got the part. His ethnicity is not crucial to the message.
            Reply | Permalink  
            • Posted by Supergyro 1 year, 5 months ago
              In fact, it's fair to say Rand's message was that these things are independent of race and cultural origin.

              Making all the leads blonde blue-eyed white folks misleads things. There's no reason any of them couldn't be any race.

              It's something the casting of the first movie missed (when they made the money grubbing types snivelling Jewish stereotypes) but the casting of the second caught (when Mouch turned into a well-spoken white guy).
              Reply | Permalink  
              • Posted by Shonkin 1 year, 4 months ago
                Really? I thought Michael Lerner, the first Wesley Mouch, who did a great Tip O'Neill impression, was spot on. What if he is Jewish? So was Alisa Rosenbaum, alias Ayn Rand.
                Reply | Permalink  
                • Posted by Supergyro 1 year, 4 months ago
                  It's not that Lerner was jewish.... It's that the vast majority of the 'villain' roles were kind of a who's-who of jewish character actors.

                  Michael Lerner, Armin Shimerman, Patrick Fischler

                  meanwhile, Jon Polito's not jewish, but was playing a conniving, big nosed, moneygrubber...

                  This was a problem in the first film, it was fixed by the recasting (I don't know whether the problem or the fixing was intentional, only that the fixes did occur). This made more sense in the second, the story took place in America, it made sense that the heroes and the villains were predominantly non-jewish white folks.
                  Reply | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  khalling 1 year, 4 months ago
                    statistically speaking, the whole point of Atlas Shrugged is that there are many more villains than the good guys. also, villains are much more fun to play. everyone knows that :) furthermore, I don't hear the a fore mentioned actors complaining about the roles they had
                    Reply | Permalink  
                    • Posted by Supergyro 1 year, 4 months ago
                      Statistically speaking, it's suspicious when a movie takes place in America and the majority of villians come from a group that's only 2% of the population. It would also have been been suspicious if the heroes were similarly statistically aberrant from the population.

                      It's knowing the difference between "There are more villains than heroes", and "The villains are predominantly jewish."

                      The first casting director didn't seem to know this difference, luckily the second one did.
                      Reply | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  khalling 1 year, 5 months ago
                except, super, the casting to which you are referring was an Objectivist, I believe
                Reply | Permalink  
      • Posted by tjcarney1 1 year, 4 months ago
        What's up with Dagny being blonde? I mean, if we are going to talk about Eddie being black ... Dagny was not blonde in the book
        Reply | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  winterwind 1 year, 4 months ago
          Well, butter my biscuits! I was getting ready to say "Hunh-uuunh!" and add that she's blonde inside my head when I thought - you put that copy of AS there by the computer so you could use it when necessary. So use it. Her hair IS brown! Strangely enough, she's still a blonde inside my head.
          Reply | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  erudeen 1 year, 4 months ago
            Really? I had a problem with it in the movie. I am sure she had brown hair...

            "A sweep of brown hair fell back, almost touching her shoulders."
            Reply | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  khalling 1 year, 4 months ago
            it's not important. I'm still for the all asian american cast
            Reply | Permalink  
      • Posted by cseidman 1 year, 5 months ago
        What's up with you? Do you favor the laws of the old south where sexual relations between races was a felony? Anyway, Francisco in the movie isn't exactly how he's described in the book, either.... and he's isn't exactly a Hitler Youth in appearance - book or movie!
        Reply | Permalink  
    • Posted by Chortovka 1 year, 5 months ago
      I agree. I couldn't connect to the cast in Part II. I thought Dagny and Henry were passive in Part II ... almost like they were simply going through the motions. IMO, Part II definitely lacked an accurate portrayal of the characters in the book.
      Reply | Permalink  
      • Posted by fgrieger 1 year, 4 months ago
        I couldn't disagree more. Jason Beghe was far more believable, more edgy, than the "pretty-boy" male model type who was his predecessor. As someone who has truly worked in the steel and metals industry, and having started, and sold high-risk manufacturing businesses myself; I cannot identify with a GQ type who spends more of his time polishing his cufflinks and staring in the mirror; than WORKING at great risk, to build an industrial empire from nothing. Although Taylor Schilling was OK; she too is too young and too much a fashion-model type. Think.....Kyra Sedgewick and Russell Crowe in terms of "type".
        Reply | Permalink  
    • Posted by ehevutov 1 year, 5 months ago
      I have a man-crush on Grant Bowler. That guy is a boss and played Hank Rearden perfectly.
      Reply | Permalink  
      • Posted by MrsRK 1 year, 5 months ago
        Ha, ha, ha, cute comment. Although I don't have a crush on Bowler, I think he was perfect as Rearden, very macho and mature--a real man!
        Reply | Permalink  
    • Posted by Leon 1 year, 5 months ago
      I 100% totally agree. They should both come back.
      Reply | Permalink  
    • Posted by XenokRoy 1 year, 5 months ago
      I do not agree. While I enjoyed Taylor Shilling I did not care for Grant Bowler to much.

      I think in the next movie they need to have a new cast again. The reason being that to attempt some kind of actor continuity for the third movie where the others had none will simply cause the 2nd act to be well invalidated, and it was the much better of the two movies.

      I would personally love to see the first two acts redone alone with the 3rd with the same actors for all three, in which case Taylor shilling would be great for Dagney. I preferred Jason Beghe for Rearden as he seemed much more the man that worked his way from a coal miner to a industrial CEO; Grant Bowler was just to much the pretty boy to be that person.

      In any case that will not happen so I would rather see a completely different cast for the 3rd act.
      Reply | Permalink  
      • Posted by geridler 1 year, 4 months ago
        The story is paramount for me, but when I watch a movie, I want some glamor in the cast where appropriate. The second cast was completely without that quality which was for me a distraction.
        Reply | Permalink  
        • Posted by XenokRoy 1 year, 4 months ago
          I would generally agree with you.

          I am personally of the opinion that using different actors for all three at this point would be more likely to keep it about the story and the lessons of the power of thought/thinking that it presents than going back to either of the previous casts.

          The actress that they get to play Dagny in the 3rd act had batter be able to pull it off wonderfully. She will bring the glamor or she wont and the rest of the cast will follow suit.
          Reply | Permalink  
    • Posted by Doug_Ort 1 year, 5 months ago
      The casting for part III doesn't matter, because the continuity has already been interrupted. For what it's worth, of the eight common characters in parts I and II (excluding Galt), I preferred Schilling, Bowler, Gathegi and Garcia from part I, Fabian, Rhodes and Picardo from part II, and Lerner/McCrane was a wash. Regarding Wisocky, I love her as an actress, but she's just not bitchy enough to play Lillian Rearden.
      Reply | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  jens 1 year, 5 months ago
      I dissagree completely. Shilling and Bowler were stiff and mechanical almost to the point of amateurish. The new cast has made the characters human something sorely needed. The new cast are very good choices.
      Reply | Permalink  
  • 17
    Posted by nomark 1 year, 5 months ago
    I'm so glad you asked...

    Here is the issue. Libertarians (and to some degree conservatives) think it's the message that matters. Only the message. But the liberals and progressives know this is not true. In fact how the story is told is way more important than the story. This is the secret that they have used for 100 years to advance their view of how the world should be run and why we are almost always in 2nd place.

    Our message is better. In fact far superior. However, if you tell the story in a poor manner, the message does not get thru. Hollywood and the big media outlets know this so well. I have watched debates where they are laughing at our side because the person is stumbling to get the words out. The message is good, but if it's told in a poor manner, the listener only hears/sees a small fraction of the story.

    So the STORY HAS TO BE TOLD IN AN IMPECCABLE MANNER. Do not worry about getting the message right. That will come naturally. A good story teller knows this. They use illustrations, imaginations, examples, anecdotes, etc. to convey the ideas. That's the key. You must convey the ideas.

    Here is another secret the progressives have used for 100 years, and a serious flaw in the libertarian/objectivist/conservative/independent world: Information that is attached to emotion bypasses the rational mind and goes directly into long term memory. You can research this or take my word for it. But most information we get has to be processed. Is this right? Wrong? Likely? Plausible, etc. But when the information is attached to an emotion, especially a strong emotion, that info goes right into the long term memory, bypassing the frontal lobes. That's why they always tell the story with emotion. It's not just that it makes a better story, or more entertaining, but the secret is that it goes into a persons mind without the normal filtering.

    Test this out yourself. Think back about the things you "know" to be true. You will find almost all of them at attached to an emotional memory.


    Reply | Permalink  
    • Posted by StevenH 1 year, 5 months ago
      Nomark's point is why I think a movie about the 20th Century Motor Co. gets the message across better. You take some honest hard working people and put them into a system where they come to believe it is in their best interest to murder an old woman because she needs expensive medical care. You can't tie an emotional scene to a message any better than that.
      Reply | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Rocky_Road 1 year, 5 months ago
        I am so 'on board' with your reference to the 20th Century Motor story as being a microcosm of Rand's polemic. The full story in the novel tells it all, and should have been expanded in Part II.

        A sad omission, and a lost opportunity to 'spread' the gospel.
        Reply | Permalink  
      • Posted by Rex_Little 1 year, 5 months ago
        Minor nitpick: did anyone else think "20th Century Motor Co." was an odd name for a company to have in 2014?
        Reply | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  Rocky_Road 1 year, 5 months ago
          I took it as reflecting a company with some history, and longevity...like 20th Century Fox is still doing it, and doing it well enough to be a big player.

          All the sadder when it finally fails through no fault of it's own....
          Reply | Permalink  
        • Posted by Shonkin 1 year, 4 months ago
          What difference does it make? Atlas Shrugged took decades to write and was full of anachronisms. Only one bridge across the Mississippi in the 1950's, when the novel came out? Railroads still dominating the transportation picture? Twentieth Century Motors was the least of it.
          Reply | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Rocky_Road 1 year, 5 months ago
      I am struggling with your post on several levels:

      Firstly, Rand's novel was a huge success for her contemporary readers, and has held unequaled attention to this day. There has to be a reason for this, since Rand was not a polished 'Hollywood' script writer by any stretch of the imagination. But her story captivated readers, just as I found it to be hard to put down. She cleverly used several literary 'hooks' that made each chapter a cliff hanger. Sadly, the most memorable devices were left out of the first two movie installments (the omnipresent clock comes to mind immediately)....

      Secondly, I am not ready to assume that today's entertainment consumers are all that more jaded than those of Rand's time. While it is certainly true that today's moviegoers are expecting more 'bling' than substance (not by choice, but by design), they do react to the latter when given the opportunity. A perfect example of this is the current overproduced film The Great Gatsby...which leaves the audience totally clueless as to the morality play that Fitzgerald originally penned. Anyone that has read the novel, or has seen the rare Alan Ladd version, knows what I mean.

      I am not ready to 'dumb' down the message for the sake of reaching the larger mass of media consumers, and I don't think that the end result would be any more life changing for them in the end.

      The novel as written was an emotional event for me, and short of the overindulgent closing speech, totally engaging. The message has all of the drama that one could ask for, and the characters carried that message quite dramatically.

      The story AS WRITTEN has passed the test of time quite well...and it is an almost impossible task to translate this into an afternoon at the movie house.
      Reply | Permalink  
      • Posted by JossAmbrose 1 year, 5 months ago
        Atlas Shrugged is a fantastic book. It dwarfs 'Gatsby' - which is minuscule in comparison & bored me within the first chapter. Atlas is absolutely gripping & as far as film production goes, it 'deserves' Hollywood status. It would take a dozen feature length films to do it real justice.
        Reply | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  Rocky_Road 1 year, 5 months ago
          Agreed...and there lies the 'rub'!

          Rand's story might have been better suited to a 6, or 7, part mini-series, with installments of 2 hour length. There is so much complexity in her tale, that it becomes a thankless task trying to decide what can be successfully 'trimmed'!

          At best we can hope that some of the viewers not familiar with the novel, will be compelled to read the whole story....

          "Who is John Galt?"
          Reply | Permalink  
          • Posted by XenokRoy 1 year, 5 months ago
            From my own personal life 13 people I know have read the book after watching the first and/or second movies. Of those every one is now more small government than they were before reading it.

            As far as making a social change the movies are doing some good. I hope that they build a profitable franchise of products and services around and from the movies and long standing interest in the book. It would go far to educate and enlighten people about the evils of big government no matter what forms it takes.
            Reply | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  Mimi 1 year, 5 months ago
            I believe that ABC was going to do a mini-series, but then got new a new executive producer or someone like that who then nixed the plans.
            Reply | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  BeenThere 1 year, 4 months ago
              The exec was Fred Friendly (???) and he axed it b/c of the philosophical message.......anyone surprised?
              Reply | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  Mimi 1 year, 4 months ago
                Thank-you. I didn’t know who Fred Friendly was. I’m afraid I am not up to par with television history.Interesting how much impact he has had on television according to Wiki. I’m just reading AS for the first time and I am 2/3 through it. Would Freddie-boy be what they refer to as a looter?
                Reply | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  BeenThere 1 year, 4 months ago
                  Keep reading. Not so much a looter or moocher as
                  an ideological traffic cop, not letting projects having a theme with which he disagreed (or thought would not draw an audience) come to fruition. This, of course, is the prerogative of a
                  private company like ABC.
                  Reply | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  Mimi 1 year, 4 months ago
                    According to Wiki, Fred Friendly worked for CBS, and was fired for running I Love Lucy instead of covering the Vietnam Senate hearings. He went on to start PBS. Never worked at ABC. Maybe it was CBS or PBS that was going to do AS? If it had been CBS that would have been a long time ago.
                    Reply | Permalink  
    • Posted by Ob1 1 year, 5 months ago
      In my opinion this is about salvaging this project & the only way is a COMMANDING FINALE. It is a mistake to retreat into just making part3 for those who already 'get it" because Rand's true objective was to help people awaken from their social engineered illusions. Seek a wider audience, some will awaken if approached skillfully.
      Having studied AR's works & having a hand in the world of film making, I think there is some merit in a 3rd cast change IF there is a compelling improvement that makes the audience care about the protagonists: My wife & I think AMANDA TAPPING would be a standout choice since in Stargate 1 she portrayed a gutsy, strong, brilliant, & beautiful, objective oriented woman as is Dagney. Introduce all at outset with caption identifying "dramatis personae" to underscore the "discontinuity as method of story continuity" - that the story is universal.

      Have been thinking about what NOMARK said & as a revisit to this thread, still think those comments are among the most useful;

      as well as by zigory: "As to B, I recommend to the filmmakers "Adapting Atlas Shrugged to Film" by Jeff Britting and "Galt's Speech in Five Sentences (and Forty Questions)" by Allan Gotthelf from the book "Essays on Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged" edited by Robert Mayhew. In terms of condensing Galt's Speech, Mr. Gotthelf's essay may prove invaluable."

      Others have detailed this: Make screen time by EFFECTIVE use of visual overlays from similar to current events/ headlines etc to get the less than with it viewer to connect the dots: THE NANNY STATE DOES NOT WORK & WHY. & what the alternative presented is.

      Make it work at a gut level, hearts & minds, folks...

      Post script: For technical accuracy on ZERO POINT ENERGY which Galt was utilizing, contact Bearden, Bedini ( cheniere.org) & Steven Greer (disclosureproject.org) to bring that facet of this story HOME. This is not fantasy land, this is REAL. People need to get that. Other historical references: T Henry Moray, Tesla ( energy); Royal Raymond Rife (energy healing technology), to name a very few...get archival photos etc.
      Reply | Permalink  
    • Posted by 2600 1 year, 5 months ago
      Exactly. The story.

      It's a movie, not a lecture.

      I was about to write something very similar to this post, but nomark sums it up well. An emotional reaction to this story is what grabbed all of us and never let go. Just presenting a plot on film will be hollow without an attachment to the characters. That attachment begins with casting and acting.
      Reply | Permalink  
    • Posted by Chuck 1 year, 5 months ago
      You want them to TRY to get people to think LESS critically? Am I on the right website?

      If people who join our cause don't do so based on reason, they aren't ready to join our cause.
      Reply | Permalink  
    • Posted by Spikeygrrl 1 year, 5 months ago
      @nomark: "Think back about the things you 'know' to be true. You will find almost all of them at attached to an emotional memory."

      Speak only for yourself, dude. Emotions come and go; that's one of the downsides of being Human. However, things you grab onto with your REASON are forever, unless new and contradictory HARD INFORMATION comes down the pike.
      Reply | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  BeenThere 1 year, 4 months ago
        "...that's one of the downsides of being Human."

        "downside'? Emotions react to the thinking one has done or failed to do.............if the thinking is objectively rational (consonent with man's nature), the emotions are pleasurable; if not, then torturous. The mind is man's tool of survival; when used correctly (reality identification) the results, including emotions, are very satisfactory..................including seeing when to avoid or escape from the irrational.
        Reply | Permalink  
    • Posted by Win 1 year, 4 months ago
      You ARE on story developement for Part 3.... right?!! Get thee a job there, if not already!!!
      Reply | Permalink  
    • Posted by XenokRoy 1 year, 5 months ago
      So long as you get a director and writers who understand the message themselves I would agree the message will come through, but if they do not understand and agree with the message it will not.
      Reply | Permalink  
    • Posted by INOV8TN 1 year, 5 months ago
      Thanks! That was a exceptional comment. It points to why the Book is so well read but then forgotten. Message + Emotion = Success
      Reply | Permalink  
      • Posted by Spikeygrrl 1 year, 5 months ago
        @INOV8TN: (BTW, LOVE your screen name!)
        Speak only for yourself, please! Somehow I doubt that ANYONE here has EVER forgotten the book :)
        Reply | Permalink  
    • Posted by prfeiger 1 year, 5 months ago
      Nomark is right on. That is the reason AS II was so superior to AS I..Let's consider using the techniques that bring success. As long as we do not violate the basic philosophy, the sky's the limit on how we communicate these ideas. The war is on and we have not been winning as many as we could. Why not consider what Nomark is stating and begin to take back our freedom from the Fascists now in power by a great AP III?
      Reply | Permalink  
  • 16
    Posted by ssns4ever 1 year, 5 months ago
    B. I thought the actors playing Dagny and Rearden were MUCH better in Part I than Part II. The acting has to be good or it will destroy the message. In Part II Dagny looked haggard and strained, and Readen's gravelly voice just sounded like he had smoked too many cigarettes or something. Dagny in Part I was gorgeous and upbeat and optimistic - that is appealing to an audience.
    Reply | Permalink  
    • Posted by MrsRK 1 year, 5 months ago
      I disagree that it would "destroy the message." Mrs. Rand's message is so good no bad actor can damage it.
      Reply | Permalink  
    • Posted by Sully2161 1 year, 5 months ago
      I preferred the actors in Part 1 as well; however, I think it would be a mistake (and likely impractical) to recast those actors again. A third switch is going to throw off the audience even more than the second switch. Also, your remarks about Dagny and Rearden being haggard in Part II -- doesn't that actually fit the progression of the plot...?
      Reply | Permalink  
  • 14
    Posted by brucefon 1 year, 5 months ago
    A. Bring back the orginal cast;
    and
    F.Have the original cast refilm part II, then release part III as one long film.
    Reply | Permalink  
    • Posted by Howlingmad 1 year, 5 months ago
      Absolutely PERFECT idea . . . reshooting Pt.2 would be a GREAT IDEA . . . it sure pissed off a "LOT" of people ! ( "ME", for one ! . . . )
      Reply | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Dersh 1 year, 4 months ago
      I agree to BOTH points here! Second cast and movie total flop because of the change!
      Reply | Permalink  
  • 12
    Posted by  $  kathywiso 1 year, 5 months ago
    Definitely B, getting the message right, then E will make sure all the movies come together through Galt's speech. Stick to the novel and it will be a total success.
    Reply | Permalink  
    • Posted by Spikeygrrl 1 year, 5 months ago
      I must vehemently disagree.

      The top priority, IMNSHO, is NOT to give in to the temptation to reproduce Galt's radio address in anything even close to its tedious, needlessly repetitive entirety!

      This irked me even in the novel, so I've skipped over it every time I've re-read the novel over the past 30-some years. Anyone still reading at that point GETS IT ALREADY!!!!

      OTOH, in the Part II film, the story of the disintegration of the 20th Century Motor Company was given ridiculously short shrift. A concrete example like that one will convince many more fence-sitters than a faithful rendition of Galt's so-bored-they-snored radio speech. After all, we are now seeing the 20th Century Motor Company all around us, every day.
      Reply | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  kathywiso 1 year, 5 months ago
        Vehemently disagreeing. Galt's speech is a synopsis of the message Rand intended to expose throughout AS. I didn't state that the entire speech be used, but it has to have a part in AS III and I never skipped the speech in the book.
        Reply | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  LetsShrug 1 year, 5 months ago
        I LOVED the speech! Sure, by then I already "got it", but it just hammered it all home even more. Irrefutable logic...but it will have to be shortened in the movie for obvious reasons. We're pushing for bonus edition of the speech with a virtual tour of the U.S. and all of it's current and relevant glory though.
        I DO like the idea of expanding on Starnesville/Century Motors however. :)
        Reply | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
    • Posted by darren 1 year, 5 months ago
      >>>Stick to the novel and it will be a total success.

      Parts 1 and 2 stuck to the novel, yet they were failures with audiences and critics. How do you explain it?

      What about this:

      Just because a screenplay sticks to a novel doesn't make it a good screenplay. This is true for any novel-to-film adaptation, not just Atlas.

      A screenplay is the blueprint of a movie. If the blueprint is flawed, the building you construct using it as a guide will be flawed. Just ask Howard Roark.
      Reply | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
      • -1
        Posted by C_S 1 year, 5 months ago
        "Parts 1 and 2 stuck to the novel, yet they were failures with audiences and critics. How do you explain it?"

        Because no screenplay can really actually stick to a novel. Even a novel as thin as, say, Jerzy Kosinski's "Being There" gets compressed. It takes about eight hours straight to read "The Great Gatsby." Any movie shorter than eight hours has left something out.

        No screenplay can truly stick to a novel. This is news to some people, especially when the particular novel is their substitute for the Holy Writ.

        Rand is justifiably known for hitting her reader over the head with a crowbar for page after page after page, especially when it comes to her ideology. That's why she was so ill-suited as a novelist rather than an essayist. And that's why the most infamous chapter in the book has one guy not letting anyone else interrupt him for three hours - beyond parody as bad novel-writing.

        Now, if the people posting here were really serious about "first and foremost, you've got to get the ideology across," they'd be clamoring for the Galt speech in its entirety. Anything else would be a regrettable compromise, right? But there's no chance that's going to happend. Yet the Galt does represent a serious quandary for the producers. How much should they include? Which parts should they cut? I don't think for example that anybody would particularly miss her cod-Aristotle noodling about existence (except for those who know enough Aristotle to find it as sophomoric as I do). But the line about "His time is over" -- that's gotta stay, if only because that's as far as most rational people make it into the blablablah.

        So the reaction is going to go into two camps. The ones who get so starry-eyed over hearing an actor say "Mr. Thomspon will not be addressing you tonight" that they won't care which parts of the speech are included or excluded, and the ones who are going to insist that the lines supporting Rand Dogmatic Point 38.4 subparagraph 129 were inexcusably left out AND THE ENTIRE SPEECH WEAKENED IRREMEDIABLY AS A RESULT, HOW COULD YOU! HOW COULD YOU!

        So it's a problem. A big, big, big problem within the ranks of Randites. Which is to say, in the real world, it's no problem at all.
        Reply | Permalink  
  • 11
    Posted by Rick1217 1 year, 5 months ago
    Casting. The "Dagny" of Part 1 was exactly the woman I saw in AS. The actress in Part 2 always looked as if she was about to cry or mourning or desperate. She simply did not conduct herself facially or figure the why Part 1 Dagny did. Bring her back with either Reardon and you have it made.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 11
    Posted by Fred-Siersma 1 year, 5 months ago
    My biggest disappointment in Atlas Shrugged II was using different actors/actresses for Dagney, Henry, etc. Use the original cast for Part III.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 10
    Posted by nomark 1 year, 5 months ago
    So many of you are wrong. Please listen. I'm one of you. Think about the movie, part 1 and part 2. What is the single biggest scene from each movie? Now think what message was attached to that scene? What they are failing to do is connect the emotion created by the scene with the message. You can't just concentrate on the message/message/message. Without the story telling the message is lost. Look at how well the progressives have been doing for 100 years. Their message SUCKS, but in the last 100 years have we been going toward RAND or MARX? You have to admit when we are wrong and we have been wrong the last 100 year. That's why our country is headed to a socialist hell.

    Their message is garbage, but they are winning the race. So clearly the message is secondary to how well you tell the story. We must learn from our mistakes. Learn from their success. And in their movies, they don't just use one or two big scences. There are dozens of big emotional moments in movies with their message attached. They are masters at their craft. We cannot compete with them unless we are at least in the ball park with our skill level. Because our message is superior, it'll put us over the top, but we have to be at least in the ball park with our story telling skills.

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by davidkachel 1 year, 5 months ago
    F. Other
    Considering the current state of affairs, making it as obvious as humanly possible that BHO and the government of AS are identical should be a significant goal of the film. Hit the public over the head with it. Repeatedly.
    It is no longer just a question of faithfulness to the book or best condensed presentation of the story. We are now in the very last days of the Republic and face the quite genuine possibility that human freedom will disappear from the face of the Earth within months. Obama the Kenyan Kommunist and his pals are now caught up in huge scandals and know they are about to be exposed. All limitations will be cast aside. They are going to go for the whole thing. Martial law is very likely and Obama declaring himself dictator for the duration of the "emergency" is almost a certainty.
    Ask yourselves the question, "If Ayn Rand were alive today, what would she be shouting from the rooftops and how would she present it?" I seriously doubt AS would be involved at all.
    I suspect very strongly that to hide his part in all the current scandals and avoid impeachment, Obama will cause the pending financial crisis to occur sooner than it otherwise might, thereby distracting the nation from his transgressions and giving him the perfect excuse to install himself as dictator, thereby permanently hiding his treasonous acts. I believe Part III will not appear until after these things have occurred but, we have to try nonetheless.
    Candidly, I believe it is not possible to make the film in any way at all that would have a remotely significant effect on what is about to happen because it is too late and because the government has been 100% successful in producing a population too ignorant and stupid to understand the message of freedom.
    We ignored Rand's warnings and those of the founders. The only possible solution remaining is bloody civil war.
    Reply | Permalink  
    • Posted by NannyBooBoo 1 year, 5 months ago
      I think it's already clear to the astute.
      Reply | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  khalling 1 year, 5 months ago
        nannybooboo, I think you'll see some differing opinions on this post. So, pray tell us, what's the "astute" answer?
        Reply | Permalink  
    • Posted by INOV8TN 1 year, 5 months ago
      It was Rand's novel to do with as she pleased. I suspect Leonard Peikoff has less latitude. If I had a vote I'd vote to stay with the message and present it as powerfully as possible. The world may have to skip a generation or two before the general population comes to its senses. A bloody civil war could end up with cartel leaders becoming feudal despots. They have the organizations, the money and the will.
      Be careful what you ask for.
      Reply | Permalink  
      • Posted by davidkachel 1 year, 5 months ago
        I didn't "ask" for anything. But the handwriting is on the wall. Or do you think all those fat leftists are going to just surrender power because we say "pretty please"?!
        Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  LetsShrug 1 year, 5 months ago
    B! Getting the message right. (However, it might take A, C, D, E and F to accomplish this.) :)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 40Below 1 year, 5 months ago
    Definitely B, but really would like to see Dagney and Hank from Atlas Shrugged Part I
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CrisAP 1 year, 5 months ago
    Change the cast again, please. The Dagny from II didn't get it at all.
    Also while I know the speech can't be put into a film, it's too long, can we have the whole speech as a DVD extra?
    Reply | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  plusaf 1 year, 5 months ago
      I LIKE that idea... If I were doing it, I'd have scenes from the movie intercut with clips and stills reflecting current events under the monologue.

      Remember a few years ago when NY State "legislators" essentially tried to pass a Directive 10-289 to prevent companies in the State from laying off employees because it would be a hardship for the employees?! I do.
      Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by NilsAndersson 1 year, 5 months ago
    Everything else was great, but the casing is problematic, Atlas 1 had some GREAT actors, and some that just were not well suited in the particular roles - they might be great for other things.

    Among the luminaries in Atlas I were Dagny (Taylor Schiling) and Hank (Grant Bowler). The fellow playing Ellis Wyatt was fantastic, but of course he is not a part of the script for Atlas II.
    Lillian Reareden was great in her villany.
    .
    Among the unsuitables were Jim Taggart (too young), Hugh Axton (WAY to young, and acts like a supernerd), and in particular Hsu Garcia as Francisco - he just doesn't have that REGAL look, same with Axton.

    Atlas 2 had a more "even" cast, none were really great (sorry), but no one was a disaster either. And they averaged 20 years older than in Atlas I. One of the best was Hank Reardan, almost indistinguishable from Grant Bowler in A-I.
    So, as a conclusion, I would like to see a great many of the A-II cast, but try to bring back from A-I Dagny (Taylor Schilling) and the Ellis Wyatt player (the character not present in AII). And find a distinguished-gentleman-looking Axton.

    Please understand my criticism as coming from a friend, I saw A-I in theaters three times (I now have escaped to a Gulch of sorts, Anguilla, which does not have movie theaters) and I have bought several Blu-Ray copies of A-I and A-II, I keep giving them away. .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jschudt 1 year, 5 months ago
    B. Of course. But the casting of Dagney in II was not good.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Mike_Quinta 1 year, 5 months ago
    B. Getting the message right...this requires A. the right casting (i.e. Part 1 cast, not Part 2 cast).
    Reply | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  overmanwarrior 1 year, 5 months ago
      John Galt.........................

      I would say "get John Galt right." Not backing off the message in any way to appease anybody. As far as the other issues, I would suggest using a few key scenes with Ragnar Danneskjöld to set the value of Galt's Gulch and the underlining message behind John Galt's speech. The film should be about why Robin Hood is a villian, and not a hero. When I think of John Galt, I think of Clint Eastwood films from the late 60s and early 70s. I think of High Plains Drifter when I think of John Galt. Nobody has met John Galt yet in these movies, and he will provide context to the previous two films.
      Reply | Permalink  
      • Posted by apachecav 1 year, 5 months ago
        I think you got Robin Hood wrong, He stole from the Government and gave back to the people much like the pirate Ragnar Danneskjöld
        Reply | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  BeenThere 1 year, 4 months ago
          Ayn Rand made very clear that it was the principle of the popular myth of Robin Hood "stealing from the rich and giving to the poor" that Galt wanted to destroy and not the actual, historical Robin Hood who was fighting against serfdom.
          Reply | Permalink  
      • Posted by LeSellers 1 year, 5 months ago
        The popular image of Robin Hood (stealing from the rich to give to the poor) is not the real Robin Hood.

        He stole from the thieves and returned to the producers what they had the right to have kept, absent a crushing government with entitlements and taxes to support the powerful.
        Reply | Permalink  
        • Posted by Chuck 1 year, 5 months ago
          People have to make the effort to discern who are thieves and who the creators.

          That's what most critics of Rand don't understand and try to bash her for. She didn't agree with corrupt businesses cheating their customers and employees. Being for something doesn't mean you agree with everything they do, right or wrong.
          Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  khalling 1 year, 5 months ago
    Now we're talking! rubbing hands together gleefully.
    E. Hiring the Right Director.
    A,C,D will then be assured.
    I think B is already firmly in your grasp. You were clear that the script was incredibly moving.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Illenie 1 year, 5 months ago
    The story! The story! The story! As Ayn Rand knew, some people would read -- and love -- her stories, but might never be genuinely interested in her philosophy. And she was okay with that. Also, the story of Atlas Shrugged is not really about the "bad guys," but rather about the "good guys," of whom there are many. Do you want people walking out of theaters, feeling hatred and contempt? I believe Ms. Rand would want them to feel inspired and empowered by her magnificent heroes. If it is your intention to use the movie drive people to the book(s), you'd better focus on telling a story that people will LOVE -- a passionate, well-told story that people will want to see/read over and over. And trust that some portion of them will be intrigued and captivated by aspects of the message -- enough so to seek more information. So far, there have been few memorable moments ASI and ASII. In ASIII I do not want to have to transfer/infuse my passion into the characters. I want them to arouse mine.
    Reply | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  BeenThere 1 year, 4 months ago
      Excellent............talk about "gets it"...WOW !!!!!
      Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by strumcat 1 year, 5 months ago
    Casting! I was so put off by the casting change in Part II that I did not enjoy it nearly as much as I should have.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by elle 1 year, 5 months ago
    A. Casting. And that probably means hiring the right director as well.
    I enjoyed Part 1. I thought Part 2 was one of the worst movies ever made. The casting was beyond terrible. It was an insult to Rand and her fans. Dagny/Samantha looked like a common, tired housewife on her way to pick up the kids from soccer practice. What would make anyone cast this actress as Dagny is absolutely beyond me. Hank was not much better. Or Francisco.

    A message alone will never make a good movie. And if your movie is poor, your message will never be heard by a wider audience. Wasn't that the purpose of making the movie?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by NoraPhillips-74 1 year, 5 months ago
    A. Casting. Atlas Shrugged is one of my favorite books. When I saw Atlas Shrugged Part I, I loved it and the actors for each character were perfect. I had assumed that Part II was going to have the same actors. Although I love Atlas Shrugged and would always support anything related to it I was very disappointed that the actors were different in Part II. The actors in Part II just didn't fit the characters. Having the Part I actors in part III would make for a much better movie. I wish it were possible to have Part II re-made with the Part I actors.
    Reply | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Susanne 1 year, 4 months ago
      My feelings exactly... do this and you'll make the series rock. And it might even make serious money! Sure, not cheap... but honestly? Hire AS1's cast back. And to make something right, and have it carry the honor of YOUR names forward, remember the thing that Businesspeople understand, and rotters fear... "Price no Object." Takes money to make money, and takes GOOD money to make GOOD money. Would Hammond build Yugos? Hank Rearden be the "King of Potmetal"? When you strive for, and demand, excellence, your excellent product WILL pay for itself. Settle for something cheaper, easier, and weaker, and your returns will be as dismal. Remember... A is A. It's not just a cliche...
      Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ABC 1 year, 5 months ago
    F. Other

    I think that Part 3 should not be made at this time.

    Take the time and money to shop Atlas Shrugged as a TV series.

    With all the new content needed to feed the cable and newer online producers (Netflix, Amazon, etc.), this should be a no-brainer.

    The novel will be better served as multi-year series with fully-fleshed out characters including their back stories.

    The first two movies were pretty bad due the limitations of movie length and weren't helped by the flatness of the script as portrayed by the mediocre acting.

    If people are willing to follow long-form TV stories from 24 to Lost to Mad Men to Downton Abbey, etc., they should really get hooked on Atlas Shrugged with the right script.

    As a detective/mystery story with soap opera elements and Rand's strong cast of characters, this should be an amazing blockbuster TV show.

    Given the luxury of time, the story could be told in its entirety, though Galt's speech would have to edited for TV (but included as an extra on the DVDs or download!)

    It would probably take 1-2 years to find the right outlet, write a script, cast new actors (and don't think there wouldn't be fierce competition for the main characters) and get the first season produced.

    This would be enough time to erase the memory of these movies which were not seen by a wide audience anyway. And "reboots' are so common nowadays, that there shouldn't be much made of the transfer to TV.

    I really thought that Atlas Shrugged was going to be made into a miniseries in the 70s when that genre was in its heyday. It never came to be and I thought it would never work as a movie due to the novel's length. I was resigned to the idea that Atlas Shrugged would remain as a book in print and audio.

    But today's "limited-run" series have shown the appetite for quality TV if done well and I hope the current holders of the rights to Atlas Shrugged see the value and opportunity to have this great work seen by the widest audience possible.

    I don;t really think that many people's minds will be changed by seeing a TV adaptation of the novel, no matter how brilliantly done, but I'd like the chance to be proven wrong.
    Reply | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  BeenThere 1 year, 4 months ago
      1. I believe it would still be extremely difficult to get a mini-series aired, even on today's wide
      selection of media; too many in that field are against its philosophy.
      2. The movie(s) or TV adaption will not change minds........the goal is to raise interest in the book.........and then in AR's ideas via her other fiction and non-fiction.
      Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by rationaljedi 1 year, 5 months ago
    B. Getting the message right.

    Let me add some clarity to this answer. I think the most important part of the movie is the Theme (central idea) and the Plot-theme (central action or central conflict. For those wishing for more emotional content; I would say a well directed movie involves conflict (people going against odds to achieve a goal). Most movies and shows that are addicting have plenty of conflict for the heroes to go through; which pulls at the rational emotions. The court case with Rearden in part 2 was a good example. Galt's message should have the same feeling. The other challenge is that we need to condense the book into essentials. Though I do not agree with the central themes M. Night Shyamalan conveys in his movies; I think that he is very masterful at condensing the ideas of books (Avatar) and weaving the plot and theme together(Signs). We equally need to do the same things for Atlas Shrugged. These goals should help us choose the right writer, director, and actors.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dennisjj1738 1 year, 5 months ago
    Casting. Crew must be attractive to audience and be able to carry the story line or the movie won't fly.The message will take care of itself if the right director is hired. (Second highest priority)
    Reply | Permalink  


  • Comment hidden. Undo