Advertising suggestions for ASIII movie?
I would like to see something that reminded me of the Macintosh Super Bowl ad from 1984 and yet be completely original. The hardest part of getting non-Gulchers excited about AS is that so much of the book appears depressing to them. It's a great book for reinforcing the perspectives of those who already are in the Gulch, but we need to focus on using the term Atlantis when trying to convince outsiders.
Any ideas for a viral advertising campaign?
Any ideas for a viral advertising campaign?
True, her fee would likely have been prohibitive, but given that she's expressed a love of the book and given that she'd been signed onto the abortive Lion's Gate production ca. 2006, she may have been willing to do it at a discount. At the very least someone should've approached her with the idea.
There, I got all three in - but since they're all modals, they're no real answer.
Anything negative, like an actual electronic virus, aside from the illegality of it and the Mother Of All Litigation Targets it would instantly become, would only succeed in causing scores of people to despise Atlas, Rand and everything remotely associated with them, Not the desired outcome, I'm thinking.
'Difficult to come up with something that wouldn't involve development of a secondary product, and therefore be prohibitively expensive. By way of "brainstorming": A tie-in computer game; development of a state-of-the-art passenger railway on some bought-and-radically-updated stretch of existing RR right-of-way; Kickstarter is always a good way to raise money, but that's just finance - it still leaves open the "how" question. Maybe another tack to think about would be to produce Spanish-dubbed versions and market it heavily to the Hispanic community. I don't know how economical billboards are, but if "Who Is John Galt?" were plastered on billboards across the country it might generate buzz (but that arguably should've been done prior to the release of the first film.)
Another idea: Get a big-name, sympathetic-minded rock 'n' roll band to do a song for its soundtrack, and let that band's promoters run with it. The recent, stunning endorsement of laissez faire by U2's Bono would be a good place to start looking - also the Men of Willowdale might be interested...
Given the lack of success of AS1 and AS2, I don't see how AS3 will create any excitement at all, outside of committed Objectivists, who will see the movie (and no doubt, like it) regardless of who stars in it.
Except for a few outliers, Objectivists were the only ones who said they liked AS1 and AS2. I have no reason to conclude AS3 would lead to a different result.
http://variety.com/2006/film/news/jolie-...
and
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Angelina-...
We also had confirmation of that fact directly from John Aglialoro and Howard and Karen Baldwin themselves, who made the announcement at a panel discussion about the movie at the 2006 Atlas Society summer conference at Chapman University. I was sitting in that room, and I do not hallucinate.
At any rate, the entire purpose of this thread is brainstorming - those who have not familiarized themselves with the concept should do so now, because it's a useful tool - and my above post is conjecture within a thread dedicated to brainstorming for advertising ideas (hence its title,) Conjecture much like yours. Since I'm pretty sure neither of us is a personal pal of Angelina Jolie, short of getting granted an interview in which we can ask her the question directly, we're guessing in either direction. In any case, antagonistic trolling is unwarranted here, or in your responses to any of the rest of these people's posts.
All indications - from people who have spoken with her, then written about it - are that Jolie has an intense interest not only in the book but in doing that specific role in a film adaptation (refer to the linked articles.) And if there is one thing we know with certainty about Angelina Jolie, it's that she's not the type of person to let someone else's "influence" dissuade her from going after something she wants. Which is another reason she'd have been excellent in the role.
As I said on this forum - or the AS movie forum? - a few months ago, given that I and II already had actors for the principle characters swapped, seeking Jolie for the third would've been oddly consistent, (neither Schilling nor Mathis is likely to be back for the third anyway,) with a potentially huge PR and general quality windfall. The worst outcome would have been her saying "No." At the very least, the effort to pitch the idea to her should have been made, and doing so would've cost nothing.
"Set to star" simply means her agent (or other career confidante) asked her if she'd be interested in starring in a possible production. "Sure! I loved the book! I'd love to play Dagny!" she probably said. So everyone gets excited: "Angelina Jolie is going to star in Atlas Shrugged!" Except that isn't what happened.
A-list stars like Jolie always have "Play or Pay" contracts; meaning, if they SIGN the contract, then they get paid WHETHER OR NOT the production goes ahead. The idea behind this is that the star (and his or her agent) may have turned down other work in order to make time for a particular film. If the production of that film falls through, the star (and his or her agent) get paid anyway.
I doubt very much Aglialoro, et al., had the financial strength to agree to such terms.
Cinemablend admitted it got its news from Variety, but changed "set to star" to "signed to star." It's not semantics; it's Hollywood Code. Jolie was never "signed to star" or it would have cost Aglialoro a fortune when the deal fell through.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrug...
"In 1999, under John Aglialoro's sponsorship, Albert Ruddy negotiated a deal with Turner Network Television for a four-hour miniseries, but the project was killed after the AOL Time Warner merger. After the TNT deal fell through, Howard and Karen Baldwin, while running Phillip Anschutz's Crusader Entertainment, obtained the rights. The Baldwins left Crusader, taking the rights to Atlas Shrugged with them, and formed Baldwin Entertainment Group in 2004. Michael Burns of Lions Gate Entertainment approached the Baldwins to fund and distribute Atlas Shrugged.[11] A two-part draft screenplay written by James V. Hart[12] was re-written into a 127–page screenplay by Randall Wallace, with Vadim Perelman expected to direct.[13]
***Potential cast members for this production had included Angelina Jolie,[14] Charlize Theron,[15] Julia Roberts,[15] and Anne Hathaway.[15]***
Between 2009 and 2010, however, these deals came apart, including studio backing from Lions Gate, and therefore none of the stars mentioned above appear in the final film."
Note that the article says "POTENTIAL cast members had included Angelina Jolie . . ." etc. As I wrote, earlier, other starlets were considering the role (or were being considered).
DriveTrain: "We also had confirmation of that fact directly from John Aglialoro and Howard and Karen Baldwin themselves, who made the announcement at a panel discussion about the movie at the 2006 Atlas Society summer conference at Chapman University. I was sitting in that room, and I do not hallucinate.
No, you don't hallucinate, but Hollywood motion picture producers do routinely bullshit their audiences. That's a major part of their job. It's called "creating 'buzz'". You simply chose to believe them, rather than exercise skepticism.
Got an idea:
Maybe we can start a Kickstarter campaign to raise financing for additional marketing of the film!
Oh, wait. Aglialoro and Kaslow did that already. Sounds as if they have all the bases covered.
Never mind.
See:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/atl...
and see:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/atl...
Q: "Why Kickstarter? Why do you need the money?"
A: "The movie is actually already funded and is now headed into production this October. All additional funds collected through Kickstarter will be put towards expanding the production, distribution, and marketing budgets.
The Atlas Shrugged Movie Kickstarter campaign is not so much about money though as it is about marketing."
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
See, jbrenner? The producers have everything under control. Nothing to worry about.
The main reason I am concerned about the success of the film is that it might be a last chance for salvation from the financial abyss for the United States. Right now we're past the tipping point, but if this film were very successful, the United States might be able to make an Indiana Jones-like last minute bullwhip to grasp on to something that would keep the United States from plummeting into the abyss.
Barring some sort of last minute heroic save, this country is not worth saving.
As for Obama vs. Romney in the 2012 election, I tend to believe the stories about rampant voter fraud that surfaced post-election. Additionally, voters couldn't discern clear differences between the two candidates when it came to hot-button issues like Obamacare — which, as we all know, was modeled after Romneycare in Massachusetts. So I don't think Romney's campaign money was misspent; I just think he was a loser-of-a-candidate by nature, and it would have made no difference how he spent his money.
Your assertion regarding AS3 and "salvation" is the sort of hysteria I'd expect, and often hear, from high-school students regarding "climate change", "global warming" and other non-issues ("Al Gore's movie is our last chance to save planet earth!"). Anyway, if the original novel couldn't save the US, then obviously neither would any sort of adaptation.
I have no doubt that there was voter fraud, but this was not nearly as large a fraud as the failure to report Benghazi accurately. If any Republican had a Benghazi incident followed by such an obvious deception campaign, they would have been impeached. I would have accepted a line saying that "We acknowledge that this incident is unfortunate. There are some details that should remain classified for national security reasons." Instead they pulled out a whopper that would have made Bill Clinton blush.
Romney was not a solid candidate because of Romneycare.
Regarding my comments about salvation for this country, that is exactly what it would take. I don't consider it hysteria. Yes, those outside Atlantis use such terminology. And yes, I do not expect the US will survive. And yes, if the original novel couldn't save the US, the likelihood of any sort of adaptation to save the US is remote. The USA's chance right now is equivalent to a football quarterback's last-second heave from midfield into the end zone. It could happen, but I would assign it about a 1% probability. I have seen games won on the final play like that, but it certainly is rare.
You misunderstand what I meant. I didn't mean to suggest that issues such as government spending are not extremely serious and worthy of our utmost concern. I meant that your claiming that a specific MOVIE would "save the country" is the same kind of high-school-level hysteria as claiming that a specific DEMOCRATIC-PARTY ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION would "save the planet".
Hysterical and silly.
Relax.
We need something to seriously go viral to get the kind of numbers attending the movie that we want. Few things do that like an extremely effective YouTube video. Each of us pings the video with our computers continuously so that Google and Yahoo start picking it up as news, and then ....
"I think we're mainstream."
You weren't mainstream for AS1 or AS2. That's why both movies did poorly at the box office. Had the mainstream comprised Objectivists, it would have flocked to buy tickets — as the mainstream always does when it finds a movie it likes.
My position is that since you weren't mainstream for AS1 or AS2, there's no compelling reason to believe you'll be mainstream for AS3.
I have discussed AS with people in my 9-12 project group, and while they are either conservative or libertarian, they tell me that they have a more optimistic outlook on life than Ayn Rand, particularly the Christians. While Ayn Rand didn't have much respect for Christians or Christianity, they generally believe in the first half of Galt's oath, which is a lot more than you can say for the looters and moochers.
Once more, if I may?
How do you know that the hardest part about getting non-Gulchers excited about AS is that so much of the book appears depressing to them?
Moreover, I didn't say that anyone who didn't like the book was necessarily a looter or moocher. I said that looters and moochers would not like the book.
To make the movie a box office success, conservatives and libertarians would need to come out in force. They may or may not agree with the content or premises of the book.
Regarding how I know that the hardest part about getting non-Gulchers excited about AS is that so much of the book appears depressing to them, the answer to this is so clear that I would argue that it is self-evident. Atlas Shrugged is a depressing book. It outlines catastrophe after catastrophe, infringement after infringement, bureaucracy after bureaucracy, in place after place, until even those who agree with Ms. Rand's assessment have battle fatigue, as someone eloquently put it earlier today. Yes, Ms. Rand was analytically correct in her assessment, but that doesn't mean that a large number of people will happily agree with her (emphasis on happily). Many will begrudgingly agree with her, like me. Some will shrug like me, but how many will actually be happy about shrugging? America's greatness came in part because of its unparalleled optimism about each individual's ability to climb from nothing and go toward greatness. Such optimism doesn't come until page 1169 of the book. Oh, that's right. Ms. Rand never wrote page 1169. The shrug period is a long and agonizing wait. Look at the toll that the wait took on Rand's heroes. One question that each Atlantis citizen has to ask himself/herself not just when they shrugged, but indeed every day, is "Is what (was it) I am doing worth it?" Like the Greek mythologies, Rand's heroes are tragic. Tragic heroism just isn't for everyone. I would argue that the Christians can answer "Was it worth it?" with a resounding yes, while objectivists have to wonder. Even if the Christians are wrong, there is something to be said for the zeal that they have for life. Extremely high productivity requires such zeal. In an era like the late 1800's America where conditions are fertile for objectivists, they will outproduce anyone, but what about times like now? Despite what you may have read about me, I am more like Dagny and Rearden than like some of the other AS characters. I refuse to be unproductive. The answer as to where I will be productive has to be given serious thought. I live in what anyone else would consider paradise, have a great job, am productive, and yet I could be doing SO much more if only I can change the rules of MY game (not their game).
The tricks to actually winning the "shrug game" are to either nucleate around a real Galt in a microsociety (presuming we can find one) AND/OR to change the rules of the game. This game reminds me of the Kobayashi Meru from Star Trek. Is there really a way to win in this game? Only if one changes the rules of the game like James Kirk did, or for that matter, Galt did.
Methinks you take this too seriously. Lighten up some.
And all of them heroes. I've noticed that no one ever claims — or admits publicly — that he resonates with Eddie Willers. I guess it makes sense. No child of 9 would claim to resonate with mild-mannered Clark Kent; he always resonates with Superman. We expect nothing more nuanced from a child of 9. But from an adult?
jbrenner: "I have no shortage of content for writing such a book,"
You're claiming that you, too, could have written "such a book" as Atlas Shrugged — but were too tired ("battle fatigued") to do so?
Let me get this straight. You first compared yourself to Quentin Daniels; then to Hank Rearden; then to Dagny Taggart; and now to Ayn Rand.
Got it.
If it makes you feel better, before reading AS, I had a few years that I behaved like the Wet Nurse. Lighten up, Jersey Boy, or I am going to have to start giving you thumbs downs. I have tried to deal with you politely in private, and you are just being annoying.
I suppose the appearance of this type of thing was inevitable at some point, but a forum dedicated to a philosophy of reason leads one to expect better behavior - or at minimum, behavior that at least seems to understand that unprovoked, in-your-face hostility persuades nobody of anything, except of the proposition: "He's a belligerent ***."
Presumably we can now take that proposition as a given. Beyond that, nada. 'Perhaps it's time to follow the standard-issue advice vis-à-vis internet forum trolls...
*sigh*
So again: how do you know that if someone disagrees with the book, the cause is that he is a moocher/looter?
You're reasoning from an effect ("disagrees with AS") to a putative cause ("must be a moocher/looter"). Since there might be several different causes leading to this effect, I'm asking how you know WHICH cause is THE cause of the effect we're looking at.
Regarding AS being "self-evidently" a depressing book, I'll say this:
Long, depressing novels never become commercial best-sellers.
QED
How do I know that if someone disagrees with the book, the cause is that he is a moocher/looter?" I don't. HOWEVER, when Romney said that he would not get the 47%, what he was wrong about is was in estimating how few moochers there were. I am not going to get into the discussion about, "But I paid into Social Security and Medicare ...", but when you add up all the government dependents plus the children, the number of actual producers in this country left over is very few. When I say that "they are predominantly looters or moochers", it is because the vast majority of people in this society choose their government dependence. I would consider the majority of people in this society as looters or moochers or children. I went to work at 6:30 AM yesterday, left to go home at 9:10 PM, and grabbed a pizza on the way home. And as for poetic injustice, while you were writing this message, I was being confronted by a 65-year-old homeless guy (moocher) looking for a dollar so that he could eat last night.
Note: I have not voted for any Republican OR Democrat in a general election in my lifetime. I would have voted for Reagan in 1984, but was two months too young.
jbrenner: "How do I know that if someone disagrees with the book, the cause is that he is a moocher/looter? I don't."
That contradicts your earlier statement:
jbrenner: "Certainly many non-Gulchers disagree with the book. They are predominantly looters or moochers."
The meaning of that statement is clear: if a non-Gulcher disagrees with the book, it is because he is a moocher/looter. Then you admit that you don't know if that's actually the case.
You compared yourself to Quentin Daniels, Hank Rearden, Dagny Taggart, and Ayn Rand — and I'm the one who's arrogant? LOL!
jbrenner: "You love to take snippets out of context. If you had quoted me completely, you would have seen an entirely reasonable explanation..."
Many of us here have heard that same excuse . . . usually from corrupt politicians.
jbrenner: "I didn't go out and collect a poll..."
Your sample size wouldn't change the fact that you contradicted yourself during the course of your argument.
This would help crash the looters' and moochers' society faster, especially those on Obamaphones) that doesn't activate if one actually does go see the movie and does activate after a couple of weeks if one doesn't go see the movie.
The text message would announce,
"This is John Galt speaking ..."