[That wasn't an answer...it was a question.]

It's perfectly valid — both logically and grammatically — to answer a question with a question.

[Where's your answer.]

That was my answer.

[Are you Polk, by any chance?]

Are you Barbara Branden, perchance?

[Please explain where the fraud took place.]

According to the article in http://Reason.com and Entertainment Law Digest, Polk was led to believe that he 1) would direct AS-1, and 2) would also receive a "Produced by" credit for his pre-production work comprising script rewrites, budget drafting, and location scouting. I don't know anything about a signed contact: the article in EntLaw claims he received an email from Kaslow and Aglialoro confirming his role as director. A signed contract would be a good thing to have, but entertainment law recognizes verbal agreements as valid and legitimate if you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that certain discussions took place during which certain promises were made. There might be emails, third-party witnesses, faxes, etc.

This sort of thing happens a lot in Hollywood, especially with unseasoned players — producers, crew, and talent — who don't have much experience, and who haven't been "burned" yet.

You're making the naive assumption that everyone hauled in their attorneys for high-level meetings, and then drafted and signed very explicit contracts, with every possible contingency spelled out in full. That rarely happens at this level because good entertainment attorneys are pricey. At this level, agreements are almost always made on the basis of "good faith", with the attorneys brought in after-the-fact, if and when the "good faith" turns "bad" (which also happens often in Hollywood, and appears to happened in this case).

As to why Polk still wants his name attached in a creative capacity to a pair of films that bombed, the reason could be simple ego ("I made many creative suggestions to the producers, but they wound up NOT taking my best ones . . . and look at the result; the movie bombed!") and/or career: even if a movie bombs, it's considered important in some circles to have a producing credit on one's resume.

Anyway, why would anyone on this board assert that the suit is "ancient history" and was "settled long ago", when it appears not to be the case?

[Wow. I gave some background for those who may not have been aware.]

Wow. I thought you were replying to my post.

[Polk wanted to sign big name actors and actresses.]

The producers originally wanted to cast major stars. They're the money people; they determine the casting.

[The word was he considered Angelina Jolie and Charlize Theron for Dagny. They would have cost a lot more than Taylor Schilling. They are both well known left wing activists.]

Wow. Left-wingers, eh? I don't know about Theron, but Jolie is a well known conservative and strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment. Somehow, everyone in the world knew that except you.

[Their politics would have been a distraction from the theme of Atlas Shrugged.]

Irrelevant since Jolie is a conservative. I understand she's even an admirer of the book. Anyway, politics has zero to do with acting ability and audience draw. I know it's difficult for Objectivists because they're such doctrinaire boobs, but try, try to think in a practical manner.

[That would explain the cost over runs and creative differences.]

Wow. You know nothing about movie making. Nothing explains the "cost overruns." The producers say, "Mr. Polk, we don't want Angelina Jolie. We want a minor, unknown television actress named Taylor Schilling. Got that?" and Polk replies, "Got it. Let's get on with production."

I just love how you invent a little subjective scenario and make yourself believe that that is what actually occurred. LOL! You're a subjectivist.

[I never said the lawsuit was settled.]

sdesapio arbitrarily claimed it was settled.

[I think it probably has no merit.]

Are you an attorney?

[Little is publicly known so time will tell.]

All we know is what was posted in the entertainment litigation site I linked to, as well as an article about the law suit in Reason Magazine.

[Why would his removal bother you so personally? \]

Why doesn't fraud committed by Objectivist producers bother you? You accept it very nonchalantly.

[Polk was removed from the AS team weeks before filming began.]

Thanks for telling us something we already know. That contributed nothing.

[Cost over runs and creative differences appear to be the reason.]

"Creative differences"? According to the summary of the suit, Polk claims the producers incorporated his creative ideas — apparently, Aglialoro and Kaslow liked Polk's creative ideas.

"Cost overruns"? In other words, after doing all this work, Polk wanted compensation. The producers said, "Are you kidding? You're fired!"

You're ignorant, richrobinson. I've never heard of a "cost overrun" during pre-production — it invariably occurs during the actual filming itself (or after filming, during the editing and post-production phase).

Nah. It was the old Hollywood Shuffle: The producers made a lot of promises to Polk that they were either unable to keep, or unwilling to keep, and when he Polk complained, they fired him. A phrase like "creative differences" in Hollywood has the same meaning as a phrase like "irreconcilable differences" has in a divorce suit: it means everything and nothing. It purpose is NOT to publicize why things didn't work out.

[He was replaced by Paul Johansson]

Thanks for telling us something we all knew.

[He was replaced by someone who was more capable]

The way to judge whether or not Johansson was more capable than Polk is to judge whether Johansson's contribution to the final product made it 1) an aesthetically successful movie, and/or 2) a commercially successful movie. It was neither: the movie quickly bombed at the box office AND it garnered bad reviews (by the public who saw the movie and by professional critics).

[and has been bitter ever since.]

Nice bit of psychologizing on your part. No actor or director would be bitter over Atlas Shrugged parts 1 & 2 because both of them were failures. You think Polk was crying into his pillow, "I should've been part of those failures!" I don't think so.

[A lawsuit just sounds like sour grapes.]

Rand, Galt, Rearden, and D'Anconia frown. It's not "sour grapes" for a person who worked hard on someone else's project to demand that he be compensated for his contributions.

You call it "sour grapes" because — let's face it — it's embarrassing that the producers (who are supposed to be Objectivists practicing the Virtue of Rational Selfishness) committed fraud.

That's also why you lie to yourselves, and to others, that the lawsuit is "ancient history" and has been "settled." The suit is a mere 2 years old — still in its infancy, as far as entertainment lawsuits go — and apparently has not yet been settled.

Of course, if it HAS been settled, you'll kindly post some evidence of that. A settlement would have been announced in the Hollywood Reporter, or Variety, or Reason, or other media outlets. I've found nothing. So why don't you find some evidence and post it!

>>>Why is no one talking about Kickstarter anymore??

Probably because you shut down any criticism of it.