I have never been so excited over a TV series! I think "the day after tomorrow" would allow writers more room for imagination. If it was set in the 1950's too many of us seniors would not have the same anticipation since we lived through those years and know none of the story line actually happened. Give our imaginations a chance to work for us.

I think the day after tomorrow is the way to go. Rand was writing a predictive novel warning of the consequences of the culture's errors. She set it in her time in a dominant industry, railroads, to illustrate her ideas. If the story is now set in the 50's it is no longer predictive. Instead it is nostalgic (not Rand's intent at all) or an alternative history. An alternative history is, by definition, not predictive and does not serve well as a warning. The day after tomorrow can be predictive and a warning and have greater impact as a result. The problem with day after tomorrow is that the industry must be changed. Railroads are no longer the dominant industry. The industry must be changed to airlines or high tech. This requires substantial re-writing. You need great screenwriters to take up that task. It is worth the risk, however.

In my opinion, the day after tomorrow would be a better pick. I am not a tv marketing expert by any means but I think that setting it in the 50s would constrain the series a bit, in the sense that the history of the 50s is already written. Setting it in modern times will allow the writers more leeway to work in themes that you want.

Maybe something like "Law and Order", or "West Wing"; fiction, but where current events are written in to the episode plots. If you need to work in the theme of the "excesses of government" into the episodes, there are many, many modern examples to pick from.

The Gulch is going to be watching no matter what you do. So, with a quality production, the real bonus would be to expose Ayn's philosophy to uninitiated viewers.

Btw, I am sure you can expect a massive unrelenting assault from the left as soon as news of this gets out....

Bring back Patricia Tallman, and add Jerry Doyle, too.

Life on Mars was the British show you allude to. An American version lasted a single season and was not as captivating.

I would like to see it on Fox. It won't be CNN or MSLSD, that's for sure. History Channel would also make a good choice. They are doing some great series now.

Sounds delightful! My vote is for, 'the day after tomorrow.' More wiggle room and less chance for resounding bellows of, "THIS IS OFFENSIVE AND RACIST." Thanks for all the hard work!

If not debate, obviously it is open for discussion.
While I would probably enjoy a 50s-60s period piece because I lived it, I am not the target audience. The target audience is the same one that retailers need and are pursuing with a vengence, the people who will change the future course of liberty, those currently from 16 to 40. Imo, most of them won't watch a 50s-60s period piece and the few that do, will not respect the philosophy unless it is clearly applied to current events and near future effects. This message needs to attract a lot more young people into the choir.
I agree that the casting of the movies was a weak point. However, the AS1 Rearden (Grant Bowler), Dagny (Taylor Schilling), Wyatt (Graham Beckel), Potter (Armin Shimerman), and Lillian (Rebecca Wisocky) would be able to perform the roles well in a mini-series if they are available and willing. I wouldn't bring any actor back from AS3 except as bystanders without dialogue.

I think if you can't get the cast from AS1 and AS2, it will be doomed to failure and at best a Youtube series. I would try to get netficks behind this.
The acting on AS1 and AS2 really carried the movie and the cheesey affects didn't slow down the story line at all.

A mini-series would be the perfect format. Definitely the "the day after tomorrow" time period. This has to be commercially viable, and we want to hook some of the younger generation - without falling to their action addiction/ignorance level. They would hit snooze on a 50s time period.
Please, please, do Not put someone like the UN-loving Angelina Jolie in the lead just for the name! Things can go very wrong with Hollywood, so get the right people involved.

Actually...I believe you DID keep one actor, (screen name, Jeff Allen) for a second part of the trilogy...

I have been very supportive of a mini-series, to encompass the entire book (what you will be able to do with John's speech is debatable). However, a TV series would give you much more leeway to properly fill out the story and make the primary characters more "human".

The story Atlas Shrugged, as you know, has been extremely popular over the decades, so I have to believe that a properly written series would also do well. I have to insist, however, that you keep the "sleaze" to a minimum. We don't need multiple love stories occurring when the primary love stories center around Dagny Taggart. Sure, you can build up the relationship between Ragnar and his wife and include Jim Taggart's brief affair, but don't do it simply to gain ratings.

As for a time frame...since steel manufacturing and railroading were at their peaks, sometime past, I would suggest centering the show around the '50s era. There are many TV series that exist in time frames other than the here and now. A later dating would probably require different kinds of industry, but they need to be industries that the United States holds a primary lead in, to keep it realistic.

Above all...please do something to ensure that, like many other enjoyable series of the past, any series of Atlas Shrugged has a chance of actually finishing a story, rather than leaving its viewers hanging. Next to the mindlessness of so many TV shows, there is little else in television that has served more to drive me away from watching.

It could still be about trains set "the day after tomorrow." Look at how often we're reading about train derailments these days. The only complicated part might be figuring out a way to explain people on a passenger train, which just doesn't happen much these days. Can gas become so expensive that airplanes are financially infeasible?

It is not even open for debate. The series should be a period piece either late 50s or early 60s.I think that is one of the main reasons for the poor reception of the movie. And, I agree the cast can not change from week to week. You have to learn the characters and you can not do that if you have a different Dagny or different Rearden every week. I was not impressed with any of the characters in any of the movies. I did not think they came across very strong.

Definitely day after tomorrow show. Should be easy to make radio speeches TV speeches etc... It will make more since now.

Well Amen and Hallelujah! This will be an interesting litmus test of the general public. :)

I would guess FOX would carry it!!

It's a better idea than the films,frankly,since it can really take much more time. But I think this time the producers need to really stay away from trying to "contemporize" it. There's a look and feel that Rand implied in her book that is so clear in the first few pages. Frankly, the look and feel of "Sky Captain" is closer to what I think Rand would have liked than the sort of "made for TV movie" feel of the films. Done properly, this can envelop the watcher in the setting so that no one cares that people in the series don't use computers.

I am for the period setting. There are too many small aspects of the storyline (as with many stories written in that time) that don't translate well into modern times. People have cel phones now, which disrupts a lot of aspects. You can Google your way into finding just about anything or anyone (and there's the dark net for the things you can't Google). Train depots wouldn't have to rely on copper to communicate with T.T. headquarters or other stations (to warn them of a derailment).

Most importantly, people don't do radio speeches. Mass communication has changed dramatically since the 50's. Even as dramatically since 2000. (Fine, I think the POTUS does still do radio speeches now and then, but that's certainly no longer our means of mass communication.)

Galt wouldn't need to hijack anyone else's radio broadcast to get his message out there - unless he was a hacker and wanted to hijack a satellite feed to cable providers the Academy Awards broadcast, or the Superbowl, which would probably have more viewers than any SOTU address.


Sure, there are a lot (a damned lot) of things going on today, that a series could tie into, to show "Altas Shrugged: Now Non-fiction", but to keep the integrity of the story and the events, I think it needs to stay in the 50's.

I agree 100%. +1

I have to disagree - Atlas Shrugged is NOT written for 1%ers. It's written for anyone who has a sense of life, a desire for individual liberty and freedom, and a desire to produce. I suspect many people in Galt's Gulch are not 1%ers (I am currently not), and you're saying Atlas wasn't written for them.

Do not do a period piece. Make it current as we're seeing it happen happen every day. We're watching a government despot enforce is doctrine every day. Force people to vote when they may not want to participate in an election. Force people to buy health insurance policies they do not need. Force Christians to act against their faith. Force the university of Notre Dame to obey pro-abortion Obama mandate. Force a group of Catholic nuns to obey the Obamacare birth control mandate. Force the true owners of General Motors to give up ownership against their wishes and give ownership to a corrupt union that neither earned nor purchased that ownership. Make the television series current, please.

I would like to see it told from the perspective of Hank Rearden (since he was the last character to be brought to the Gulch) with him being older and reminiscing over his life as an old man and reflecting on why he had to come to the Gulch. Then it could follow the tandem cycles of him building his wealth and legacy both in his pre-Gulch life facing adversity and his post-Gulch life where he was able to accomplish what he needed to do with nothing holding him back.

I like the idea of a "day after tomorrow" kind of piece. But keep that 1920s Art Deco feel that the jacket of the book has always inspired.

I am already waiting impatiently. I am also trying to think of the network that will carry the series. Most have such a liberal bias.

Hi,
A Mini Series??? I hope NOT. I have always thought that Atlas Shrugged needed to be a Complete TV series in order to really show the depth/insight of each character. Season One - Part One, Season Two - Part Two and so on; each chapter being an episode. Making it a MINI SERIES will end up being a rush job, like the movies.

I vote for the show to be set in the 1950's when the book was published. Here's why:

The first three seasons of Mad Men and Dowton Abbey were so powerful because it showed us where we came from. It Let Us Make Our Own Conclusions. From smoking and drinking in the office (now a HUGE no no), to how women were treated, to how women started asserting themselves, to being in the closet if you were gay.

During 2008-2010 as news stories would emerge about the economy I at first would wonder why it was familiar, until it occurred to me it was right out of Atlas Shrugged and said to myself, so this is how it starts. (prompting me to read it again).

The second reason is that I'm sorry, but the movies were terrible. Just terrible; partly because it was set in present day and if you didn't read the book you didn't get it. I still haven't seen the third installment - I could not sit through yet another quick butchering of the story with new cast members to boot. Subsequently, having a series pick up where the movie left off... will not have the interest; if you already dislike the theories...why watch it. And besides, right now there are so many "future" shows on it won't stand out.

Lastly - I have met several people, even some who are conservative, who don't like Ayn Rand but have not read Atlas Shrugged. So many people put her theories down, yet don't really know what they are. Education is still needed. Side note: doesn't the movie Divergent have a similar ring to Rand's first novel, Anthem?

As I said to my niece (raised by my left leaning sister), In the book there are both good and bad capitalist, good and bad wealthy, good and bad not so wealthy with a love story running through it. Read the book - make up your own mind; set the series in the 50's, let the audience make up their own mind.

Rand's perspectives and beliefs were formed during that time frame and that's why the book continues to be so powerful today because of how correctly she nailed it. Thank you reading this far.