Atlas Shrugged Part III Galt Speech
Posted by deleted 12 years, 8 months ago to Movies
Any opinions or details on how Galt's speech will be handled in the movie? The actual speech is quite lengthy and so may not be exactly reasonable for the movie, but is arguably the best and most important part of the novel. So, how will this be handled? Will it be shortened to appeal to the viewer or kept lengthy for the Objectivist fans?
Then the speech droned on for 70+ pages. I found myself feeling like I was in a communist country hearing Castros 5 hour stem winders. I actually skipped ahead in the book to read the fallout. We'd come so far in the story. Experiencing Dagny's time in the gulch, searching for the motor, struggling with the powers that be. The speech was extreme overkill and preachy. In a book that could say so much in a thrifty manner. The speech was way too much. The movie should find some way to refine it. Because its the only part of AS that was boring.
Cclem AKA
-- DA Flint "night of jan. 16th"
The more I learn about philosophy, the more I understand the arguments that need to be addressed. Ultimately, all these arguments would have to be addressed for the book to be complete.
My 2C - I think Darren raised good points. I don't understand the animosity towards them. He's being critical of how the movies have been produced (literal transcription) and fears handling the part 3 speech in this manner will be a disaster. So what? Aren't we here to discuss? The movies can take some criticism. If you think the movies have been well produced, then argue about why you think they have been. You'd think he was advocating some socialist viewpoint for the way the reaction has been in opposition to his comments.
My 2C - the speech is the climax of the movie - of course it needs to be in there. The speech is much too long in BOOK form, and there is no way carrying that into the movie adaptation is a good idea.
It seem to me that 1995 Showtime adaptation of Harrison Bergeron handled a similar scene quite well. I can't remember how long the scene lasted. If done RIGHT...if the scene holds your attention...I can see it lasting for up to 5-10 minutes. But it can't be pure monologue.
Just suppose we on here were a democratic collective voting on how to do Part III.
How many eons would it take for a coherent plan to come out?
Luckily, we know the film producers have also thought hard about it and there is a good team.
I saw a film called What the Bleep years ago, which I adore, which is done with similar production values even though its a documentary of a sort. The Atlas films get people talking, which is what really matters for Objectivism. I think Aglialoro could make this film as popular as a other kinds of movies that are clearly inspired by Atlas, like Star Wars, and any of the early Clint Eastwood films. But he makes the film he wants because its his money, his values and his effort. He has the rights, he worked to get them, and he's doing his best to make a film that the establishment wants to see destroyed. Objectivists by nature have a tendency to say F**k O** to everyone anyway, so they don't pad the egos of worthless go-betweens, and this does have an impact on the product. I can see it clearly in every shot of the films---and I like it that way. There's a chip on the shoulder of the Atlas films that I find refreshing and I find honor in the fact that it pisses off most of the rest of society. I like that! Clearly, John Aglialoro and Harmon Kaslow do too. They are making a film that most of society will reject, so that has more to do with the box office than anything else. Even if the film was made with Steven Spielberg as the director, and the special effects were done by Industrial Light and Magic, people would still hate this film, because they hate the message. If Angalina Jolie was playing Dagney, like she was slated to do when Aglialoro bought the rights, people would still hate the film. There is a reason that people like Clint Eastwood and Jolie did not put themselves into Atlas--even though they could. Because the established left would have ruined their careers. Look what happened to Mel Gibson after he made The Passion. He was wild and crazy before he made that film. But after, he was a threat to secular progressivism, and they cut his noogies off for going against the machine. They ignored Mel Gibsons antics before The Passion, after, they smeared him at every turn. That is how the left attacks those who go against them.
Aglialoro is going against the machine to make Atlas. So if he wants to thumb his nose at the machine and make his film the way he wants to make it in spite of what others think.......that's his right. Consumers can decide to buy or reject the product. For that reason, I will see Atlas Part Three at least 5 to 10 times, as I have parts One and Two. And I will enjoy them for the trace of attitude they have with every frame of film and the very subtle F**K O** that I can see there. Because it reflects my thoughts as well.
for example, because one sees a mirage, one cannot trust ones senses.
Because people thought the world was flat at one time, we can't trust our knowledge. But the reality is, assuming the earth was flat within certain bounds, was reasonable. A = A
Darren hasn't said "change the content of the movie so it isn't, you know, atlas shrugged." He's criticized the approach and said they crammed too much into a single movie.
You brought up The Passion, and I think it's an excellent comparison. Two movies whose message the established left hates.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/atlas_sh...
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/passion_...
Now, something is going on here beyond "they're just going to hate the movie because of the message" when ASII gets 5% from the critics, and POTC gets 49%.
In that regard, I would say critics do need to be respectful of ownership because without a producer, the moocher has little value. Critics are moochers.
Duncan Scott, the screenwriter of Part III, will be here on April 18th for a "Producers Only" Q&A session. You should upgrade your membership and ask Duncan directly. :)
More info: http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/31...
The speech would be three hours if acted out. In the story telling mode of film, people just aren't used to watching one thing for that long.
With a 3-hour-long speech, people wouldn't be watching anything. They'd be forced to listen for 3 hours, turning the "movie experience" into a "college lecture experience." Why would anyone in search of entertainment pay good money for that?
You're a religious fanatic who loves hearing his favorite passage from Scripture spoken over and over again.
Very laudable, I'm sure. But what does any of that have to do with making a movie? I'll tell you:
Nothing.
"To pay good money" is an idiomatic expression in English. You've never heard it? The word "good" is pleonastic with the word "money."
>> Are you sure you read the book?
Quite sure. Are you sure you've read anything other than Atlas Shrugged? Any books on English idioms, for example?
>> It would be the best thing they ever spent their money on, if they had a brain...
You should tell people that before they decide to spend good money on it; perhaps you'd sell more tickets.
The sign of a competent producer is: "If our movie bombed at the box office AND the critical reviews were uniformaly appalling, perhaps it's something we're doing wrong. Maybe the writing stinks. Maybe the casting was absurd. Maybe the directing was unimaginative. Maybe a combination of all of these things." The sign of an incompetent producer is: "If our movie bombed both commercially and critically, it can only be because the average movie-goer today has no brains. It's not our fault! It's the public's fault! It's the culture's fault! It's modern philosophy's fault. Nothing's our fault! We couldn't help it!!"
I see which side of the argument you're on.
Too bad for you, because you've clearly missed the point of having a rational discussion with anyone whose opinions differ from yours. The reason WHY a person would choose to pay good money to see the films, is because the book so strongly resonated with something within them.
The public did that already by means of the box-office. That's why the movie bombed. If Duncan Scott doesn't get THAT message, nothing I or anyone else could tell him would change his mind.
The characters in the book they market with the movies certainly took an approach that cost millions to stop the looters world. A world where they would be free to keep whatever it was they owned and have laws that protect the honest man, not the thief. Losing fortunes to make it happen.
Perhaps, just maybe, the quest to become the ideal man or woman is what they wish to to educate people with in an entertaining way. If that is the goal, the movies have been a huge success.
Look at the book sales of Ayn Rands Books over the last 4 years. Over 2 million copies of Altas sold (close to half a million on the low years and a little over half a million on the hire years. Prior to the 1st movie its under 100k copies sold in a year. The moves have increased book sales by 5 to 1, and held them there 4 years running.
I cant say exactly how many of here others books have increased in sales. However I bought up extra copies of hardback in 2006 of The Virtues of Selfishness, Philosophy who needs it, and Capitalism the unknown ideal. My plan was to give them to people who I talked with that became interested. I did not end up doing that and recently sold them for anywhere from 4 to 8 times what I bought them for. I would also say this would be an indicator of the success of the movies in creating demand for her writing and expanding the exposure to Objectivism.
The fact that they did a 2nd movie and are still doing a third says there is more to it than just the money angle. If that was all there was to it then why make them?
On the other hand I agree that the speech will have to be shortened. Even I would likely not sit through a three hour speech in a movie that will have to be shorter than that in its entirety. It will be difficult to make it a 3-6 minute speech and keep the focus and content in tact. That will be necessary to capture and deliver the ideal the book teaches and still have the movie watchable by many a movie goer.
I personally would love a extra of the full speech with visual in all its splendor on the CD. While I do not find it the best part of the book; the Whole speech is given in much better ways throughout the book. I do find it the most concise piece on objectivism ever provided and would pay a few extra bucks for a CD which included a video delivery of the speech.
Once again though I agree that to deliver it in the movie in its full length splendor would not be the best of ideas. Let those that see it read the book, or watch the extra to get the full deliver in there own time, when they are ready to move a little father down the path of knowledge and understanding.
The increase in book sales has nothing to do with the failed movies. A weak movie doesn't inspire the typical movie-goer to buy and read a 1,100-page novel to "get the real story". The increased sales have everything to do with people living in the Age of Obama and hearing from those acquainted with the book how similar real life is to the scenario imagined by Rand in 1957. Many people have also heard of a social trend called "Going Galt," in which a person intentionally maintains a minimum economic profile, paying as little as possible to "the Beast." Word-of-mouth and current events are what's driving the increase in book sales.
I can only talk from my own personal experience, but I have had nearly 20 (17 I can think of off the top of my head) people around me ask me about the book due to the movies. Did they see the movies? Some no and some yes. The fact it was made generates questions.
Of the seventeen, six became serious enough to either barrow my copy (4 of them) or go buy it (2 of them) and the 4 that borrowed my copy all went and bought the book later on. All 6 that read it are going down the path of learning. Two of those have now borrowed and read my capitalism book by Rand.
Now did the politics play a part in there interest; definitely. It is the existence of the movie that moves the interest from disgust with the current situation to an interest in Atlas Shrugged.
In the case of some of the friends and associates who did not read the book but asked me about it. All of those 11 who have asked about it have now seen the movies, they provide the same context with which to have a discussion with them as it did with my wife who has not read Atlas and likely never will. The movies are great for that as well
I am not saying the movies are perfect, or they even did well at the box office. I am simply stating that your are assuming motives (like unto some on the San Sebastian Copper Mines) that may or may not be the driving motive behind the films. The fact that the second was made would indicate another motive. The fact that the third is being made (which I thought it would not be after the box office failure of the second) reinforces the idea that there is more to the motives of the investors than generating money. Perhaps there motives are not to unlike the motives of John, Fransisco and Ragnar.
What is your background? are you a movie buff or work professionally in the industry? Have you read any Ayn Rand?
Do you have any interest in here other than on this post?
Doesn't sound like a very selfish motive to me. In fact, it sounds downright altruistic.
If you're right, that might account for the movie's failure on both fronts: it neither made money, nor did it successfully market an ideal, since very few people bought tickets to watch it.
Had the movie been better, more people would have bought tickets; therefore more people would have watched it; therefore more people would have been exposed to the ideal; therefore more money by the producers and investors would have been earned. See? There's no conflict between marketing an ideal and turning a profit. The Atlas Shrugged movies did neither.
Do you know what the figures are for DVD sales, and cable revenues? Shouldn't they also be counted? I happen to know of a few people who have stated they are interested, but are waiting till the third movie is out so they can watch all three...
O.A.
Unless you include increased sales of Atlas Shrugged and other items, such as t-shirts, jewelery, coffee cups and the like. I would suspect that the jump in paperback sales alone have made the whole thing profitable. If the profit were only $2 a book then it would be a million a year for the last 4 years in book sales. I would also expect that the store they have launched has done fairly well. Overtime if they can keep momentum they should make money on it as well. If they can build larger and larger momentum, maybe in 20 years we get a big budget version.
I want more than 3 movies though. I mean 3 is a good start but you could do so much more.
A love story about Dagny and Fransisco in there late teens. There is enough in the first act to get a movie here. You can show Jim as the lazy ass bother, Fransisco's smarts and Eddies normal ability level but hard work ethic even as kids. Hell it would have more depth than any teen romance (comedy or drama) around today.
You could do an entire movie just on the 20th century motor company and the 'wonderful' plan they put in place. The people walking, the drama and politics played and its final collapse with the last scenes looking a bit apocalyptic.
Both are small back story elements they wont ever get into the movies as they are back story. Both could be a complete story in and of themselves for movies. I do not see it happening, but there is a great deal of content that could be made into movies. Heck you could do a movie just out of Cherryl Brooks Taggart story from the book.
I digress now as I would like to see a so much more complete version on the big screen and it would take a dozen or so movies to do it. I will have to settle on one for each act.
DVD sales and on-demand simply weren't strong enough to get this thing out of the ditch.
I dare John Aglialoro to come on to this site and show us the numbers.
He won't, because he knows both movies ended deep in the red. He's hoping that if he gets part III out, he too can tap into the ARI money fountain that's kept Ayn Rand's books afloat for so long with artificially created demand.
Take away the bulk buys of the ARI, and you've got pretty much zilch.
Current events and word-of-mouth. We live in the Age of Obama. New readers are intrigued by a writer who predicted all of this in 1957.
A weak movie doesn't create a market of new readers for a strong book.
You and who else?
It was obvious by the end of Part I that the producers never had any intention of making a commercially successful movie. They set out to make a niche film, and that's what it became: a niche film for a niche audience. They should've gone direct-to-DVD instead of releasing it in theaters.
>>>not for the average movie goer
Not for any movie goer, judging from the box-office. The only ones who understood what was occurring onscreen were Objectivists and a few others who had read the novel. This was in no way whatsoever an **adaptation** of a novel. This was an attempt at a literal transcription, from text to images.Like all such attempts, the final result (at best) was clunky. Combine that with consistently poor decisions by the production team — weak writing, absurd casting, amateurish directing — and one has the makings of a disaster.
If the producers had been more interested in actually making something called a "MOVIE", as opposed to complying with David Kelley, they might have achieved something more interesting, more memorable, and above all, more entertaining to more people.
Stupid people get movies like "The Hangover."
Smart people get movies like, oh, say, "2001: A Space Odyssey."
People who are stupid but want to tell themselves they are smart anyway get "Atlas Bombed, Parts I through III" and then throw their shoulders out patting themselves on the back.
The characters of Atlas would never allow themselves to be locked out of a space ship by a stupid computer. And they certainly wouldn't be baffled by "The monolith." Instead, they would have just invented a new space ship and devised a way to unlock the secrets of the strange relic instead of spending two movies trying to react to its implications.
For modern evidence of a real John Galt check out Paul Mollar, inventer of the Skycar. Same thing.
The speech is just to compress thirty years of anger into a three hour speech to strike back at the parasites who require the lives of others to function.
And in any case, the question from my original post was not "who would pay good money", but "why would anyone pay good money."
So once more:
**WHY**would anyone pay good money to hear three hours of philosophy lecture in a movie theater when what he actually came to the theater for was to see a movie?
1) All movies are educational. You just have to learn how to read them, and therefore, how to learn from them.
2) Since you've already read AS (probably many times) there's not much that a movie version could teach you that wasn't already in the book and your prior experience with it as a novel; presumably, you've already learned the lessons before buying a ticket for the movie version. Furthermore, since the consensus here seems to favor the idea of a literal transcription of the book (including, by implication, David Kelley's role as philosophical compliance officer during production to ensure the literalness of the final outcome) that pretty much guarantees from the get-go that the movie SHALL NOT (indeed, MUST NOT) contain any point of view, or hint, or suggestion, of the director's personal ideas on anything, that wasn't already in the novel and which had not passed review by David Kelley. Those were the things you could have learned something new from (that you might have rejected some new, personal, unexpected point of view from the screenwriter or the director is irrelevant. It's often as valuable to reject what we learn as it is to accept it).
Very amusing. That's the way films were made in tyrannies such as the former Soviet Union.
>>I see a movie as a learning tool, not some adventure that is over and gone in the blink of an eye.
Interesting. Rand herself preferred adventure stories that were over and gone in the blink of any eye (not to mention very light-operetta, light marches, light rinky-tink Scott Joplin rags, etc. She boasted about it, proudly calling it "tiddley-wink music."). You have very different tastes from hers. Anyway, she preferred the sense of life of stories like these over didactic education movies, and she understood how to read a film in terms of its subtext and symbolism.
>> The majority of the public nowadays views it differently.
The majority views it differently only "nowadays"? You mean, in days past, the public flocked to high-brow educational movies? I don't think so. The public always liked movies that were entertaining. That meant, even in the cases of adaptation, that the final purpose of the film was to "entertain", i.e., give the audience a good excuse for staring at a screen with flickering images on it for 2 hours without getting bored and getting up and leaving (many do that anyway, in spite of a filmmakers' best efforts to the contrary).
>>>They see a movie as an inexpensive joyride to an alternate dimension
They've got television and the Internet for that; movies are no longer inexpensive.
>>> that they may never visit, but gain the joy of seeing it come and go. Those movies can be exciting at times, but I find greater joy in something long-lasting. It is all a matter of opinion.
There was nothing long-lasting in Atlas Shrugged the Movie because you've already read the book, knew the characters, know the plot, know who John Galt is, and you already know the ending. There's nothing educational for you about watching the movie. What you were hoping for — what we all were — was to experience precisely that sort of excitement in AS as a pure adventure story; the sort of thing you dismiss as being beneath you. Alas, the filmmakers didn't pull it off because they didn't approach the project from the standpoint of making a movie; they approached it from the standpoint of presenting Ayn Rand's novel as a literal photoplay.
I never hint. I state something explicitly or I don't state it at all.
>>>Just because Ayn Rand enjoyed adventure does not mean we all have to.
You were not so tolerant in your previous post, in which you claimed that adventure movies were simply superficial, escapist, inexpensive joyrides to an alternate dimension — gone in the blink of an eye — for a public that may never visit such a place, but which gains joy at seeing it come and go. You're now less snobbishly dismissive of the action/adventure genre only after I pointed out that Ayn Rand herself claimed to be a member of that public.
>>>I am homosexual, Ayn Rand wasn't. That doesn't mean I'm not an Objectivist.
Ayn Rand would probably disagree.
First of all, she disapproved of people (except those in her inner circle) calling themselves "Objectivist". She preferred those professing to follow her philosophy call themselves "students of Objectivism." To take Miss Rand's side on this point, you are, at best, a "student of Objectivism," not an "Objectivist."
Second, she claimed during a live appearance at the Ford Hall Forum that homosexuality involved faulty premises and psychological evasions. According to her lights, then, someone who rested content with being a "proud homosexual" would be someone who proudly rested content with his own faulty premises and psychological evasions. She would deny that one could be either a "student of Objectivism" or an "Objectivist" with these traits, because for her, it would indicate an individual's choice NOT to think.
Kelley was hired as an ideological compliance officer, to ensure that the screenwriting and the directing were "consistent with Objectivism."
>>perhaps you are not a capitalist?
I'm even more of a capitalist than the producers. I actually want to see a commercially successful movie version of AS that makes a profit because people want to see it, and not merely a literal transcription of a book, approved by a philosophy professor, and meant for a niche group of Rand's admirers.
>>why are you in here?
You should have asked *that* of the few audience members who paid good money for entertainment in a movie theater.
I did not see a literal transcription. and although I do see respect for Randian scholars, I did not see a sub-par production. If you have ideas, hey, bring them forward. we have an ear in here. but don't bite the ear that's listening, :)
My time. As a member of the movie-going public, I do not savor the idea of wasting 2 hours of it in a theater.
As for the speech it could be broken up into parts and as the movie strings along so does the speech but I think the bare bones part should be where it was intended to be.
That's absolutely true. And of course the time to be thinking about solutions is before the problems start.
Here's how a more experienced (not to mention competent) producer would have approached this project:
1) Unless you're adapting the novel as a miniseries (with e.g., 10 episodes), there's no way you can — or should; or need to — tell the entire story of AS. You want to create ONE standalone movie that tells the "gist" of what the novel's dramatic plot is about. So the first question is this: in dramatic terms, what is AS about? No, it's not, *dramatically speaking*, about the Men of the Mind disappearing because they are on strike. "Drama" involves conflict, and there is no conflict involved in the men of the mind going on strike. I don't remember anyone physically trying to stop them from disappearing; they simply have these conversations with a mysterious figure and decide to follow him. There's NO conflict in this, hence, there's NO drama. The "strike" events of AS are analogous to the WWII events of "Casablanca." They are the background context in which some other dramatic story involving conflict is taking place. So out of all the events in AS, which episode, or perhaps "subplot" best sums up your feelings and thoughts about the novel?
It's not an easy question to answer because there are a number of episodes that could serve as THE essential story. So we might narrow the focus this way:
WHOSE story is it? Which character travels the greatest "arc" in terms of starting out as one kind of person who seeks a goal, meets many obstacles, and ends up as another kind of person, having prevailed against the obstacles, and during which, a specific character trait is "tested"? I think it's obvious: I think it's Dagny. It's her story. AS is not about a strike, or John Galt; it's about a businesswoman who runs a railroad.
Now we focus this even more: what does Dagny want? What's her main goal?
Again, there are several contenders, but I think the one that best answers to the needs of being "drama" — which involves a conflict of wills with antagonists who oppose the hero's goal — is the building of the John Galt Line.
Now, there may be other choices for all of these, but had the producers narrowed the focus of the film to Dagny's desire to build the John Galt Line — JUST THAT — and spent some screen-time actually exploring and developing that entire episode, there would have been "cinematic breathing room" for developing her character more, developing her involvement with Rearden, developing Rearden more, developing the poisonous relationship he had with his wife, etc., and instead of these ciphers stiffly moving around on screen standing around talking to one another, there could have been some real character development, but the GOAL of the main character (Dagny) would be narrower and more focused. And as for the Men of the Mind disappearing when Dagny needed their help for her Line, that could be handled in the same way as people disappearing in "Casablanca" because the Gestapo had picked them up: simply a horrible part of the background context in which the main story is taking place, but something that needs no more explanation because THAT WOULD ENTAIL MAKING ANOTHER MOVIE, AND TELLING ANOTHER STORY, JUST ABOUT THAT.
Now this means that the entire character of John Galt as an actual human being, of course, is axed from the picture. Galt has no conflicts anyway, so he's not a very interesting character, nor a very plausible one. For the sake of the picture, lose him. You could lose the entire science-fiction aspect of the film, too, by axing the static-electricity motor because, again, that would be telling a different story.
See, if you want to include Galt and his motor, then axe the John Galt Line sequence and tell a story about a businesswoman who needs to find the man who built this motor. That, too, could be a more narrowly focused story, but then the producer and the writer(s) have to stick to telling THAT and not a whole bunch of other stories at the same time.
You can get away with that in a novel, because it isn't generally the plot, or character traits that unify long novels but the THEME; so long as a subplot expresses the theme of the novel, it will appear integral to the story. Screenwriting, however, is VERY different from novel writing, and requires much more of a selective focus. Dramatic writing requires establishing a goal for the main character ("a goal", not "many goals"), positing the question in Act I: will our hero achieve this goal? then throwing a bunch of obstacles in the way of the hero to test his or her resolve in achieving the goal, as well as to test a particular trait ("integrity", "honesty", "shiftiness", "resourcefulness", "hatred of conformity", whatever) that concisely defines that character.
That means, of course, when writing a screenplay adapted from a novel, that one must sit down and before starting to write, one has to make some very hard editorial decisions: basically, WHAT TO LEAVE OUT.
Then, at least, you'll have something that is recognizably a "movie" rather than a transcription of a novel into a photoplay.
Needless to say, such a process would also obviate the need for a compliance office like David Kelley, since the writers would now be focused on telling a concrete story by means of concrete actions, with a single concrete goal for its lead character, rather than "teaching a philosophy to an audience," which is what Kelley, et al., seemed to have in mind. As I mentioned in another post, the writers needn't worry about the theme of Atlas Shrugged. By focusing on a much narrower story (e.g., just the struggle to build the John Galt Line, which could very easily be a dramatically satisfying 2-hour movie), the theme will emerge on its own just be presenting the character, her main traits, her choices in behavior and actions, the kinds of obstacles antagonists throw at her, and the wan in which she responds to those obstacles.
The theme will be there. You don't have worry over telling it explicitly.
If you really do want to send a message . . . go to Western Union.
Good question. I'll provide a fuller, more complete reply later on when I have time to do so, but for now I'll merely paraphrase old Jack Warner: If you want to send a message, go to Western Union; don't make a movie.
You never have to worry about "keeping a message" or "sending a message" with a movie because then it becomes didactic lecturing rather than entertaining storytelling. Worry about focusing in on the essential story elements like character traits and plot, and you won't need to worry about the message: the message will be there (it cannot NOT be there). Just be concerned with the craft of telling the story and you'll tell it successfully.
On ASII, suffered from the same issue AND the change of actors, I personally, didn't think were good. the first Harry Potter's sucked. the same actors continued and the movie making continued. no expert on movie making, but directors were changed as in this series. there were constraints on contractual issues, which may have contributed. Own the rights, OWN the influence, Darren
Nice scapegoat. Blame the budget. Little known secret: ultimately, the commercial success of a movie is determined by WORD OF MOUTH, not advertising and marketing. The old French film, "A Man and a Woman" had no marketing budget; it spread only by word of mouth, and played in theaters for something like a solid year.
Small films like "Twelve Angry Men" had little or no marketing budget because they had little or no production budget, period. It was a successful film and became a classic because the writing, casting, and directing were all excellent.
>> there have been any number of movies that were much worse stories poorly told that sold better.
And many movies that had even smaller production and marketing budgets that sold better . . . because they were better movies and people talked about them a lot.
>>>On ASII, suffered from the same issue AND the change of actors,
Well, but that's part of what I mean. The whole project appears to have been done in a very amateurish, even haphazard way. If you're going to do something downright dangerous for the life of the film, like split it into 3 parts with a year or two of production in between each part, then you had better spend LOTS of time up front, before any lensing, to get the writing tight, the casting perfect, and the directing imaginative and daring (good grief, I can't tell you how often I winced every time there was a scene in AS-I in which the actors would simply speak their lines to one another, doing nothing but standing in front of one another. Do people in real life even do that? No, not really. I mean, don't you DO SOMETHING when you speak to someone else: tie your shoes; light a cigarette; straighten papers on the desk; put money away in a safe . . . something? anything? Some of the most wooden, acting-class-level directing I've ever seen in feature film. It was a filmed version of the audio-book version of the novel.)
Instead, the producers seem to have been very cavalier about the whole thing from the get-go: "If it doesn't work in Part I, it's no problem! We'll just fire everyone and recast the whole lot of them! The audience can't help but notice, of course, but they'll accept it, because in our opinion, the story of Atlas Shrugged is bigger than any particular casting choice" (I believe Harmon Kaslow even said something almost identical in a Reason Magazine interview some time ago). My opinion: utterly irresponsible of them to approach the project in this manner.
>>>there were constraints on contractual issues, which may have contributed.
Big deal. This is Hollywood. This is movie making. There are always "constraints on contractual issues"; there's no escaping them. It's simply part of the proverbial "cost of doing business." Besides, there were no stars in the picture, so what sort of real contractual constraints could there have been? Most of these actors were dying to be in a feature film with nationwide theatrical release. No, the real constraints were the egos of the producers, who believed they simply had to get the film made and distributed — no matter what — by April 15, Tax Day, in order to make a political statement. THAT was the constraint.
By way of comparison, watch the special DVD on the production of "Gone With the Wind" that is included in the 75th Anniversary Edition of the DVD. It presents a very complete history of David O Selznick's involvement in the project. In some ways, of course, he ruined some of the film by taking some great writing by a noted playwright of the day (Sidney Howard), throwing it out, and adapting many scenes himself directly from Martha Mitchell's novel. You can sort of see his heavy-handed touch, especially in scenes toward the end that virtually "telegraph" what the climax of the scene itself is going to be. However, the really significant thing about that special DVD is the story of how Selznick came to cast just the people he did: Vivien Leigh (practically unknown in the US at the time), Clark Gable, Leslie Howard, Olivia de Havilland, etc. Selznick took well over a year just to decide who would be cast, and he even turned his indecision into a marketing "buzz", running contests and questionnaires in the press to see who people thought would be the leads (the novel had already been a popular hit for a few years, so people were looking forward to a movie version, and quite excited by their own notions of who should play the various leading roles). Heck, that's marketing! Even before a single frame of film was shot, there was already lots of buzz!
I mention this only to drive home the point that when making a movie, you cannot be cavalier about any part of it, certainly not the casting. You cannot say, "Don't worry. If the talent can't pull it off in Part I, we'll just cast new people in Part II."
That is utterly irresponsible.
Hence one or more movies are not going to reverse this onslaught against the mind of Man. But we are so close to seeing Individual Rights crushed out of existence, that any venue which allows Rand's ideas to reach a larger audience is to be applauded.
I agree with those of you who think the speech given in a format of a college lecture to 600 students would challenge the most avid IR advocate to stay awake. Perhaps it could be accomplished as a voice-over while showing videos of Rand's predictions come true. There must be a myriad of horror files to be had globally over the last two or three decades.
Great commentary. Whatever portion of the speech is deemed appropriate for the movie. It needs to be comprised of the most salient and impact-full verbiage. It must also have the proper timing like a well told joke, or a good composition.
Respectfully,
O.A.
I have this book I wrote, we're still trying to get it out there, anyway. one friend was all over the timing. like a score. his comments were spot on. timing, beats-essential. welcome
The speech is a sales pitch that addresses every form of coercion as roadblock to man, not protector of man. Just the act of showing on screen, great men creating without coercion disguised as protection, will illustrate what the speech describes.
Two more points:
1) Another variation of a more focused story that would still contain the gist of the novel would be to have Dagny (the protagonist) not just trying to start the John Galt Line for purely personal reasons, but she is tasked with saving rail itself as a means of transportation: the entire industry is counting on her! Early in the story, she finds out about this amazing new technology (i.e., the motor) invented by one man. She needs to find this guy in order to get the motor to save her own business and the entire industry of rail. Galt could still be a shadowy figure, but his "kidnapping" of men of ability would be done for the express purpose of stopping her, and not merely as a big abstract philosophical issue about "sanction of the victim". That way, he's an actual CONCRETE antagonist. To bring things up to date, Rearden could own an Intel-like corporation, in which he is manufacturing a unique microprocessor -- using, e.g., "quantum computing" -- and which makes use of special nano-particle-sized metallic coating made of something he calls "Rearden Metal". Dagny knows she can save Taggart Rail (and the rest of the industry) by combining Rearden's technology with the new motor. Etc., etc.
This approach "fuses" together several subplots of the novel, but it still tells the gist of the book and (in principle, at least) is much more focused than AS-I and AS-II turned out to be.
Again, there are probably many approaches to this, but the main thing — the difficult thing in all novel-to-screen adaptation — is in deciding what the actual story is in the novel, and then deciding on what to leave out when writing the screenplay.
2) Regarding long speeches in films: they're deadly. "Movies" have the word "move" in them. They're ultimately about the kinds of choices the characters make as shown by how they act; what they do, not what they say. If a long speech really is necessary, then the only way to film it without putting the audience to sleep is to concentrate on the REACTIONS of the other characters on hearing the Great Words of the speech-giver. This has to be done during the speech, and not merely as an effect of the speech after it has been completed.
Example:
There's a fine old movie from 1935 starring Charles Laughton called "Ruggles of Red Gap." Briefly: an Englishman is playing poker with an American millionaire and losing badly. As a last resort (he's already lost his cash), he bets his butler, Ruggles (played by Laughton). He loses again, and Ruggles now becomes an employee of the American. Back in the US, Ruggles slowly becomes Americanized and sets out on his own business, transitioning from being a mere employee to an entrepreneur in his own right. The climax is when he is forced to show to others that he is not only American, he is MORE American than they are, because he can movingly recite The Gettysburg Address from memory. While reciting this (thankfully) short speech, the director, Leo McCarey, focuses almost exclusively on the reactions of the Americans hearing this English transplant recite words that are part of their cultural background. It works quite well because a) the speech is short and very well written, and 2) the audience's attention is focused on a variety of different images during the speech, and not simply on a big closeup of the character giving the speech.
In the case of Galt's Speech, the filmmakers should cut it down to something about as long as . . . the Gettysburg Address. Everything about metaphysics and epistemology has to be cut. No one pays $15.00 for a movie ticket to hear a lecture on the nature of concepts. The speech would have to have some "shock value" to its words, involving e.g., the Virtue of Selfishness, and the director would have to show the audience the reactions of the various characters during this speech.
Which movies have 7-minute-long speeches in them?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00xStn_jX...
the idea of adapting it to a movie bothers me, too much would have to end up on the cutting room floor. Personally, the book would make a better tv show over a couple of seasons that a mini series or movies...
In my humble opinion, not enough of the first two movies ended up on the cutting room floor, which accounted for the fact that no audience member *except* an Objectivist (or anyone who had read the novel) understood what was going on. The number of elementary filmmaking mistakes committed by the production team was embarrassing.
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/31...............
Nice non sequitur. What does "easy to put onto the big screen" have to do with the decade of the 1970s?
Rand herself had started to adapt the novel into a television miniseries but she lost interest in the project. The reason it was never developed for the screen (big or little) after hear death was that Peikoff simply refused to let it be done, despite several fine screenwriters attempting to do so.
>>The fact is the message transcends all other considerations.
If that's the case, then the message also transcends the consideration of adapting it for screen in the first place. Leave the novel alone and don't attempt to make a movie of it. On the other hand, if you do decide to adapt the novel for film, then the first consideration is NOT the "message" of the novel, but the constraints imposed on the nature of storytelling itself by the medium of film. FIRST respect the nature of the medium; THEN worry about sending a "message." The producers of AS got it backward, which is why both films failed commercially, and why they felt it necessary to do something embarrassing like recasting the entire thing. They recast it, by the way, in an attempt to make AS-II more commercially successful than AS-I, NOT because they felt the original actors weren't getting the "message" across.
>> Shortening the speech to appeal to those with limited attention spans is nonsense. Let the producers, director, and actor figure out how to present the speech in a way that holds the attention of the audience.
I love the contempt you hold for the paying public. Why make a movie in that case? Anyway, producers, directors, and actors, already have lots of filmmaking history to show them how to present long boring speeches in a way that holds the attention of the audience:
Shorten it.
It needs to be brief, and concise and to the point because that's the nature of a DRAMATIC presentation in a FILM, as opposed to a purely DIDACTIC presentation in a BOOK. Right? Because a reader can put the book down after reading for an hour, then come back to it a bit later. Can an audience member in a movie theater do that? No. He has to stare at a screen for 2 hours, so the filmmakers had better give him a good reason for doing that as opposed to looking at his email on his smartphone. If they can't — or won't — then they shouldn't make a movie for theatrical release. They should go direct-to-DVD or not make a movie at all.
In theory. In fact, very few people paid to see the movies because the word-of-mouth reviews were so bad (understandably). Conversely, lots of people still pay to buy copies of the eleven-hundred page novel.
How would that differ from an audiobook version?
there are many who find the speech so essential, they are willing to listen again and again, Darren. you haven't answered. read AS?
Oh, beautiful! If there's already a FREE version of the speech online, why should I (or any other moviegoer) pay to hear it as part of a movie? It would be the SAME speech, with (perhaps) some different images. Big deal.
>>>there are many who find the speech so essential,
No screenwriter, filmmaker, or producer who knew his craft would find a long didactic speech from a didactic novel "essential" to the process of telling a story on screen.
>>>they are willing to listen again and again,
The producers had better hope that these same people are willing to buy tickets again and again. Otherwise, Part 3 will flop as badly as Parts 1 and 2.
>>>Darren. you haven't answered. read AS?
There's very little about Objectivism and Ayn Rand you can teach me, khalling, that I didn't already learn years ago, after having read Atlas Shrugged three times, heard Miss Rand lecture live at the Ford Hall Forum twice, attended Peikoff's multi-lecture course on "The Philosophy of Objectivism" in New York City (with Miss Rand often in attendance — sitting next to her husband, Frank O'Connor — and conducting the post-lecture Q&A), and last but not least: getting her personal autograph on my own hardcover version of AS.
In fact, I personally met a number of people from her "inner circle": Peikoff, his future wife Cynthia, Harry Binzwanger, Allan Blumenthal, George Reisman (I attended his NYC lectures on economics), Robert Hessen and his wife Bea.
So go ahead, khalling. Teach me. I'm waiting.
I have attended many lectures, too. Most of them were boring.There's supposed to be a difference between the experience of sitting through a lecture and the experience of watching a movie. Above everything else, the latter is supposed to be entertaining.
>>>I would only have the entire speech as an option, or optional DVD.
The entire movie should be direct-to-DVD.
>>>How it would be different than an audio book is that it would be in the voice of the actor who plays the part,
Unless it is the same actor who is hired to record the audiobook.
>>>and I expect it could be enhanced with regular fading in and out of the actor speaking in the microphone and scenes from the previous movies and footage of decimated cities like Detroit, or unruly crowds like the OWS protests etc.
In other words, images we've all seen before. This is "entertainment"?
>>>I fail to see why you should object.
I never said I objected.
>>>What difference to you will it make if there is a special edition that I and others are willing to pay for?
None. So let's hope the producers understand that Part 3, like Parts 1 and 2, preaches to the converted. That's not exactly an effective strategy for reaching new people.
most in the gulch never read Rand before seeing the movie(s).
unique crowd. people actually live Objectivist lives and did not know a 20th century philosopher was working through the philosophy. They work and play to their own creed and then they heard about movies which were depicting their lives. They saw those movies and were moved.
Respectfully, they take it personally.
When I read the book for the first time, I skimmed that speech. I read it slowly on the second reading. I think it is a good description of the philosophy of the book. But that does not mean it has to go in the movie at all. I like the idea of it as an optional add-on in the DVD, even then it should be cut. Can the audience concentrate for that long? Well in my circle -yes for My Kitchen Rules and Lord of the Rings, but -no for anything else. People watch movies for the story, not to see a college lecture. Any message must come thru the story. If it does not, it fails.
Optimistically, from what I know of the record of the scriptwriting team, their judgment will be good.