14

Atlas Shrugged Part 3 Cast: Who is John Galt? _#ASP3

Posted by sdesapio 5 years, 6 months ago to The Gulch: Promotions
201 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

*** BEGIN PRESS RELEASE (Reposted from http://blog.atlasshruggedmovie.com/2014/...) ***

Los Angeles, California - January 23, 2014 - Atlas Distribution Company announced today that “Atlas Shrugged: Who is John Galt?” went into production on Monday, January 20th. The movie’s release is slated for September 2014.

The movie trilogy follows the three-part structure of Ayn Rand’s 1957 novel, “Atlas Shrugged.” The dystopian story takes place in a not-so-distant future with the nation’s economy approaching collapse. While overreaching government regulations persist in strangling the country’s few remaining entrepreneurs, society’s most productive have mysteriously disappeared.

At the helm of Part 3 will be seasoned award-winning Director Jim Manera who will be accompanied by Cinematographer, Gale Tattersall who previously worked as Director of Photography on Hugh Laurie's House M.D. as well as Tom Hanks' From Earth to the Moon.

“It’s very fulfilling for all us to be finishing the trilogy. Atlas Shrugged has impacted so many lives and we’re extremely proud to be bringing the final installment to the screen. The team we’ve assembled is nothing short of stellar. Part 3 is without question going to be the best of the trilogy.” said Producer John Aglialoro.

Atlas Distribution Company also announced today that the much anticipated role of John Galt will go to Kristoffer Polaha, an accomplished actor who, prior to working on Atlas, was profoundly influenced by Ayn Rand’s “The Fountainhead.” Kris has been in a variety of television shows including Ringer (CW), alongside Sarah Michelle Gellar, and Life Unexpected (CW). He will next be seen in a regular role alongside Rainn Wilson in Fox's new show, Backstrom. His feature credits include a supporting role in Devil's Knot, opposite Reese Witherspoon and Colin Firth.

The role of Dagny Taggart, heroine COO of Taggart Transcontinental, will be played by Laura Regan who has appeared in the AMC hit Mad Men as well as the movie Unbreakable with Bruce Willis.

Producer Harmon Kaslow said, “We’ve always known that finding the right actor to play John Galt was going to be a huge challenge, but as soon as Kris walked in the room and said ‘Hello’, we knew we found him. Kris is John Galt. We couldn’t be more pleased. Laura and Kris already have great chemistry together. Atlas fans everywhere are going to be blown away.”

Rounding out the cast of “Atlas Shrugged” heroes are acclaimed actors Joaquim de Almeida as Francisco d’Anconia, Eric Allen Kramer as Ragnar Danneskjöld, and Rob Morrow as Hank Rearden, as well as a host of other veteran actors.

The prior two “Atlas Shrugged” movies are currently available on DVD & Blu-ray, iTunes, or streaming on Netflix and Amazon.

- - - - - - -

Official Movie Web Site: http://www.WhoIsJohnGalt.com
Official Atlas Shrugged Forum: http://www.GaltsGulchOnline.com

- - - - - - -

About Atlas Distribution Company
Atlas Distribution Company was formed by John Aglialoro to distribute the trilogy adaptation of Ayn Rand’s epic novel, Atlas Shrugged and other motion pictures. For more information, visit http://www.AtlasShruggedMovie.com.

- - - - - - -

*** END PRESS RELEASE ***

- - - - - - -

Check out some exclusive behind the scenes pics attached. Thanks to Eudaimonia for compiling the IMDB links.

John Galt - Kris Polaha - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1119340
Dagny Taggart - Laura Regan - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0716438
Francisco D'Anconia - Joaquim De Almeida - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0021835
Henry (Hank) Rearden - Rob Morrow - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001555
Ragnar Danneskjold - Eric Allen Kramer - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0469503
Hugh Akston - Stephen Tobolowski - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0864997
Midas Mulligan - Mark Moses - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0608601
Ellis Wyatt - Lew Temple - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0854702
Cherryl Taggart - Jen Nikolaisen - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0993212
Eddie Willers - Dominic Daniel - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1563320
James Taggart - Greg Germann - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0314524
Head-of-State Thompson - Peter Mackenzie - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0533380
Floyd Ferris - Neal McDonough - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0568180
Wesley Mouch - Louis Herthum - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0381043
Cuffy Meigs - Tony Denison - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0219208
Clem Weatherby - Claude Knowlton - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0461572
Gerald Starnes - Ned Vaugh - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0891224


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by Robert_Wade 5 years, 6 months ago
    I have to say I'm not all that pleased with yet another re-casting of the main parts. I much preferred the actors from part 1, but would have accepted the actors from part 2, if only for some degree of continuity. I think these choices are extremely negative to the series.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Robbie53024 5 years, 6 months ago
      I actually like the recasting. Kind of gives the "everyman" type of feeling to it. Anyone could be these characters.
      That said, Mouch should be more weasely looking, and Thompson more snivilish. I think that Gregory Itzin (played President Logan on 24) would have been perfect for Thompson, and perhaps Gilbert Gottfried as Mouch?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LSP 5 years, 6 months ago
    Oh...groan...another totally new cast. I (sort of) understand the reasoning, but it takes away from the continuity of the story. I wish they could have signed up the entire cast for all three movies FIRST, as normally would be done when making a series of movies from a single story. For anyone who has NOT read the book first, this has to be confusing.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Ben45 5 years, 6 months ago
      When you get to do a remake of the trilogy someday, you can make sure the cast does not vary. I find it interesting to see how various people fit the roles. Can't we all be John Galt?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Hiraghm 5 years, 6 months ago
        Can we start the countdown clock for the remakes... right now?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  Radio_Randy 5 years, 5 months ago
          1. I preferred the cast from Part I.
          2. The special effects in Part II sucked.
          3. If and when a remake is done, I would prefer continuity in the casting and a larger budget.
          I'm not saying I hate Parts I and II. The story, itself, is what this is all about. I loved "The Man from Earth", even though the entire movie took place in and around a wood cabin. It was the story that kept me entranced.
          So, Spielberg, Lucas, Jackson...how about it?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  Radio_Randy 5 years, 5 months ago
            Hi folks,
            I was rather crude in my comment about the special effects in Part II. After watching the movie, again, I decided that they weren't THAT bad (I've seen worse).
            Considering the budget, I guess the tunnel collapse was okay.
            Hey, what do you expect from a Moocher :-)
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • -1
        Posted by EconomicFreedom 5 years, 6 months ago
        >I find it interesting to see how various people fit the roles.

        LOL! Yes, I'm sure the producers changed cast for each installment because they thought it was "interesting" to do so.

        >Can't we all be John Galt?

        I'm sure that's what the producers had in mind: "John Galt is the proverbial Everyman."

        I doubt that's what Ayn Rand in mind, though.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by Robbie53024 5 years, 6 months ago
          Oh, no, cast changes were done for economic reasons - or the actors chose not to sign on again for fear of retribution.
          I think that AR would have supported every man being a John Galt.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by EconomicFreedom 5 years, 6 months ago
            >Oh, no, cast changes were done for economic reasons

            Economic reasons? How could that be when the producers always stated that each installment was "fully funded"? You're suggesting they're incompetent at budgeting?

            The "economic reasons" were simple: To date, each installment has died at the box office. In each case, the producers thought, perhaps, it had been their casting, so they recast each installment.

            > - or the actors chose not to sign on again for fear of retribution.

            LOL! If it makes you feel better to believe that fairytale, go right ahead.

            >I think that AR would have supported every man being a John Galt.

            Sure. Everyone knows that Atlas Shrugged has a silver lining of democratic egalitarianism running through it. John Galt is not an elite man; he's EVERYMAN!

            Nice one.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by khalling 5 years, 6 months ago
              can you just go back to talking about linguistics. I liked you then
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Lucky 5 years, 6 months ago
                kh etc. you will love my latest book which awaits only receipt of grant money for publication-
                'Cosmic coin tossing in quantum gravity',
                in which unification of hyper-negativity with pseudo-objectivism is validated with antiheteronormativistic formulations.
                On the casting, Amusing that the 20-year gap produces two kinds of response- 1. shock, and 2. smirk.
                Well I think that acting, direction and make-up can do a lot.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • -1
                Posted by EconomicFreedom 5 years, 6 months ago
                >can you just go back to talking about linguistics.

                Sure! Start a linguistics thread; I'd be happy to comment (one of my favorite subjects).

                > I liked you then

                Awwwwwww. XOXOXOXOXOXOXO
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ravenwest 5 years, 6 months ago
    Worst cast EVER.. Robb Morrow, from Northern Exposure as Hank Readon? Joaquim de Almedia as Francisco d’Anconia who is supposed to be Dagny's former lover is 20 YEARS OLDER than the actress playing her AND John Galt... and they were in SCHOOL together? No way is a 37 year old going to have that much business/political experience... well, that's Hollywood for ya... pity
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by freedomforall 5 years, 6 months ago
      Pathetic casting. But, that's no surprise. Did they even read the book? I'm looking forward to the re-making of Atlas Shrugged in 20 years. This movie wil continue the decline of the 2nd one from the first episode. Yecchh!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ravenwest 5 years, 6 months ago
        That's EXACTLY what my husband said.... in 20 years they'll get it right! I thought the first one was right ON, the second, they were just reading lines and sleeping through the scenes... the third is going to be a MESS. "Galt" is just too damn YOUNG to carry such an intense part. Oh well, at least they didn't cast Tom Cruise!!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by martytopping 5 years, 6 months ago
    The only one who looks out of place to me is Francisco... too old?

    Ragnar's was not what I picture, but I think this guy could pull it off.

    I liked cast #1 the best, and I'm glad we have a new cast. Keeping cast #2 would have made cast #1 seem out of place. Now one cast has no more "weight" than any other. Looking forward to Part III!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Abaco 5 years, 6 months ago
    Interesting lineup. I look forward to seeing them in the movie. I didn't picture somebody like that for Ragnar (I pictured somebody more like me, of course...hehe). Jen Nikolaisen is a world-class beauty - wow.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Robbie53024 5 years, 6 months ago
      but Jen for Cheryl? I always envisioned her as rather plain, that the only reason that Jim would marry her is because she was so naïve and worshipped him. She wasn't "eye candy."
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rayth 5 years, 6 months ago
    This is just sad. So poorly planned it's doomed to fail. Sorry, but you just can't make a successful trilogy with 3 different casts. Think Lord of the Rings, the Hobbit, Star Trek, Star Wars, Transformers, etc. Do you think they would be successful if the entire cast changed with every new movie? I saw the first two and was extremely disappointed with #2. I won't be going to see #3. My hope is that someone does this wonderful story better in the future and these 3 movies will just become a bad memory.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Rex_Little 5 years, 6 months ago
      This has been my biggest gripe ever since part 2 was announced. When in the history of film has a multi-part movie EVER been made with no cast continuity at all?

      They didn't even keep the characters' ages consistent from one part to the next. They pretty much all looked 15 years older in part 2 than in 1, and now Dagny loses half of that back. (Maybe Eddie and Hank and James do too, I haven't looked at their pictures.)

      Someday soon, all three movies will be available on one DVD or in a boxed set. Someone will pick them up without having read the book, watch them in order, and be confused as all hell.

      My biggest casting gripe: Armin Schimmerman. The man was put on Earth to play a Rand bureaucrat, and all he got was a cameo in part 1.

      If someone does AS again in the future, it shouldn't be a movie. It should be a TV miniseries, 6 to 8 parts, 90 minutes to 2 hours each. That's how I envisioned it when I read the book in 1971, before there had ever been such a thing as a miniseries.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • -1
      Posted by EconomicFreedom 5 years, 5 months ago
      >Sorry, but you just can't make a successful trilogy with 3 different casts.

      Of course not. But the producers can try to make some of their money back by marketing the DVDs exclusively to hard-core Objectivists who might purchase several copies of each installment. Then the producers might try to market t-shirts, coffee mugs, bobble-head dolls, action figures (with movable limbs), a board game, a video game, etc.

      So even when it fails at the box office and generates lots of negative reviews among critics, the producers can market the trilogy precisely based on that! For example, they could create a board game (instead of passing "Go" and collecting $200, you pass through "Galt's Gulch" and get an ounce of gold from Ragnar) and market it with slogans like, "The culture is too depraved, and audiences too irrational to have appreciated the great achievement of the AS trilogy! Play 'Going Galt' and escape to a modern-day Atlantis! Only $39.99." Etc.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by notanaltruist 5 years, 6 months ago
    You have done Ayn Rand and her prophetic novel a loathsome injustice. This incongruous casting defies comprehension.

    I first read Atlas in 1964 during my college years and have lived according to the lessons I learned from it and other of Ms. Rand's books. Specifically self conduct and expectation of others to do the same. You have failed the test. You don't really believe in the philosophy.

    I am saddened to realize that you don't really care about the book or its message.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by EconomicFreedom 5 years, 6 months ago
      >You don't really believe in the philosophy.

      That's where you're wrong. Kaslow and Aglialoro believe wholeheartedly in Objectivism.

      > am saddened to realize that you don't really care about the book or its message.

      No, what Kaslow and Aglialoro don't really care about is serious filmmaking. You don't have to be an Objectivist to produce a movie version of Atlas Shrugged, or adapt it to the screen, or direct it, or star in it; you just have to know how to produce, write, direct, and act. Those skills and talents are what they are; they are not dependent upon one being an Objectivist; conversely, being an Objectivist gives one no special advantage in making a compelling movie of a prophetic book.

      (By the way, don't you just love the fact that D'Anconia and Galt were supposed to have gone to college together (and the former, a former suitor of Dagny's), yet the producers cast actors who are 20 years apart in age? Nice one!)
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mdk2608 5 years, 6 months ago
    My first reaction was one of disappointment. I really loved Taylor Schilling as Dagney and Jason Begne as Hank along with some of the others we have grown to know. I will reserve final judgement and respect the professional talents of the people in charge to make this a fantastic movie. I am just happy that someone has the courage to put this story on the big screen. Our country is counting on you to tell the story! Good Luck
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by nealgb 5 years, 6 months ago
    I am disappointed,.,,,, I really loved the Dagny and Hank characters from Atlas 2. It is hard to enjoy 3 parts of a movie with 3 different casts.....but I'm sure I will still pay for a ticket. I thought Samantha Mathis nailed it as did Jason Beghe(Who was more believable as a steel guy than the first Hank Reardon)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Vegasrenie 5 years, 6 months ago
    Two of the casting decisions, those of d'Anconia and Ragnar, are the worst. They are both too old for the part - didn't the casting person even read the book? They were supposed to be classmates of John Galt for crissakes! As it is, they are only slightly younger than the guy who's going to play Hugh Akston who was their college professor and a "dad" of sorts to John Galt! Really?!?

    It seems that Lew Temple - although not "pretty" as Ragnar was described in the book - is at least in the same age range. In addition, I still feel that in order to keep the right look for d'Anconia, someone such as Eduardo Verastegui would have been nearly perfect. Yes, he speaks with an accent, but who cares. He looks the part and isn't as far out of the age range as De Almeida. Who thought THAT was a good idea?!?

    I like the look of the new Dagny, but as someone else mentioned, Cheryl is way too pretty for someone who Jim married because she admired him and he felt sorry for her. The jewel of the casting decisions was Greg Germann as Jim Taggart. He plays smarmy well, and fits the part as an older brother. Now who (if anyone) is going to be Lillian Reardon? Still like the original casting for that.

    And for those who were wondering why Eddie Willers was a black man in the movie but not in the book - diversity at the time that the book was written was pretty much non-existent. That's not a reflection on Rand; it is what it is. So casting Eddie Willers as a minority was a stroke of genius in my opinion and reflected the more modern mindset.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Robbie53024 5 years, 5 months ago
      And since the movie adaptation has pretty much skipped the childhood relationships of Jim/Dagny/Eddie/Francisco the race has had no real effect. Although I never really understood the plot advancement of Eddie being part of that group at all. Seemed really out of place and never had any plot advancement or character expansion. And I really would have liked to see more of the "strikers" of ethnicity - would have been a way to be more inclusive that you don't have to be a white guy to be rich or accomplished.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Vegasrenie 5 years, 5 months ago
        That's a good point, which makes Eddie's race irrelevant. That may also make the age differences irrelevant except for the implied relationship between Dagny and Francisco in Pt 1. And I agree about the strikers - since Eddie was a step into diversity, then some of the strikers should be, too. But it's possible that the background actors in the Gulch may reflect that.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by JohnWValentine 5 years, 6 months ago
    I thought John Galt was a biond gentleman. Will the actor become a blond for the picture. If not why not?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  minniepuck 5 years, 6 months ago
      galt's hair is described as chestnut-brown in the novel
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by LetsShrug 5 years, 6 months ago
        Eddie Willers was blond LOL (I think.)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Vegasrenie 5 years, 6 months ago
          True, but this helps in the continuity.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by LetsShrug 5 years, 6 months ago
            At this point it does, but thought it odd in the beginning.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  Susanne 5 years, 6 months ago
              I love this Friday Morning Quarterbacking... --grins--

              I thought the same thing originally about Eddie WIlers. And then - there IS the whole age thing, which is the rub... Wilers, Dannesjköld, D'Ancona, Galt, Dagny, even to some extent Hank, Hammond, Sanders, and some of the *younger* (eg 30's to 40's) producers - are somewhat cotemporary in age. I think, if "make-up" does their job, De Almeida could be made to look young enough (and as such will stomp the D'Anconia role) to nullify the 20 year discontunuity between his age and his "contemporaries" in the book. Otherwise, he won't look as an age contemporary to those he must, if Rand knew what she was doing in writing the characters.

              It'd be the same issue (maybe worse) if Nick Cage did Galt... his age is too far removed from those who are also supposed to be of that generation. (Now... Nicolas Cage, as either James Taggart, Dagny's older brother, or better yet - Mr. Thompson - Woohoo! He is just devestating enough to make either of those parts.)

              It's all visual continuity... it'd be like having an Eucalyptus tree in the Gulch, where the altitude, climate, and location wouldn't support such a thing. ;-)

              C'mon, tho... you KNOW it'll be a good movie. The hardest part is, we ALL know (heck, memorized, and live) the story line here, so we perhaps are the most critical audience. Most of us know these people from Rand inside out - unlike the average moviegoing audience who has not read AS, and would not catch if D'Anconia was 20 years too old to be Dagny's age when they grew up together.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Hiraghm 5 years, 6 months ago
            I still say Don Cheadle as Willers.
            I still say Jason Statham as Rearden
            I still say Esai Morales as D'Anconia
            I still say Diane Kruger as Dagny
            I still say Chris Hemsworth as Ragnar
            I still say Nicholas Cage as Galt
            (close your eyes and imagine this calm, quiet voice delivering the John Galt speech - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPiXax0S3...)

            IF we're going to recast it...
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by rlewellen 5 years, 6 months ago
              Nicholas Cage is ugly. Imagine Kurt Russel saying it when he was like 37.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by khalling 5 years, 6 months ago
                cage is too....too....well kinda like a clark gable in that their personality is so distinctive to them it's hard for me to buy into their acting-John Wayne is like that too-the character has to be them in different situations. Detracts from John Galt-who was not well-defined personality wise in the first place. I like diane Kruger for Dagny. personally I always pictured db as Galt when I read AS ;)
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by Hiraghm 5 years, 6 months ago
                  I like Cage's unassuming character in Nat'l Treasure. I think it could have been translated into Galt's quiet confidence.

                  And I still say D.B. Sweeney would have been a great Galt.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by Hiraghm 5 years, 6 months ago
                I keep seeing him as Dean Proffit in "Overboard" at like 37.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by rlewellen 5 years, 5 months ago
                  See him working on stuff with his sleevless shirt, and his carmel hair shining in the sun? Then.... ok I loved hm since I was 5. I can hear him giving the John Galt speech. I think he may need to be a little more subdued to be like the book but I would surrender.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by livesimply 5 years, 6 months ago
              I agree with Esai Morales, Diane Kruger (YES!!), and Chris Hemsworth. I hope that Laura Regan has that edgy look she has shown in the past and not the soft, weepy character played in Part 2.

              Why was Willers cast as a black character? I never got that impress from the book.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by Hiraghm 5 years, 6 months ago
                yeah, it really sucked that Dagny could elicit some human sympathy for her plight in ASp2. I much prefer the Terminatrix from ASp1.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by hanilson 5 years, 6 months ago
    Eric Allen Kramer for Ragnar is HORRIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Robbie53024 5 years, 6 months ago
      totally agree. Too old, and "soft" looking. I expect Ragnar to be a weather worn but chiseled Norwegian.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  stargeezer 5 years, 6 months ago
        I'm with you. That guy is not a soldier, not a fighter or looks like he's used to living ready to fight. He looks like a insurance salesman. While I do think the age difference between Dagney and Francisco is way to far, I've enjoyed Amediea in most anything he's played. He has the skills, but the age is going to be tough to overcome. He's got to be close to my age, not the rest of the cast.

        I'm excited because this is just another sign that we'll soon be seeing this great finale.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  winterwind 5 years, 6 months ago
          I'm with you; Ragnar has to be able to look dangerous.
          Almeida's face is too familiar, and he doesn't look like a man of action.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by IamTheBeav 5 years, 6 months ago
            Personally, I would have gone with someone like Charlie Hunman (Jax from Sons of Anarchy) or Travis Fimmel (Ragnar Lothbrok from Vikings). EIther of those two guys is more age appropriate 33-34, and they both look like they could be an ass kickin' pirate by day and a gentle husband/philosopher by night.

            No offense to Eric allen Kramer, but when I first looked him up, I instantly remembered him as Bear doing the dance off with Stifler in American Wedding. That image does not lend itself to him playing the role of a warrior/philosopher, AND he's nearly 51 years old. Galt, Francisco and Ragnar are all supposed to be roughly the same age, and that is supposed to be mid 30s or so.

            Also, Joaquim De Almeida as Francisco? WTF? He's 57 for crying out loud. Laura Regan as Dagny was born is 1977 and the Francisco they pick that was supposed to grow up with her and be her lover was born in 1957? I don't get it.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Ob1 5 years, 6 months ago
        I would switch these two:
        currently:
        Wesley Mouch - Louis Herthum
        Ragnar Danneskjold - Eric Allen Kramer -
        proposed:
        Wesley Mouch - Eric Allen Kramer
        Ragnar Danneskjold - - Louis Herthum
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by eilinel 5 years, 6 months ago
    Appreciate the info. I'm gonna have trouble with Rob Morrow as Hank; I was a big Northern Exposure fan.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 5 years, 6 months ago
      Me too. But contrast that character with his role in Quiz Show and then numbers. He has range.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by eilinel 5 years, 6 months ago
        I haven't seen those, so I'll take your word for it. He also seems a bit young, but I'm also remembering that from NE.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  Susanne 5 years, 6 months ago
          Jeez yes... I was laughing about Doc Fleischmann as Hank... but if you look at the Don Eppes character to Hank Rearden - Oh yeah, I can see that! The one that got me as young was Mark Moses as Midas, but I suspect there's magic brewing there...
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by khalling 5 years, 6 months ago
            I have confidence in this director. He has an impressive IMBD. As Objectivists, we should let the professionals in the industry do their thing. I think it will be the best of the three.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  Susanne 5 years, 6 months ago
              I have faith in the producers as they're the ones who will profit or lose from their decisions... As such, I have ultimate faith they made the correct decision.

              As to a new cast for ASIII - it actually makes sense, since 1 & 2 were different casts. If you brought either back for III it would have created a strange lopsidedness to the series.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  ObjectiveAnalyst 5 years, 6 months ago
                I know what you mean. I was hopeful for a mix of the best from both movies, but if that is not to be... So be it! I will hope for the best and put my trust in those who will bear the responsibility.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by Hiraghm 5 years, 5 months ago
              trust in others? trust professionals? you mean like they want us to trust professional politicians?
              No, thanks. I'll follow Dagny's example and trust my own judgment.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • -1
              Posted by EconomicFreedom 5 years, 6 months ago
              >As Objectivists, we should let the professionals in the industry do their thing.

              Professionals?

              Obviously not professional film producers.
              Kaslow is a professional lawyer and Aglialoro is a professional businessman. I haven't seen a single thing they've done as film producers — including their interviews either in print or on video — that's professional.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by gafisher 5 years, 5 months ago
    A fine cast for a great story. Switching out the actors may not have been what ADC wanted to do but without a Disney-size budget they've made it work pretty well -- by the time the film has passed the two-minute mark most viewers will see the characters, not the actors.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jghodgson 5 years, 6 months ago
    I agree with most that Frisco and Ragnar are miscast however, my greatest disappointment with parts one and two, especially part two, were the scripts. If they can finally get that right with part three a few miscastings won't matter. And PLEASE, no Hannity!!!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Abaco 5 years, 6 months ago
    This reminds me of something. When I was reading Atlas Shrugged several years ago I could really, REALLY relate to Rearden. As I was reading the book I had heard the rumor that a film might be in the works. I remember telling my wife how, on a whim, I thought I would send info to the producers about me and my desire to play Rearden. Then, soon after that, the rumor hit that Angelina Jolie had looked at the part of Dagny and I (jokingly) told my wife, "Now, I MUST play the part of Rearden!" haha...

    And, just last night I found myself in a Hank moment. I worked late at a client's house, closing a good deal. It wasn't too far from home (about a mile) so I walked home through the darkness. It was nice, and reminded me of Rearden's chosen commute.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by JossAmbrose 5 years, 6 months ago
    Wow! Great choice for the cast. I very much look forward to seeing the end result. Eric Allen Kramer as Ragnar Danneskjold = perfect. You'd struggle to find someone more nordic looking ;]

    I think the only change I'd make is have Louis Herthum play Hank Rearden. Somehow he just looks the part to me - pretty much as I imagined him in the book in fact, but that's just a personal preference.

    Jen Nikolaisen = well buff, bordering on peng!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by BradA 5 years, 6 months ago
    I looked through the complete IMDB cast list to see who I had seen elsewhere. I was pleased to find that everyone chosen was a seasoned actor. For those of you crying for some better known actors, keep in mind that the budget for this film doesn't approach typical Hollywood levels and so you do what you can with limited resources.

    I also know from many,many years of being peripherally involved with live regional theater, that physical attributes come in a distant second to what the actor brings to each roll. Owning the character, killing the part, however you want to phrase it, as long as you bring something real, something meaningful, something interesting or memorable to your work, then it is yours and it is something your audience will appreciate.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by EconomicFreedom 5 years, 6 months ago
      >Owning the character, killing the part, however you want to phrase it, as long as you bring something real, something meaningful, something interesting or memorable to your work, then it is yours and it is something your audience will appreciate.

      Except for two things:

      1) Theater is not film, and stage acting is not film acting. Billy Wilder had lots to say about that when he was directing Shirley MacLaine (I think it was in "The Apartment", with Jack Lemmon). She had been studying Method Acting, I suppose with Lee Strasberg, and kept badgering Wilder for her "motivation" in this or that scene. Wilder finally snapped, "Oh, cut the crap!"

      Theater may be the "actor's medium" but film has long been the "director's medium."

      2) Unfortunately, the Atlas trilogy is neither the actors' medium nor the director's medium. From what I understand, creative choices must conform to what a "Philosophical Consultant" (David Kelley) believes is a "correct" interpretation, or application, of Objectivism. So an actor (or a director) must subordinate an original, creative choice to Kelley's dictates.

      An actor (or a director) trying to work under such restrictive circumstances would soon stop trying to make any original, bold, creative choices, and opt instead for stiff, uninspired line readings of the script, and stiff, uninspired blocking, etc.

      Now, isn't that what audiences suffered through in Parts I and II? Yes.

      The funny part is, the producers somehow agreed to all this (written in a contract, perhaps?), and yet they always reflexively assumed that it must be the actors' fault (or the director's) that the movies never grew any "legs" at the box office, or at least earned some critical encomia. That's why they recast, both below-the-line and above-the-line, in all 3 films.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by BradA 5 years, 6 months ago
        Film is ripe with actors creating memorable roles. Two obvious, high profile, examples would be Johnny Depp's Jack Sparrow and RD Jr's Tony Stark. Their portrayals go beyond what any director could have imagined or demanded.

        Yes, a director or producer can quash the otherwise inspired work of an actor and ruin a film. I remain optimistic that ASP3's company will rise to the challenge of finding a way to connect with its audience.

        Unfortunately, Rand's goal was on creating characters whose prime focus was on expounding her objectivist philosophy. In most cases this resulted in 2 dimensional caricatures. It will be the job of great actors to add the necessary 3rd dimension so the people can connect with both the character and the philosophy. Hopefully the director/producers will get this, this time out. We can all recall any number of memorable character portrayals from films over the years. I cannot recall a single portrayal of just an idea in film without its associated character. And it was always the strength of the character rather than the strength of the idea that made it memorable.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  Maritimus 5 years, 6 months ago
          "In most cases this resulted in 2 dimensional caricatures." Would you be willing to list here those of Rand's characters whom you perceive as 2 dimensional caricatures? I think that you would that way make a good contribution to a deeper unterstanding of Rand's writing.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • -1
            Posted by EconomicFreedom 5 years, 5 months ago
            >Would you be willing to list here those of Rand's characters whom you perceive as 2 dimensional caricatures

            Sure.

            John Galt
            Dagny Taggart
            James Taggart
            Francisco D'Anconia
            Wesley Mouch
            Eddie Willers
            Quentin Daniels
            The Wet Nurse
            All the evil characters in AS
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Rozar 5 years, 5 months ago
              Not Rearden?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by EconomicFreedom 5 years, 5 months ago
                >Not Rearden?

                Good question. I hesitated about Rearden because I think he's the most fleshed-out character in AS. From today's vantage point, of course, he comes across as just plain neurotic in some respects — e.g., his insane jealousy over Dagny's sexual past (c'mon, guy, of course she's slept around before you). Rand goes to great lengths to show his shortcomings and how they limit his success in certain areas of life, and also how he tries to deal with them as he becomes increasingly aware of them.

                So that's why I didn't include him.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by Rozar 5 years, 5 months ago
                  Very well put.

                  What about Dagny's inability to accept leaving the rest of the world to burn?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by EconomicFreedom 5 years, 5 months ago
                    >What about Dagny's inability to accept leaving the rest of the world to burn?

                    An intellectual issue for her, but not one that says anything one way or the other about her character. That's why there's something 2-dimensional about her: she's not conflicted enough to do something really surprising or unexpected from the reader's point of view.

                    This, however, doesn't change the fact that Atlas Shrugged is Dagny's story: it's really her struggle to overcome obstacles and challenges that drives the storyline. But when you compare the "beginning-of-the-story-Dagny" with the "end-of-the-story-Dagny," there's no great change in her values or personality. Some of her larger intellectual philosophical premises have changed, of course! But if you compare the beginning Rearden to the end Rearden, his philosophical premises are not just different, but he's a very different sort of man.

                    So although I think Dagny is the most important character in the novel — technically, the "main character", or the "protagonist" — I think Rearden is the most interesting character, and the one whose inner conflicts are most fully worked out.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • -2
                  Posted by Hiraghm 5 years, 5 months ago
                  "of course"? By the societal standard set when the book was written, Dagny should have been a virgin when she met Rearden... and after. By the standards of that era, she was a slut; which, in that era was a difficult contradiction: how can she be a protagonist and a slut? The blackmail, which wouldn't have worked today, was a concession to that.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by khalling 5 years, 5 months ago
                    Sigh. That was TV hiraghm- not the big city.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by  $  Hiraghm 5 years, 5 months ago
                      What TV?
                      I said "the societal standards". By the standards of society of that age, women were not supposed to fuck until they were married, and then only with their husbands.

                      that "the big city" was full of sluts doesn't change the standard of the era.

                      And Rearden wouldn't be the first audulterer who expected his playmate to be a virgin.

                      Besides, by the rest of the back story for her, aside from D'Anconia, she *was* a virgin. No interest in or time for boys, remember?

                      If you really suggest that society at large in the 1950s was "okay" with a single woman sleeping around... what color is the sky on your planet?

                      (I'm not surprised; modern people for decades have formed the habit of thinking the past is just the same as the present, just with different clothes. That's why they have no rational explanation for the deterioration of society since then.)
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by khalling 5 years, 5 months ago
                        I think that throughout History humans have ignored what society expects of them, especially sexually. calling the heroine of a well loved novel of people in this forum a "slut" is very offensive and demeaning to women in general. adults having adult relationships are....adult. Grow up
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by  $  Maritimus 5 years, 5 months ago
                          Did Hiraghm call Dagny a "slut"? I do not see it in this comment just above. Did he do it elsewhere? I resonate to his parenthetic remark at the end. I think that the "moderns" are generally very ignorant of history and meaning of life. Yes, yes. There are exceprions. To my view the "moderns" deliberately ignore the past. They seem to think they know everything that is worth knowing. Poor souls. Already ancient Greeks new better.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by BradA 5 years, 5 months ago
              Agreed. Not sure that I've given Rearden as much thought as you have, but you make a good point.
              Oddly, I think we get to see more character development with Cherryl Taggart than anyone else in the novel.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by Robbie53024 5 years, 5 months ago
                Cheryl and the "nursemaid" are really the only characters in the story that truly evolve. Even Dagny and Hank stay true to their core principles. And I'm OK with that. Those of good moral character should stay true to themselves. Those of bad moral character usually don't change, although in this case we see the nursemaid (who really isn't of bad moral character, just indoctrinated) come to see that his original beliefs were mistaken and changes. And then there's Cheryl. She represents the "low information" masses. They are seduced by the lies of the progressives. AR presents the possibility that they can be enlightened and brought around, I'm not so sure anymore. At least not until the entire society actually comes crumbling down, and frankly, for me and my children anyway, that will be too late.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • -2
                  Posted by  $  Hiraghm 5 years, 5 months ago
                  "Those of good moral character should stay true to themselves."

                  Then what's your explanation for the lack of evolution of Hank and Dagny? Adulterers are not those "of good moral character".

                  Read more at http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/38...

                  And I'm leaving your little pastie in there. I still resent like hell you inserting something into the paste buffer of MY computer. Just hope I don't figure out a way to feed you back a virus...
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by EconomicFreedom 5 years, 5 months ago
                >I think we get to see more character development with Cherryl Taggart than anyone else in the novel.

                I think that's absolutely true. During my last reading of AS — summer of 2009 — I almost stopped reading when I got to the sequence with Cherryl. Beautifully written and almost unbearably painful.

                I must say that the single scummiest thing James Taggart does throughout that novel — even including his political machinations — is his manipulation of Cherryl. You could actually write a whole screenplay just about that one sequence.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • -1
          Posted by EconomicFreedom 5 years, 5 months ago
          >Film is ripe [sic] with actors creating memorable roles.

          Film is also RIFE with directors having the final say on what shall remain memorable in a film and what shall remain forgettable.

          It isn't like stage, where an actor can spontaneously vary some aspect of the performance.

          >Two obvious, high profile, examples would be Johnny Depp's Jack Sparrow...

          The point being, whatever "Keith Richards" flavor he brought to Jack Sparrow either received the stamp of approval from the director or did not. Again, it's not a theater context.

          >Yes, a director or producer can quash the otherwise inspired work of an actor and ruin a film.

          Or a director can reign in an actor who might be inclined to go "over the top" during a take.

          >I remain optimistic that ASP3's company will rise to the challenge of finding a way to connect with its audience.

          In other words, you're admitting that the first two casts didn't connect with their audiences. I agree. I also think it was not entirely the fault of the cast, but the fault of the producers, the screenwriter, and the director.

          Since Part 3 is being produced under the same sort of conditions as Parts 1 and 2 — with David Kelley inspecting everything to check for its "Objectivist purity," And I expect the same sort of results.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by BradA 5 years, 5 months ago
            Thanks for correcting my construct. It is hard to be cogent and correct prior to my first cup of coffee. Cobwebs, rust, etc.
            But yes, I agree that a director, etc can take an inspired performance and destroy it with poor direction, editing, etc. Just like a mediocre engineer can take a ton of Reardon metal and produce garbage with it. It doesn't make the initial material any less valuable, it just wastes it. In commenting on the cast I was expressing hope that the director/producers will at least be given something inspired to work with.
            WRT ASP1 & 2, I think the results were obvious. Regardless, I did enjoy seeing (along with the 6 other audience members for Part 2) the attempt to bring the story to the screen. I don't know who's effort came up short for 1 & 2, but in looking at the experience of 3's cast, I think we've got an improved troupe of players.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  MikeMarotta 5 years, 6 months ago
    Wait and see. (I knew none of the actors, except Rob Morrow, from NUMB3RS, never having seen "Northern Exposure.") Acting is a fine art, truly, a difficult craft to master. However, actors are not primarily important to the production. Success or failure rests on the director, perhaps equally with the writer(s), but the other team members from cinematographers and set designers on down, all are more important than the actors who, left on their own, would not know what to say or how to say it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Vegasrenie 5 years, 6 months ago
    While I have a furrowed brow on still yet another total recasting (wasn't ANYBODY from the other episodes available?!?), I have to say that Laura Regan looks exactly as I had pictured Dagny. Hopefully Eric Allen Kramer will have a hairpiece/weave of some sort. He doesn't look like the Nordic hunk that I pictured as Ragnar. Just sayin'.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo