- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
"What would you do if you could stop the engine of the world?" See Atlas Shrugged Fall 2014 That is powerful and catchy. Where would i put it? Everywhere.Just some initial thoughts.. .
I think something more along the lines of "All the rich titans of the world have disappeared, John Galt is the main suspect. Watch "Who is John Galt" to watch the radical fate he has in store for them.
Just my freshman attempt at marketing copy.
http://www.deadline.com/2010/06/atlas-sh...
I suggest you cultivate some old-fashioned religious faith in that case.
I judge by the objective criterion of track record: the producers made 2 movies, both which flopped financially and critically. Instead of blaming themselves and their approach, they blame "audience irrationality", "cultural depravity", and, of course, the cast. It's beyond amusing that Kaslow and Aglialoro apparently really believe that the only thing missing from making these films successful (at least financially) is more aggressive marketing.
Then again, who knows? I suppose if they market to no one but a hard-core Objectivist audience, each member of which purchases 10 copies of a DVD, they might at least break even.
Rozar didn't ask how to garner greater critical acclaim; he asked how to get more people to buy tickets. In the movie trade, it's known as "asses in seats."
"Asses in seats" has nothing to do with what the film critics like or don't like, since the public doesn't read them or care what they think. The public cares what their friends think.
What makes a movie financially successful is what makes a novel like Atlas Shrugged financially successful: word of mouth.
Francisco and Dagny are friends that grew up together during the summers he came to America to stay at her family’s house. Even as children they were fascinated by the way things work, so they planned on learning their father’s trades. When they grew up Fransisco came to America to start college and they fell madly in love. Fransisco's father died(should have been in the movie) so Fransisco goes to work in his father's copper mine in Argentina. The government officials pressure him for money to put his competitor out of business. Fransisco didn't want to do business this way so he decided to turn the tables on the officials. He can't tell Dagny because there are people in America connected with this scheme and he doesn't want to see her hurt. So he asks her to trust him but ignore what she may hear without any further explanation.
Years go by, Dagny is now working in her father's business under her brother, who does next to nothing. She struggles day after day to keep the business afloat. At this point so many businesses have made deals with politicians to put their competitors out of business that she can't even get parts to keep the railroad going. Many of her suppliers and other people she worked with start to disappear. This is happening everywhere. Even artists and musicians disappear. So many people disappeared they have a saying" Who is John Galt?"
Dagny’s brother works with the politicians against Dagny’s wishes. Politicians start passing laws so they have total control over raw materials. Anyone that fights them is accused of being a greedy and an enemy of the people. Politicians partnered with other governments to benefit businesses interest in other countries while destroying businesses in their own countries. Gas prices reached $43.00 a gallon.
Dagny meets Hank Reardon a steel manufacturer. Hank is supporting his family who have become very close to the rich and powerful. They treat Hank like dirt because he works for a living. Hank made a new metal he can't sell because the bigger steel mills have the politicians working to stop him. Dagny starts buying metal from Hank to repair her railroad. They go on a trip to see about a company that made motors. The company is shut down but Dagny finds a motor that could be the answer to the energy crisis. She tries to find the person who made it or someone who can get it working, but they’ve all disappeared.
Fransisco comes to town but now it appears he is working with the politicians. Little does Dagny know Fransisco is spinning a web to get the politicians and crony capitalists to invest in phony business prospects. Since they never worked a day in their lives, they have no knowledge about what they invest in, they just invest by insider trading. Over the years Fransisco has gone to great lengths to play the part of a playboy rolling in money. He has everyone eating out of his hand, except Dagny.
Fransisco meets Reardon at a dinner party and observes how his family and the guests treat him. He tries to get Reardon to see that he doesn’t deserve to let these people treat him like that. This is the beginning of a friendship, but Fransisco doesn’t know Dagny and Reardon are having an affair.
Dagney finds an engineer to work on the motor in secret. Months later the engineer starts to get the motor working, so he calls Dagny to come and see it. Then he realizes this will give more power to the politicians. He hires a private jet to take the technology far away, but as he is getting on the plane Dagny is landing, so she chases him. The second movie ends with her plane crashing and a stranger reaching for her. He tells her he is John Galt.
If you can get that message to people, they might listen. The question becomes are they trying to sell a movie or a philosophy. I believe Ayn Rand knew she was talking about globalism.
Maybe if that cute guy could talk to the left wing media the word would spread. I would even stress how much of one persons money was invested to make this movie.
Remember, most of the masses are what Rush calls "Low Information Voters" and need to be engaged via the most basic sensory level, NOT via the cerebrum.
Financially successful movies are those that have lots of positive "word of mouth" advertising. ("Did you see X? No? You should. It was amazing. Really interesting story . . . I'd see it again. Wanna go on Saturday?" If people like the movie, they will talk like this to friends, family, and acquaintances, in spite of anything negative published by any professional critic.)
And the way to make a movie that people talk about is to make a good movie. After the hodgepodge approach of Kaslow-Aglialoro, I'm now convinced they not only didn't really know what they were doing, they didn't really set out to make a good film. Not sure why.
Like any commercial product, a film has to be marketed, but the idea that "good marketing" will make a "good film", or that "successful marketing" will make a "financially successful film" is nonsense.
Think about if a moment. Never mind the choppy screenwriting, wooden acting, unimaginative directing, and unintelligible editing. Just think of the casting:
You don't find it just plain wacky to have 3 different casts in 3 films, all purportedly telling one unified story? I mean . . . it's weird.
Guaranteed, after this is over, the AS trilogy will be remembered by people as, "Oh, yeah, I remember that! Wasn't that the one that had a different cast for each episode? I don't remember the story, but I remember thinking that was pretty funny!"
C'mon. That's how the trilogy is going to be remembered by the public at large. And it's the public at large that make a film financially successful, not the small niche markets (e.g., committed Objectivists) who bought a few tickets and a few DVDs.
It's probably too late for this trilogy. Part 3 will flop at the box office and garner the usual disdain from the professional film critics.
Traveling backward in time, the things that should have been done differently to obtain a better result might have been:
1) Remove David Kelley from the production. I've never heard of a movie — whether literary adaptation or original screenplay — that had a "philosophical consultant" on it, advising the creative team as to the philosophical purity of their creative choices. I'd expect that sort of unprofessional nonsense from Scientology but not from Objectivism.
2) If I were on the producing team, I'd fight for one of two alternatives regarding the kind of adaptation that would best serve the intent of the novel and the objective requirements of dramatic storytelling for the screen: (a) either adapt the novel to a multi-part TV series (e.g., 10 episodes), which would permit more granularity in the storytelling (more detailed presentations of subplots and their various characters); (b) or write one single, integrated, unified movie — 2 hours, no more than 2.5 hours — in which a main character is presented (e.g., Dagny), along with her main struggle (e.g., to save her railroad from financial ruin due to a collapsing economy and culture); and in which the writers would obviously have to omit many subplots as simply not contributing directly this main storyline. That would be less granular than a TV miniseries, but more focused.
I understand that Randall Wallace (who wrote "Braveheart") wrote such a screenplay, but it was rejected in favor of a kitchen-sink, hodgepodge approach to which the public was treated in parts 1 and 2.
It would be very interesting to read Wallace's take on the novel. Apparently, he spent a lot of time on the affair between Dagny and Rearden as being central to who these characters were. I don't know how he dealt with the motor, the gulch, etc.
In either case, (a) or (b), you spend a year, if necessary, concentrating on the casting, after there's a serviceable draft of the screenplay finished.
You don't need established stars for this. You just need careful casting. But before the careful casting, you need much better writing; then you can worry about bringing an imaginative director on board. But even good directors know the fundamentals: it all begins with good writing.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/billfrezza/2...
we already know the Ragnar bit isn't true, but do you think they included the priest for part three? that would be VERY interesting...
i'm torn on the priest... if truly just a 30 second scene, it seems a nod to the fans more than a message to the public. In fact, the public could take it as affirmation of Rand's stance on religion, rather than a nudge about compromise. I take it you'd love to see a priest scene though?
I've said it before, but probably awhile ago, so might be useful to repeat. If Citizen Kane were released today, even if jazzed up with a better musical score and digital effects, it would be a box office bomb. Audiences are looking for sizzle not substance.
LOL...Not being a blockbuster movie is one thing. But not being successful in any aspect whatsoever — not even critically amongst many Objectivists, let alone professional critics — is quite another.
A breathtaking example of Primacy of Consciousness.
("It pleased me, therefore it was successful." Nope.)
You and who else?
Well, then, there you go! You have no reason to gripe about how the irrationality of the public, and the philosophical corruption of the critics, "killed" the movie and caused it be unsuccessful, right?
rlewellen and Rozar both thought the movie was compelling enough to buy the book — furthermore, they both intend to buy the DVDs of the trilogy — so it follows that the movies were successful!
Thanks for setting everyone straight on that.
(Psssst. Got a hint for you. A really good movie — a successful movie qua movie, as a solid example of writing, directing, casting, and editing — is precisely one that does NOT lead an audience member to say, "Gee, I'd love to read the book on which it's based." Instead, it leads audience members to say, "Gee, that was great! I'd love to see it again!"
No one watches "Gone With The Wind" and says, "Wow! I'm going to buy the novel and read it!" No one says after Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange", "Awesome! Kinky! It makes me want to read the book!" If AS intrigued you enough to buy the novel and read it, it's because it didn't make you want to run out to the box office and immediately buy another ticket. A movie adaptation of a novel is not intended to be an advertisement for the novel. If it makes you buy the novel, it means the screenwriting was not complete enough and you thought [correctly] that you'd find out more from the book.
You unwittingly agreed with me that the film versions of AS, qua movies, were unsuccessful.)
I watched the movies twenty times on Netflix I wanted to see what happened next, I couldn't wait, I bought the book.with a gift card to the book store.Then I joined this because I wanted to know more.
LOL!!! The score for "Kane" was written by Bernard Hermann, one of the greatest film composers in history.
>and digital effects, it would be a box office bomb.
You mean, instead of the box office success you assume it was? WRONG!
"Kane" (directed by 24 year old Orson Welles) was a box-office flop. However, it was very favorably reviewed by critics and received 9 Oscar nominations — during which ceremony Welles was booed loudly by the audience.
Now, what were you saying?
>Audiences are looking for sizzle not substance.
I see. So your argument is that EVEN IF we took a film with lots of substance (e.g., Citizen Kane) and added lots of sizzle (rap-music score, digital effects) it would flop, not because it didn't have sizzle — you just added sizzle, right? — but the audience would notice the substance behind the sizzle and they would reject the film precisely because it had substance.
Is that what you're saying?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAGSoti_e...
Sounds like "sour grapes" to me.
Audiences today are looking for exactly the same thing they looked for 50 years ago: a good movie. If they don't find it, why is it their fault?
I call BS. Oh, it may be true that both eras are looking for "a good movie", but what they define as "a good movie" is wildly different. Most audiences from the 1950s would walk out on most modern blockbusters. There may even have been riots over, say "Avatar".
"The Golden Compass" wouldn't have flown in the 1950, although Narnia would have.
What modern audiences look for in a movie is sex, shiny effects, shock, and reinforcement of politically correct dogma. A story is handy, but far from mandatory.
It's not exactly their fault; it's more their parents' fault. Parents, who, when challenged on their cultural values and mores by the anti-American left, couldn't or wouldn't defend them. Parents who allowed the dumbing down of schools, who allowed themselves to be guilted into lowering the superior to the least common denominator in all aspects of life. Until we turn out generation after generation of dull-minded drones, for whom stimulus is more relevant than thought.
It's why James Bond was transformed from a sophisticate into a thug. It's why the most notable things about Tony Stark is his bedding everything with an opening and his irresponsible partying.
Like with everything modern, flash triumphs over substance; titillation over story.
Look at modern remakes. They take a story that worked in its day, and at the expense of the story insert violence, flashy effects, obnoxious music, sex, and political correctness. How many times have you heard people say, "Oh, I hope they don't do a remake of <insert film>" when they hear about a remake being made, today?
Wrong. Last summer (to take just one example of many) there were many action movies with big stars, lots of sex, lots of special f/x, and lots of politically correct dogma. They all flopped.
Mainly because the stories sucked.
I once tried to get a group of Boy Scouts in our troop to sit through Citizen Kane. They were bored silly. One of those boys grew up to become a film digital effects wizard. I asked him about a year ago if he ever had to watch Citizen Kane in his film classes and he said that he had. From a perspective of one critiquing the film for things like lighting, camera angles, use of pause and musical score, he agreed that it was one of the best crafted movies ever made. But the same presentation would fail today.
On the upside, we rewatched it last year and I really enjoyed getting his perspective on what Orson had done and how he would do things using digital technology.
Rosebud...
There's plenty of lecturing in the novel, but a reader can skip it if he wants. I understand that's what the economist Friedrich Hayek did — he liked the novel (as did Mises, by the way) but apparently skipped over all the philosophical speeches.
You can't do that, of course, as an audience member in a movie theater, and it becomes awkward (and absurd) to fast-forward on a DVD or streaming version.
Speeches in screenplays can be deadly, and have to handled very carefully. In general, they should be short; they should relate to something of personal importance to the character making the speech; and one technique used often in Hollywood is that the speechmaker is often portrayed as someone who is "over the top", i.e., a bit crazy, daft, evil, completely consumed by some idea that is motivating his speech. Some examples:
1. The big speech by Ned Beatty toward the end of "Network". See here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKkRDMil0...
2. The speech by James Stewart in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6UbYHCko...
3. There's a beautiful, short, low-key speech made by Paul Newman to Piper Laurie in the movie "The Hustler" in which he speaks about how important it is for a man to find that one thing he does better than anyone else, to pursue it, and succeed at it. Perhaps it's more of a monologue than a speech, but the content touches on some abstract ideas relating to self-esteem. See here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx3BVozrr...
4. Finally, see this famous speech made by Charles Laughton in the 1935 film "Ruggles of Red Gap." Laughton ("Ruggles") is a gentleman's butler in England. The gentleman is losing at poker to an American from the midwest, and having lost his money, finally bets his butler. He loses, of course, so Ruggles ends up coming to the US where he slowly learns the virtue of self-reliance and standing on one's own feet. In this saloon scene, none of the American patrons can remember "what Lincoln said at Gettysburgh". Ruggles, however, has studied his US history and recites the famous Address to a stunned audience. The speech itself is quite short, but what's interesting is the way the scene was directed and edited: most of the shots are reaction shots of patrons listening intently, or moving in closer to look more closely at the speechmaker. Compare that technique to Ned Beatty's speech in "Network" above, where most of the camerawork is on him, not on the single audience member (Mr. Beale).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHIjrZCAY...
In sum, Galt's speech should be kept short, with most of the shots played off the reactions of the listeners (assuming the director can have an interesting variety of them). The scene will die if there's just a camera on Galt reciting a speech into a radio.
Well, that's a relief! I was worried there for a minute.
So, you're not bothered by the fact that Dagny had an affair with a character (Francisco) now played by an actor 20 years too old for the part? Isn't an important part of the story the fact that Francisco and Galt had been contemporaries at the Patrick Henry University? How could they have been contemporaries if they're 20 years apart in age?
You don't find it weird that the producers claim to be making a close adaptation of the novel (they even have a philosophical consultant on the producing staff to ensure conformity with Objectivism), yet they deviate so wildly from Rand's original vision of what her characters were supposed to be like?
Greetings! I've been scratching notches in the woodwork, obsessively counting the days until zerobama and his merry band of nincompoops are gone. Otherwise, I've been fine.
>Actors often play characters that are different from their own age.
True, but I'm not sure how that applies to AS-3. Are you claiming that Almeida (cast as Francisco), who is about 57, will play a character who is 37 onscreen?
I don't think so. I think the producers cast a 57 year old in order to play Francisco as a 57 year old. I'm assuming that Francisco was written as a 57 year old in the screenplay, too. If so, then it means they've omitted any backstory having to do with Galt and Francisco's college days together. Francisco, in this installment, simply becomes the transmitter of Galt's strike message to those who produce.
Their thinking would have to be something along those lines, otherwise the casting doesn't make any sense.