Me.

>If Citizen Kane were released today, even if jazzed up with a better musical score

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?

I fell in love with Francisco, when John came along I had to choose, Now ask yourself if we replaced Dagny with I dunno Ellen Degeneres would that character have the same appeal? I do think the problem is we read the book. I watch Homeland and nothing about that actor does anything for me when he was gone I was glad. I don't know his name Damien something. I noticed some had suggested James Frisco for John Galt this guy is pretty close to that. When have we ever had to judge an actor before we seen him act? It will probably be alot better when we finally see John Galt.

>I think it was successful in the aspect that I liked it.

You and who else?

>Audiences are looking for sizzle not substance.

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?

>let's hope this one knocks it out of the park

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.

>AS was never destined to be a blockbuster movie.

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.

AS was never destined to be a blockbuster movie. The message is too cerebral and what modern audiences desire today are action, laughs, or sex. While there is a bit of sex in AS, it is not prolific, nor would it be feasible to make it so. Thus, even with an all-star A-List cast, it would have been mediocre at best (just look at all the A-List actors in other movies that are mediocre - there are tons of them, I check them out from our local library and take them on the road to watch).
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.

Not sure that they were even looking forward to the release.