17

NYT: Producer of ‘The Godfather’ Lands Rights to ‘Atlas Shrugged’ Novel

Posted by khalling 4 years ago to Entertainment
78 comments | Share | Flag

"Mr. Ruddy, whose canon includes films as varied as “The Godfather” and “The Cannonball Run,” almost had a deal back in the early 1970s, when he wooed Ms. Rand personally while sitting on a small couch in New York.

But Ms. Rand, who had left the Soviet Union in the 1920s and feared the Russians might acquire Paramount Pictures to subvert the project, wanted script approval; Mr. Ruddy, as adamant as she was, declined. “Then I’ll put in my will, the one person who can’t get it is you,” Mr. Ruddy recalls being told by Ms. Rand, who died in 1982."
SOURCE URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/02/business/media/producer-of-the-godfather-lands-rights-to-atlas-shrugged-novel.html?hpw&rref=television&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well&_r=2


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 12
    Posted by  $  Flootus5 4 years ago
    I will admit here I am a little concerned with some of Mr Ruddy's history and some of his attitude toward the remake.

    Perhaps the old history between Mr Ruddy and Ayn Rand can be considered water under the bridge - the whole world has come a long ways down various paths since then. But his insistence back then on not allowing her script refusal while she was alive is a bit disturbing. Especially with the history of the Fountainhead.

    Fast forward to today and this article says that Mr Ruddy sees this rendition as a "love story". Good grief, we all know it is way more than that.

    And the wishy-washy characterizations as this being "Ms Rand's insistence on this being a film for the future", and then "redrawing its capitalists and creators" as something newer than an antiquated image of a relic era gone by is eye brow raising.

    As reported in this story, Mr Ruddy is apparently quoted as saying "If you can re-imagine the Old Testament and the New Testament, why can't I re-imagine Ayn Rand?" This is absolute arrogance - if reported correctly. I would rather have heard that "No, I have retained numerous Ayn Rand scholars to ensure that the scripts will stay true to the principles and ideals expressed by the author, Ms Rand".

    Hopefully, the article is misrepresenting Mr Ruddy's intentions. But, I would also add that his statements of making this only a six or eight hour TV version is very disappointing. This will not do justice to the monumental work for the same reason the 3 movies fell short, and will miss the opportunity of the essential effort becoming an on-going addictive multi-season series so popular these days.

    Hopefully, Mr Ruddy has been seriously misquoted in this article.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 4 years ago
      how many 18-35 yr olds are watching period shows? The only one I can think of would be Mad Men and I think for the soap opera aspects, though slick they might be.

      There is one good argument I heard for keeping it set as it was and that would be the unique period in time that would allow for a collapse as she envisioned it. The readers of Atlas Shrugged post WWII would have had context to believe such was possible-I think most millennials now won't buy into it. But that is just my opinion. He will want a wide audience and a loyal one. I think he can probably handle both , given his expertise and track record.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  jlc 4 years ago
        I agree. I too want the philosophy to 'soar'. Good phrase! I do wonder if the SF aspect will put the Gulch on another planet...I had not thought of that_. (Your idea of a Bioshock Gulch is also good, but probably not possible to keep secret in the modern world - and it would be very vulnerable if discovered.)

        Mr Aglialoro did a fine job of 'getting it right'. If the world had been ready for a shot of raw distilled Ayn Rand, his first film would have done well at the box office (our metric); the next 2 films would have taken off from there.

        We obviously need an entry point for the philosophy. A love story is a strong beginning, for one has a choice and can chose to love both the person and his ideals. Dagny's lovers reflect a consistent philosophy, but each has a better embodiment of it, ending with the archetype of John Galt.

        The lamentable almost-rape scene is another expression of outdated worldview. In modern times, it is quite acceptable for a woman to be an enthusiastic and physically assertive lover without having had to be raped to give permission for that level of intensity. We are in a different world and this needs to be taken into account.

        Jan
        _ It occurs to me that the dark energy needed for FTL travel (per the Alcubierre equation) may also be a key to unlimited power generation. Hmmm...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  jlogajan 4 years ago
          The worldwide popularity of 50 Shades (primarily millions of women) and survey results that show a majority of women experience rape-fantasizes says that Dagny's view of sex is hardly outmoded. Rand probably tapped into her own feelings on the subject and accepted them as the nature of humans. One can speculate that there was an evolutionary advantage to submission to a dominant male -- helping insure a favorable outcome for the propagation of one's DNA line. These factors are still in play and hardly outmoded. Women will always be attracted to strong men -- all Rand's heroes were strong -- dominant. She would have been horrified by a sexual affair of a dominant female and a cowardly male.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  jlc 4 years ago
            I have looked up some stats, based on your comment above jlogan, and it seems that you are correct: about half of the women surveyed indicate that they have rape fantasies. Looking a bit further, though, it seems that almost as many men (45%) have fantasies of being raped by a woman. (!)

            I have not done further research to see how this varies cross-culturally, but there was a comment, that I think was perceptive, that rape fantasies are stronger in people with sex-guilt association.

            So may I change my statement to take this new knowledge into account? I would like to propose that in low-guilt randian archetypes, rape fantasies would be rare and, when they exist, would indicate a flaw in the character that portrayed them.

            Jan, thanks for the insight
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 4 years ago
        There has been a long history of successful movies set in past eras, from countless westerns to major successes like Dr. Zhivago (Russian Revolution), The Sound of Music (early Nazi aggression in Europe), Ben Hur (the first century), Cleopatra (ancient Egypt), Gone with the Wind (Civil War) -- and King of Kings (first century, in Ayn Rand's own entry into Hollywood).

        It would be very difficult to rewrite Atlas Shrugged into a different era because it would destroy the plot mechanisms and remove the possibility of retaining much of Ayn Rand's dialogue. The time period of Atlas Shrugged is not an excuse to rewrite it.

        A movie cannot be a direct image of a novel transposed to film for many reasons, but the farther it strays from Ayn Rand's story, especially in the hands of someone exploiting it without regard to or antagonistic to Ayn Rand's theme and sense of life, the more damage that can be done. That is why Ayn Rand insisted on retaining the right to approve the script. Ruddy tried to pull a fast one in 1972, promising her to honor her conditions while expecting she would give in to get the contract, and then reneging on his promise when she refused. It is no wonder that so many people familiar with Ayn Rand and her ideas are skeptical of turning it over to him as a Hollywood pro now especially with his dismissals like the one in the article:

        "As for concerns about faithful Rand fans objecting to any liberties he might take with the book, Mr. Ruddy said he had none. 'If you can reimagine the Old Testament and the New Testament, he said, 'why can’t I reimagine Ayn Rand?'”

        The movie is not supposed to be about "reimagining Ayn Rand" to be whatever some Hollywood type wants to imagine.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 4 years ago
          great points, ewv, but all of you examples are actually historically placed in time. Atlas Shrugged is not.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 4 years ago
            Ayn Rand thought of the novel as beginning when she started working on it in the 1940s. That is why the dominant technology of the plot dates it the way it does.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 4 years ago
              well just because she was not a sci fi writer, does not mean "the day after tomorrow" was not important to her. To whit-why was she so keen on a teleplay for AS even though television was not part of her book? she loved the advance of technology. She did not look backward in time in her novels, in my opinion
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 4 years ago
                There were science fiction elements -- from the motor to project X to Rearden metal on top of the dominant industrial technology -- but the 'present' was described in accordance with the 1940s and early 50s, and that is where the plot lived. Her continuing to advocate for the day after tomorrow and technology in the future didn't change the plot as it was written. Given enough time, she could have rewritten AS as AS in a later setting and retaining the full theme if she had thought it necessary; Ruddy cannot and doesn't want to.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  Temlakos 4 years ago
                Atlas Shrugged did have four sci-fi elements: the electrostatic motor, Rearden Metal, Project X, and the refractor-ray cloaking screen. But in fact, I believe I could explain them all. The ray screen obviously needs a souped-up computer to make that work. But the others already have precursors. (I am convinced Rearden Metal combines a substitutional alloy of iron and copper with the interstitial introduction of carbon.)

                And let's not forget Ragnar Danneskjöld's vessel. I had thought that if you set it only a few years from our present day, Ragnar could get his ship by hijacking USS Enterprise CVN-65 from the Navy as the Navy were planning to scrap her. I'm sure every viewer would get the irony.If you projected AS a few years into the future, you could have Ragnar somehow capture the new USS Enterprise CVN-80 (a planned Ford-class aircraft carrier) by carefully substituting her launch crew.

                Bottom line: I think an updated AS, with references to current or projected modes of transport, could work.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by jdg 4 years ago
        I think the millennials may have a point. Speak to them about visionary entrepreneurs and you'll hear about people like the founders of Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Whole Foods -- most of whom are not American or conservative -- or maybe about Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, who hold themselves out as being creative and entrepreneurs but who are really just investors who love and frequently use cronyist government intervention.

        A sort-of-AS story set in the present day could not both keep to the principles of AS and be really believable, both because those businessmen are not especially our allies and because many of them have political and social agendas that are not ours, so they would certainly not participate in John Galt's strike.

        I would like to see AR (or someone who can fill her shoes) write such a story, though, because it would teach us how to sell our cause to that type of businessman.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  jbrenner 4 years ago
        Quite a few 18-35 year olds watch Downton Abbey. If the production is exemplary, the audience will follow.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 4 years ago
          ok, I could well be wrong. I want the production to stay within the philosophy and soar :)
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  jbrenner 4 years ago
            I thought that I wouldn't like Downton Abbey, but my younger daughter and wife like it enough that I have watched it a few times just to be social. It is a well-done show from England in the early 20's.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by mccannon01 4 years ago
              I'm an older generation dude and I bought the first season of Downton Abby because I heard it was a good series. Well, I was surprised to find a WWI era story open with a homosexual sex scene and figured it was just another late 20th century left wing entertainment industry PC propaganda series, so I never watched another episode. If I'm wrong in that assessment, let me know and maybe I'll give another try.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by plusaf 4 years ago
                Wife and I have watched and enjoyed all of the DA programs. There are some gay themes throughout parts of the series, but it's the depth of ALL of the characters and how they react to the changes in their world over the span of years, PLUS the excellent acting, filmography and sets that makes it.

                If you're hypersensitive about gay issues, don't watch it, because that's the filter you'll be seeing it through. I turn 70 in a few weeks and know a bunch of gay and lesbian people and couples and the gay sex is quite 'off-screen' and there's a lot of hetero-stuff that goes on, too.

                Whatever lights or extinguishes your fire... :)
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by mccannon01 4 years ago
                  Thanks for the cordial reply, plusaf. I figured I'd more likely get flamed over my query because it's a rather touchy subject and easy to misread. I'm not hypersensitive about gay issues unless they are being used as some kind of political ploy. My point is I don't want to waste my time watching a propaganda series regardless of how excellent the acting and sets are. My thinking is if a series is going to open with such a hot button issue as gay sex, then what's next? Global warming? Gun control? Evil white male capitalists? Fortunately, being a British production we'd be spared underlying "Hilary for president" innuendo.

                  Oh, my apologies to khalling for sliding off topic on her thread. I'll stop here.

                  Edit: Happy Birthday, plusaf!
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by plusaf 4 years ago
                    Thanks for the hbty wish!
                    Ah, if you want controversial topics, there are scads of non-PC shows all around. There are enough gay/lesbian/straight-sex subplots in Grey's Anatomy to warm the whatever's of any PC-maven's heart... we like the characters, the subject material and acting and DVR all the episodes for later viewing. Aside from missing lots of dialogue because the background noises and music make it impossible to understand....
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 4 years ago
      As I understand it, Rand wanted AS to educate people sothey would stop the decline of the society. In case one is not up on current events, the decline already started years and years ago, and has reached a point where it is unlikely to be stopped. Now what we need are video productions which teach people how to reverse the decline in ways that reflect where we are now.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by wiggys 4 years ago
      mr. ruddy was not miss quoted.
      what he will do will in no way be a credit to Ayn Rand's philosophy. it will be a disaster and not have a positive effect where some one will say having seen this program i want to read the book. you are right to be concerned.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 4 years ago
        wait, wiggys-thousands have come to AR and reading AS by watching the movies. so I have already proven your hypothesis incorrect.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by wiggys 4 years ago
          as i stated before, reading AS does not make one an Objectivist. this tv show will not have the same affect as the movie. those who are Objectivists that have read the book who do look at the first installment will more than likely not recognize any similarity and as a consequence not bother seeing any further programs.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 4 years ago
            nope. nothing replaces reading the book. on this we absolutely agree. :)
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by plusaf 4 years ago
              wiggys... I agree. It Is NOT a 'Love Story', and if that's what Mr. Ruddy is seeking to focus on, I feel that it might be interesting to some, popular with others, and SO NOT in keeping with the kernel message of the novel as to be a serious mistake.

              But I'm not The Producer, Director or Screenwriter. What do I know? I do know that when I read a good book, I picture all of it in my mind as a TV movie and I'm damned good at telling the good from the bad and the ugly. I could not possibly imagine 'positioning AS as a "love story"...'

              khaling.... 'thousands' have come to read AR and AS by watching the movies...
              BFD. We need tens of thousands, maybe millions to see the miniseries and, out of that, take a look at how they're living their lives and how they're influencing their own Government in lots of Bad Ways. But, As A Love Story?! If it works, FINE, but I certainly have a LOT of trouble seeing a 'love story' as carrying the plot or message from beginning to end of such a series!

              Back to one of my frequent comments on this and other similar threads... What Is The Purpose of Making A Series of AS?! If it's to make lots of money for Hollywood and TV media, (and Netflix or whatever), so be it. Fess up and move on. If the intention is to convey Rand's ideas into the mainstream, sure, it might work, but not in my mind's eye.

              Good luck to all... but please Decide First! If it's an already-made Decision to be a "Love Story," why is anyone humoring us by asking our opinions?

              +af
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Abaco 4 years ago
      You make me think. Why does a man like this take this on? If there is not a strong desire to really stick to the material, what's going on? You don't acquire this and do this to make a fortune. So, why acquire it and gum it up? I guess time will tell what's going on. If a producer wants to make a fortune they do something much more mainstream...with lots of explosions and nudity.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Itheliving 4 years ago
    From what I read in the article and the fact that he is calling for a six to eight hour mini series at the longest (on streaming TV with no commercials) the film would last 480 minutes. The original 3 films came in (per IMDB) at 307 minutes. This gives an extra 3 hours to the entire story. While it will not have the ability to be in an depth presentation it should at least be comprehensive enough to meet the AR fans needs while having a wide appeal to TV audiences. Also they can use a consistent cast and crew. I am looking forward to seeing what Big Al can do with the property. I recall in the 70's my excitement when the news of this project was 1st rumored.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by blackswan 4 years ago
      If he wants to build his story around the future, it might be a good idea to begin where AR did - in the 1950s, and go from there. Let Francisco, Dagny, et al be youngsters in the 50s, being heirs and heiresses of industrial firms, and taking a lead in developing the new technologies. That would create some continuity, and even a context for Galt's motor, along with computers, the Internet, smartphones, biotechnology, nanotechnology, 3D printing, Mars and Moon colonization, etc. Just as the "New" Testament refers to the "Old" Testament for its authority, so the industrial age can be the foundation for the information age.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by JohnConnor352 4 years ago
        One thing that I really liked was the idea of shutting down the internet as the strike being led. I don't see millenials being upset over some factories shutting down, but if Amazon, then Ebay, then YouTube shut down in succession, all without explanation and simply a stationary message "I've left it as I found it" on what used to be the top website in the world... That will bring to reality the true magnitude of not only the contributions that men of the mind have brought to the world, but what their absence would be like.
        Perhaps what he is imagining is an adaptation like West Side Story to Romeo and Juliet. R&J, as written, is nearly incomprehensible to most modern readers, and they reasons for hatred between families are completely lost on us in the absence of true family feuds. The true tragedy of R&J is not that the two families were just being mean to each other and to their children, but that it was an inescapable position for the lovers. West Side Story put that struggle into terms modern viewers could understand... between warring gangs. Two sides that could never see eye-to-eye.
        I think this has quite the opportunity to bring home the magnitude of the repercussions of collectivist and altruistic politics on the real world. Shutting down a railroad does not have the same effect today as it did when the book was conceived, and so taking the literal railroad approach would not have the same impact on viewers.

        Objectivism holds that the purpose of art is to represent abstract concepts in a concrete manner. Something to which we can point when we are understanding the intangible. Would we truly understand what a hero was if we didn't have literature or films to demonstrate one for us? So let's see what he does, I at least think he has the right starting point. Perhaps he can bring AR's ideas to what was a previously unreceptive audience.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 4 years ago
    Ms. Rand was a pistol, wasn't she, Mr. Ruddy? Based on your vision, she will be swirling curlicues in her grave if you succeed. It is essential, however, the no matter how you present the story, the philosophical premises remain. If not, you're just wasting everybody's time. I think it's possible. In writing school we are taught that plays and movies Move. That they cannot remain static no matter how badly you want to present the words. Shakespeare got away with it -- but I doubt that you'll find another one like him. So...it all boils down to the writing. That is going to be the hardest thing; finding writers who are up to the task of writing your vision while maintaining the integrity of Rand's book.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  MikeMarotta 4 years ago
    Atlas Shrugged is a love story. The novel includes elements of mystery, romance, and science fiction.[3][2] Rand referred to Atlas Shrugged as a mystery novel, "not about the murder of man's body, but about the murder — and rebirth — of man's spirit".[9] Nonetheless, when asked by film producer Albert S. Ruddy if a screenplay could focus on the love story, Rand agreed and reportedly said, "That's all it ever was".[4][5] -- Wikipedia
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 4 years ago
    this is a curious path of rejection and permission;;; I really
    do not think that Rand would lament what is happening.
    I expect that she would desperately want to see more
    people knowing her story, as we do. -- j
    .
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by terrycan 4 years ago
    Al Ruddy is the right guy for this project. Updating the story to be current with today's technology makes sense.
    Remember when Ayn Rand started AS in the forties what technology was. Television was rare. Computers were huge machines. Satellites were pure science fiction.
    The mini series will sell better with some updates.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 4 years ago
      AS had its run, I think. Its a great book and I get immersed into it to the exclusion of life for several days when I read it. BUT, today everything is video, and it costs a lot to re-enact on the screen what the brain can do for free with a good book. AS 2-3 previously done were NOT done well (except for AS 1 which was cool). If we want people other than die hard Objectivists to watch it, its got to relate to people today and where they ARE now (socialists). So it might be better to make a movie which starts with AS, but is remade to reflect todays life. Maybe more like Alongside Night
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Temlakos 4 years ago
    Mr. Ruddy is half right. Atlas Shrugged does give us the love story between Dagny Taggart and John Galt. It also gives us her discovery, not only that John Galt deserves her love, but also that she had been in love with him, without ever knowing anything about him, since she was old enough to learn what love means. "You, whoever you are, whom I have always loved and never found..." Remember?

    But Atlas Shrugged is also the self-discovery and escape of Hank Rearden. If Al Ruddy misses Hank Rearden, his series cannot work. He must make sure he gets a few clues. For instance: Ragnar Danneskjöld challenges Rearden on his insistence on law and order. Then in the last chapter we find Rearden as a full member of Ragnar's rescue team. That, sportsfans, is no accident.

    I must agree with Flootus5. A six- to eight-hour mini-series would not do this work justice. It needs at least the same kind of treatment Showtime gave to Henry VIII ("The Tudors") and Alexander VI ("The Borgias"). Three seasons, ten episodes each. And with the three-hour speech available as an optional "director's cut."

    Why did Mr. Ruddy mention Jeff Bezos at Amazon, do you think? You don't think maybe he's dropping a hint that Mr. Bezos, if he were to back the project, could sell a lot of Amazon Fire TV devices, do you?

    Does anyone here imagine what the equivalents of Taggart Transcontinental and Rearden Steel could possibly be, if you updated it for the future? Did Al drop another hint? Taggart Aerospace (the attempt to send a colony to Mars) and Rearden Composites (a new material for spacecraft hulls)?

    Frankly I would expect that we're looking at a who-is-John-Galt world right now. And John Aglialoro had a good idea for the famous motor: a quantum motor. He could have explained it better, but he had a good concept. What could be the equivalent in Al Ruddy's mind?

    I'm sorry I missed Mr. Ruddy's appearance in the Gulch. I might have been able to discuss some of these concerns with him. But I had a lot of off-line stuff to contend with.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by terrycan 4 years ago
      Great stuff you write. I think Taggert Airlines would be logical. Rearden Composites makes sense.
      I would love 3 seasons with 10 episodes each. However it could just be the budget available. Lets hope for 8 episodes.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Temlakos 4 years ago
        Yes, Taggart Intercontinental Air Lines would be logical. The great disaster would be an incredible one: a mid-air collision involving a coast-to-coast jumbo and a C-19 Globemaster flying for the Air Mobility Command.

        Could the valley stay hidden with the kind of false-image projector Rand conceived? I am not convinced. But I am open to argument. Most recon satellites do depend on visible light. Anything that can trick the eye of a pilot looking down, could similarly trick a camera in orbit. But that leaves one more thing John Galt must use: a radar jammer. And very likely a sophisticated heat sink to eliminate or mask the thermal footprint. Much harder. But perhaps no more than a John Galt would be capable of, if he is all that Rand sketched him out to be. (We can't put it in orbit. Dagny would never have reason to stumble onto an orbiting space station by accident.)

        The one I'm more interested in is Ragnar Danneskjöld. I can well see him as the terror of the high seas. But what kind of ship would be sail? Here's a thought, that I have put somewhere else on this thread: Ragnar Danneskjöld's first battle, the one where he gets his "minor scrape," is to hijack a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier that is slated for the boneyard in "defense budget cuts." I first conceived this idea in 2013. So my candidate then was USS Enterprise CVN-65. It's too late now; that ship is already in the boneyard--what's left of her. But did you know the Navy has tentative plans to build another ship named Enterprise? That would be USS Enterprise CVN-80, third in the new, heavier Ford class of aircraft carriers. Let Ragnar hijack that ship, and everyone who is not blind, will see the irony.

        I would also suggest, of course, that D'Anconia Industries S.A. mine more than just one metal. But let's leave that company's headquarters in South America. Corrupt Latin leftists do make good copy.

        The electrostatic motor, I am convinced, would work. I think that's what Nikola Tesla had in mind. The trick would be to make a jet engine that uses an electrostatic booster of some kind--and also a jet airliner with an electrostatic Auxiliary Power Unit. (Today's jets use very weak jet engines as APU's. An electrostatic APU would weigh less and deliver enough energy to relieve the main engines of the duty of power generation for the aircraft's electrical systems. That alone would add value.)

        Any other questions?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Radio_Randy 4 years ago
    I'll withhold judgement, until I've seen an episode or two. If, then, I feel the show accurately reflects Ayn Rand's story, I will will pass that info along to my friends and encourage them to watch.
    If it "goes off the reservation" and simply turns into another lust fest, I'll turn it off and suggest nobody waste their time with it.
    I haven't watched much "prime time" TV, for years, having found nothing of value to spend my time with. If this show can keep my interest, that will be saying something.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 4 years ago
    All I have to say is that with the possible exception of AS 1, the previous AS producers/directors didnt do a great job of bringing out the major points of the story in a way that people today would understand (which is why it hardly got any viewers). Switching the actors in the middle of the series was, in my humble opinion, a stupid move. AS3 was the worst, leading us into a gulch populated by modern day appliances and cars apparently moved there without being detected by the government at the time. Not believable.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  jlc 4 years ago
      I don't think they had a choice, term. If the first movie had been a rousing success, then they might have been able to get the same actors for the next episodes...but AS 1 was panned where it was not ignored.

      Jan
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 4 years ago
        The movie business is hard. So much is a function of finances. Creation of an alternate reality to match a storyline isn't cheap!!!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  jlc 4 years ago
          I am pretty sure that you have to get the actors to sign up for all 3 movies when you do the first one, if you want a consistent set of actors. You can also take the chance - that Agialoro did - that if you use actors who are trying to make their names in the Industry and your first film succeeds, then they will be eager to do the next two. But the Industry did a full-court-press on the actress who played Dagney and pretty much told her that if she was in another episode, she could kiss her acting career good-bye. She played the, "I didn't even know what it was about." card and promised that she was not politically tainted by the contact.

          Pity. She played the part well.

          Jan
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lnxjenn 4 years ago
    I'm not so sure about this... Especially when he wanted Angelina Jolie as Dagny originally...? And he wants to turn it more into a love story.... As much as it has the potential to be, it isn't a love story.. unless you say it's a love story between Dagny and her railroad and her love of her work.

    I don't know much about Mr Ruddy's views or politics, but I don't believe a raging Hollywood Liberal would make this film very well... as right out destroying the story, the meaning and direction. I don't have much trust in the agenda and words coming from Hollywood in general.

    I'd like to know of more of his intentions... if he ruins this wonderful story to spite Ayn Rand, then I think he does a severe disservice for all of the world and the future.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Ningishzidda 4 years ago
      Ew, Angelina Jolie. That would be FINE if Dagney had no lines in the movie...that woman cannot act.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Radio_Randy 4 years ago
        I hardly ever bothered to listen to her lines...being too busy admiring her other attributes :-)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Lnxjenn 4 years ago
          She's definitely not right for that role! Especially considering her other attributes!

          I thought the ASP1, the casting was quite good. I was rather disappointed they switched Dagnys for the other parts. She was pretty close to how I see her, and how she's described. AJ would NOT fit that at all! I think he will have a very angry mob on his hands if he screws up trying to do AS....
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  Radio_Randy 4 years ago
            Dagny in parts I and III worked well, in my mind (though, Taylor Schilling was my favorite, over all).
            I don't watch enough TV or movies to know who would be a decent replacement for her.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  allosaur 4 years ago
    Considering current socialist events and a mental malfunction mindset that thinks Bloody Broom Hillary, Bolshevik Bernie and the reigning imperial presidebt are just peachy keen, we definitely need a new and improved Atlas Shrugged in the works.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Esda 4 years ago
    There is a difference between having the rights to make a six-hour miniseries and having the funding to make a six-hour miniseries. There is an immense gulf between here and green light.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo