That is quite a response. You must care deeply about this topic.

I read the reviewa at Rotten Tomatos, and I understand the rating system and how the numbers are comprised quite well. There are psychological factors obviously at play that do not reflect well in general assessments.

Any complaints about the movies quality is mute at this point. The filmakers have made the movie and are happy with it, all three in fact. To suggest that a movie like this should not be made because it isn't on par with other similar productions is like saying that certain people should not exist unless they are on par with social norms and expectations. There are movies that should have been made for television and shows on tv that should be released in a theater because their quality is so good. It is ultimately the preference of the film maker and what they wish to do that matters. It's a free exchange of ideals that counts.

You're incorrect about Rotten Tomatoes. It displays two rankings: one by professional critics, the other by the audience. For example, see:

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/atlas_s...

You'll see on the left that the professional critics gave it an average rating of 5%, while the audience rating on the right gave it a 63%.

I did my own informal estimate of audience rating by calculating the average stars for the first 50 entries in the "Audience" tab. There were 31 web pages of entires, making over 600 reviews total, and it seems that the distribution of positive to negative reviews changed a great deal over time — meaning, the next time I do this I'll try to take a *random* sampling of 50 out of those 31 pages, instead of simply working with the last 50.

In any case, the last 50 rated the film with an average of 2.32 stars. Since there are 5 stars, each star is worth 20 points, or 20 percent. That would be about 46%.

However, even if we go with the higher number of 63% as calculated by Rotten Tomatoes, that still wouldn't answer why the film failed so badly at the box office.

What I did notice from a casual look at the audience reviews of Atlas Shrugged Part 2, was that those who greatly approved of the film (3.5 stars to 5 stars) almost never did so for aesthetic/cinematic reasons. They didn't write things like, "What a great script, directing, and acting!" The majority that I read claimed they loved the film specifically for ideological reasons: i.e., it conformed to the book, which most of them had already read.

So this points to a possible truth that is precisely the opposite of the one you assert; namely, the viewers who hated the film, did so mainly because they found it to be a lousy movie qua movie; it did NOT have the cinematic/aesthetic values they respond to in movies they usually regard as good (e.g., tight plotting, sparkling dialogue, compelling characters, sharp editing, etc.). Conversely, those who loved it, did so for ideological reasons regarding Objectivism, and not because they could point to any specific cinematic values they found impressive.

I believe that's the opposite of what you claim. You claim that people who dislike the movie do so for ideological reasons (they're leftist moocher/looters who want freebies from the studios). I claim that those who loved the movie did so for ideological reasons.

Robbie53024 concurs. He claimed that "most of us" (meaning, "most of us Objectivists") were simply happy to have anything that was faithful to the book. In other words, irrespective of movie-qua-movies cinematic/aesthetic values mentioned above, Objectivists would like the Atlas Shrugged movies, just based on ideology alone.

Robbie53024 is quite wrong, however, when he asserts that Rand fans who loathed the movie did so because they wanted more money thrown at the production. Throwing money at a production so that it's a big-budget H'wood blockbuster in no way guarantees tight plotting, sparkling dialogue, compelling characters, imaginative directing, and sharp editing, or any other cinematic/aesthetic value evident in good movies qua good movies.

jPMR's observations are similar to the ones I had regarding the a Rotten Tomato score which is generally professional critics employed by newspapers and entertainment media.

There are trolls here sometimes employed by places like the Huffington Post, and Media Matters who pretend to be "Rand Fans" so that they can take pot shots at the film makers because they don't like the message of the film.

Those same types of people also complain about movies like Star Wars, for having "cardboard actors" and too many effects. Yet those movies are very popular and well liked in spite of the critics. Giving away free stuff and winning over the trolls, and low life's who want another Hangover movie instead of Atlas are nothing to be concerned with.

That was the point. There are "professional critics" who sell themselves as creative assasins to " work the boards" with the sole purpose of steering the direction of critical opinion. It's not a new trick.

"Critics in general"?

I don't know what they are. What are "critics in general"? Do you mean, professional critics employed by, e.g., mainstream media outlets such as NBC, CBS, NPR, PBS, The New York Times, etc.?

JRMR was speaking of "Rand fans", meaning some — perhaps many — of the people on this board and in the Gulch. You're claiming that anyone, anywhere, for any reason, who criticized the film did so because he actually wanted "studio freebies", and would have given the film a glowing recommendation had he received such favors? Even the Rand fans are guilty of this insincerity? Even Gulchers?

Critics in general.

I think a lot of those reviews are from people looking for studio freebies, they were sucking up. The big Hollywood studios do not like an independent studio going up against their turf. They expect independents to go the conventional route, and enter the film in Sundance--where of course the progressive Robert Redford controls who wins and loses. The critics of the Atlas films more have a beef with Atlas Distribution than anything.

Usually it all comes back to free stuff. Reviewers like studio perks, and progressive messages.

And Atlas is on television, its on DVD and has been on Netflix and looks quite good compared to other films. Doctor Who has terrible production values, yet it is still fun to watch for fans. These are good, indpendent films based on a classic American novel. And I enjoy them.

freedomforall: "Halley's music was uninspiring, just noisy."

For some reason, the producers and the composer chose a style of music for Halley that was a cross between Gershwin and Prokofiev. Odd choices, given that Rand's favorite composer was Rachmaninoff, and her favorite genre, Romantic. Where was David Kelley in all this? I thought he was supposed to be a philosophical advisor on the project, ensuring that everything — including the style of Halley's music — be consistent with Objectivism?

I found it strange that the writers would bring in the character of Halley so late in the game. In the book, Dagny's first clue that such an Atlantis as Galt's Gulch existed was when she was traveling by train and heard an employee of Taggart Transcontinental whistling a snippet of Halley's Fifth Concerto. You'd think the producing team and the writers would have brought in the character of Halley way back in Part I. Instead, they pointlessly stick him in Part II, in the context of a date-night (IIRC) between James Taggart and Cherryl.

This is a "kitchen-sink-approach" to screenwriting: throw in whatever you can, just to be able to say you included it.

Same thing can be said for the character of the Wet Nurse. He's an important (if minor) foil for Rearden, but he appears for no reason in the movie, and disappears just as quickly for no reason. Another "let's throw in Halley, the Wet Nurse, and the kitchen sink for good measure, just so we can say that we included everything."

Weak screenwriting.

It's the inevitable result of extremely short shooting schedules. Short schedules are typical of television production.

Keep in mind, also, that most of the below-the-line production crew were culled from television, and not big-budget, big-screen, motion pictures.

Given all that, It would have been surprising had AS1&2 not looked like television movies.

JRMR: "Yet I read a lot of reviews from Rand fans and most said it was TV movie quality."

overmanwarrior: "I think a lot of those reviews are from people looking for studio freebies, they were sucking up."

You're asserting that the Rand fans who criticized the movies for being "TV movie quality" were actually insincere in their criticisms, and would have had positive opinions of the movies had they been given freebies by the studios?

I have watched my DVDs of AS I and AS II several times
Both are professionally done.
And I've seen my share of movies

I started to list the scenes that were sub-tv quality, but there are too many instances.
It would actually be easier to cite the scenes that were not sub-TV quality. Some scenes with Rearden in the plant are good enough.
I would re-make part 2 before trying to make part 3.
Here are some instances that weren't good.
1) The tv reports are less convincing than most found online. Babylon 5 on TV did them better 20 years ago. The producers were smart enough to use an actor from B5, perhaps they should have hired the Director/Producer/Writer to consult.
2) the scene with Dagny and Eddie in the limo is unconvincing
3) the music does not elicit the emotion it should
4) setup shots to introduce scenes often result in time wasted that could have been used better
5) Dagny was hideously miscast and her scenes do not depict Dagny. The nickname "Slug" does fit her in this movie though.
6) Halley's music was uninspiring, just noisy. That scene was a waste of moneyand so was the next one in the car with Dagny and Rearden
7) I would liked the 1st scene with Dagny and Daniels but it reeks of TV quality, and is not film-like
8)Ditto for the Danager/rearden lunch meeting. And why do we need a shaky cam walk down the hall? Just a waste of digital video.
That scene should have been outside where there could be no bugs. Lillian could have been left out of the movie entirely.
7) Daniels workshop in Utah scene - TV quality again, but good dramatic effect inspite of the quality.
8) The train repair scene with Jeff Allen and Dagny is the worst scene. Ayn Rand would have pulled the plug on the project on the quality of that scene.

At least the wreckage of the plane was more realistic than the BS at the pentagon.

Which specific scenes did you find the drop in quality? Besides the cgi

I thought it was significantly lower quality than part 1, and like a low budget 1960's TV show in some parts.. I was expecting the producers to learn from doing part 1, and improve on it, but part 2 was a big disappointment.