Atlas Shrugged Part II set to open in October

New cast according to the article

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/a ... ril-286633

New cast according to the article

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/a ... ril-286633

New cast???? Argghhh! Leave Reardon, Dagny, and Lillian alone!

That's a bit of a supposition from the actual press release which said everything would be re-evaluated including the cast. That's not really a promise of a new cast.

New cast according to the article

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/a ... ril-286633

New cast???? Argghhh! Leave Reardon, Dagny, and Lillian alone!

"Leave Reardon, Dagny, and Lillian alone!"

It is not the cast which is a problem there. To do a strong movie in the socialist realism genre is next to impossible ["potemkin" accounts for "next to"]. To do a strong movie in the anti-[socialist realism] genre is no easier.

Here is the official press release. There are additiional links (but not much content) at the end of the press release.

http://blog.atlasshruggedmovie.com/2012 ... ially.html

It is not the cast which is a problem there. To do a strong movie in the socialist realism genre is next to impossible ["potemkin" accounts for "next to"]. To do a strong movie in the anti-[socialist realism] genre is no easier.

Yeah. I know. But I can't wait to see the movie because I'm a fan of the book. The first one was pretty good I thought.

I found this to be a very good review of the first film, warts and all. I agree with most of it. My main point of departure is when she gripes about the presentation of Wyatt's departure -- I feel that the film did adequately depict Wyatt's reasons and timing for departure. I'm also not clear on her gripe about Dagny defending herself to Wyatt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0883cHxTz8

She has some good ideas for her version of the movie. I think there are many valid ways to interpret (condense) the novel for the screen. I didn't have major problems with the one they made. I'd wouldn't mind seeing other interpretations brought to the screen.

I found this to be a very good review of the first film, warts and all.

The series of podcasts mentioned, by this same reviewer, Dr. Diana Hsieh...

http://blog.exploreaynrand.com/

IMy main point of departure is when she gripes about the presentation of Wyatt's departure -- I feel that the film did adequately depict Wyatt's reasons and timing for departure.

I thought about her complaint a bit. I think she is seeing something that is not there. Wyatt wasn't at breakfast in the morning and we learn in a flash back at the end of the movie that his late night visitor was John Galt. I think she is making the assumption he wasn't at breakfast because he'd already shrugged. He could, however, have been pondering Galt's plea. Even in the earlier parts of the movie, we don't know how quickly the people disappear after being approached by Galt. So Wyatt didn't have to come back from disappearing to torch his field. He hadn't really yet disappeared.

Heh, I just noticed that there is a little picture of Ayn Rand in one of the Atlas Shrugged Part 1 movie props. I think they call these things easter eggs. It occurs at 5:52 into the movie. There is a computer monitor in Dagny Taggart's apartment in the background. Ayn Rand's picture is up on a web page being displayed on the monitor.

I found another easter egg in Part 1. A statue of Atlas appears on a table behind Hank Reardon's chair in his office at 49:42 into the movie.

Am I the only one who sees the irony in a movie franchise that promotes capitalism above all things investing in a sequel to a movie that was a total financial failure?

:-k Am I the only one who sees the irony in a movie franchise that promotes capitalism above all things investing in a sequel to a movie that was a total financial failure?

First you don't actually know if it was a financial failure. No one publishes DVD sales totals.
Secondly no one knows ultimate marketability of all three parts as compared to one part of an incomplete series.
Thirdly, if financial success was the point of Rand's novel, John Galt would have sold his motor to the highest bidder, Francisco d'Anconia wouldn't have run his copper company into ground (so to speak) and Ragnar Danneskjöld probably would have kept his booty rather than distributing it back to those from whom it was taken.

You may actually have read Atlas Shrugged, but you didn't understand it.

:-k Am I the only one who sees the irony in a movie franchise that promotes capitalism above all things investing in a sequel to a movie that was a total financial failure?

Probably, since a) the book wasn't about "capitalism above all things", b) even the characters in the book sacrificed fortunes to help build a better world where capitalism could better flourish, c) the film was not a "total financial failure", since it made $4.5M in four weeks of domestic ticket sales alone, against an undisclosed budget variously reported from $6.5M to $20M, with more to come from DVD sales, rentals, foreign releases, etc., and finally d) putting out the second movie will help them boost sales/rentals of the first film as well as leverage the up-front costs they've already sunk into sets, props, pre-production, etc., and also being able to hit the ground running with what they've learned from making the first, so that the second film can more quickly recoup its budget compared to the first film.

ETA: ...and I see that jlogajan made many of the same points while I was composing this post.

In fact, in Rand's view, to live free was more vital to the human identity than to live in wealth. Lazy critics simply repeat talking points that it was all about greed greed greed. In almost every instance in the novel the protagonists chose not to enrich themselves if the trade off was a loss of their individual sovereignty. And likewise in almost every instance in the novel the antagonists never passed up an opportunity to enrich themselves at the cost of others all the while espousing their empty platitudes of "caring."

In fact, in Rand's view, to live free was more vital to the human identity than to live in wealth. Lazy critics simply repeat talking points that it was all about greed greed greed. In almost every instance in the novel the protagonists chose not to enrich themselves if the trade off was a loss of their individual sovereignty. And likewise in almost every instance in the novel the antagonists never passed up an opportunity to enrich themselves at the cost of others all the while espousing their empty platitudes of "caring."

Yes. It was prophetic of today. Amazingly so.

Yes. It was prophetic of today. Amazingly so.

Rand's Atlas Shrugged -> Orwell's 1984 -> Wachowski's The Matrix ?

"May you live interesting times"
-- Old Chinese guy

:-k Am I the only one who sees the irony in a movie franchise that promotes capitalism above all things investing in a sequel to a movie that was a total financial failure?

First you don't actually know if it was a financial failure. No one publishes DVD sales totals.
Secondly no one knows ultimate marketability of all three parts as compared to one part of an incomplete series.
Thirdly, if financial success was the point of Rand's novel, John Galt would have sold his motor to the highest bidder, Francisco d'Anconia wouldn't have run his copper company into ground (so to speak) and Ragnar Danneskjöld probably would have kept his booty rather than distributing it back to those from whom it was taken.

You may actually have read Atlas Shrugged, but you didn't understand it.

Probably, since a) the book wasn't about "capitalism above all things", b) even the characters in the book sacrificed fortunes to help build a better world where capitalism could better flourish, c) the film was not a "total financial failure", since it made $4.5M in four weeks of domestic ticket sales alone, against an undisclosed budget variously reported from $6.5M to $20M, with more to come from DVD sales, rentals, foreign releases, etc., and finally d) putting out the second movie will help them boost sales/rentals of the first film as well as leverage the up-front costs they've already sunk into sets, props, pre-production, etc., and also being able to hit the ground running with what they've learned from making the first, so that the second film can more quickly recoup its budget compared to the first film.

ETA: ...and I see that jlogajan made many of the same points while I was composing this post.

I call that a tag-team bitch-slap for 20 points per clause.

You may actually have read Atlas Shrugged, but you didn't understand it.

Right, because Objectivism is so hard to grasp.

I commonly hear this same statement about the Bible and Quran.

You may actually have read Atlas Shrugged, but you didn't understand it.

Right, because Objectivism is so hard to grasp.

I commonly hear this same statement about the Bible and Quran.

Ah. Fans of Rand are equivalent to bible thumpers.

See, I get it!

You may actually have read Atlas Shrugged, but you didn't understand it.

Right, because Objectivism is so hard to grasp.

I commonly hear this same statement about the Bible and Quran.

Ah. Fans of Rand are equivalent to bible thumpers.

See, I get it!

Mere "fans" aren't.

You may actually have read Atlas Shrugged, but you didn't understand it.

Right, because Objectivism is so hard to grasp.

Difficulty is not the issue. You mischaracterized it out of the gate as "promoting capitalism above all things." It was then pointed out to you that if financial success was the ultimate Randian virtue none of the protagonists would have behaved the way they did in Atlas Shrugged.

You may actually have read Atlas Shrugged, but you didn't understand it.

Right, because Objectivism is so hard to grasp.

Difficulty is not the issue. You mischaracterized it out of the gate as "promoting capitalism above all things." It was then pointed out to you that if financial success was the ultimate Randian virtue none of the protagonists would have behaved the way they did in Atlas Shrugged.

worse, he mischaracterized capitalism as "make the biggest paycheck you can get right-the-fuck-now"