"atlas shrugged" will change the face of american politics

[rightwinger]

 

[konradv]

Enough reviews are now in that the film has also been ranked by movie review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes.

It currently stands at 8% positive, with 1 positive review, 1 mixed, and 22 negative including some from those who identify as fans of the book. That makes it the worst reviewed film released so far in 2011 and puts it on a par with many of the films in Rotten Tomatoes "Worst Movies of the Decade" list.

User ratings on the site have been flooded with an unusual influx of first-time visitors (perhaps due to a Twitter and Objectivist network online campaign) and the film stands at 85% fresh according to them. IMDb has seen a similar phenomenon with the majority of user reviews so far coming from first-time commenters and a strikingly bizarre vote distribution. Females ages 18-29 for instance give the film an average rating of 3.2 while users registered as females under 18 have an average perfect score of 10. With 245 ratings of 10 and 85 of 1, the film currently holds a 6.7.

Film critic and box-office guru Scott Tobias humorously reports that "the numbers don’t bode well for Part II and Part III, unless its financiers are feeling altruistic—which we know they most definitely are not." Given the film's meager box-office, it seems unlikely the second or third installments will ever see production or if they do, will likely be lower-budget and released direct-to-DVD like the Left Behind sequels.

Is this disappointing for those who have seen the film or hoped it would be more of a phenomenon?

I'll say this much. There is going to be a lot of false data about how bad this film regardless of it's worth and actual quality because the left has a vested interest on destroying anything by Ayn Rand lest her ideas catch on with the populace at large. If the military has plans and programs to manipulate online memes... it's not far off to think that there are similar tactics being used by leftist radicals seeking to harm anything conservative.

..

... or maybe the movie just sucks. Leave it to some to turn it into a conspiracy!!! Trying to get the forum changed on this thread?!?!

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's refreshing that Atheism is being saluted by the right

It's desperation that you think that matters.

 

[Uncensored2008]

its always an intelligent conversation when shaman and intense are trading youtube videos

I don't know Intense.

But Shaman is THE most worthless poster on the board. I've yet to see even a single post from him that was worth reading.

 

[konradv]

Hey kids, who wants to see a 70-page monologue translated onto the big screen?

I will say one thing about Atlas Shrugged though, makes a great paperweight.

Those who are literate have a better use for it.

You really wouldn't understand.

The literate immediately identify it as one of the worst novels ever. Character development is an important part of any well-crafted novel. Atlas Shrugged doesn't fit into that company, because it doesn't contain a single fully realized character, merely caricatures.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Atlas shrugged.......America yawned

And fascists like "rightwinger" hid under their bed.....

 

[QUENTIN]

Enough reviews are now in that the film has also been ranked by movie review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes.

It currently stands at 8% positive, with 1 positive review, 1 mixed, and 22 negative including some from those who identify as fans of the book. That makes it the worst reviewed film released so far in 2011 and puts it on a par with many of the films in Rotten Tomatoes "Worst Movies of the Decade" list.

User ratings on the site have been flooded with an unusual influx of first-time visitors (perhaps due to a Twitter and Objectivist network online campaign) and the film stands at 85% fresh according to them. IMDb has seen a similar phenomenon with the majority of user reviews so far coming from first-time commenters and a strikingly bizarre vote distribution. Females ages 18-29 for instance give the film an average rating of 3.2 while users registered as females under 18 have an average perfect score of 10. With 245 ratings of 10 and 85 of 1, the film currently holds a 6.7.

Film critic and box-office guru Scott Tobias humorously reports that "the numbers don’t bode well for Part II and Part III, unless its financiers are feeling altruistic—which we know they most definitely are not." Given the film's meager box-office, it seems unlikely the second or third installments will ever see production or if they do, will likely be lower-budget and released direct-to-DVD like the Left Behind sequels.

Is this disappointing for those who have seen the film or hoped it would be more of a phenomenon?

I'll say this much. There is going to be a lot of false data about how bad this film regardless of it's worth and actual quality because the left has a vested interest on destroying anything by Ayn Rand lest her ideas catch on with the populace at large. If the military has plans and programs to manipulate online memes... it's not far off to think that there are similar tactics being used by leftist radicals seeking to harm anything conservative.

Well, the reviews on Rottentomatoes are from well-established movie critics who write hundreds of reviews a year for movie publications, mainstream websites and newspapers, not part of some leftist conspiracy. The box-office figures are reported from movie theaters across the country that were booked to show the film and these numbers are reliable and accurate every week for every film that comes out, no reason to think there's anything foul there. The theaters and distributors want the movie to be a hit, so there's no sense in underreporting.

As for online memes, so far the opposite of what you're saying is true. I'm sure there are some liberals or people who don't like Rand that haven't seen the movie and are voting it down, but that's seems scattershot and the numbers at IMDb and RT of negative reviews are quite small as a percentage (and most of those come from established users). However there are coordinated online campaigns at objectivistforum.com and followers of the Atlas Shrugged movie on twitter to flood Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb with positive reviews and the vast majority of ratings on the former site and user reviews on the latter are coming from brand new, first-time registrants (with some weird anomolies, like that women voters 18+ tend to give it poor reviews but every almost single new user registered as a woman under 18 gave it a 10). So while it's certainly conceivable that anti-Randians might launch such a campaign, it's demonstrated that pro-Randians already and actually have. So the scale-tilting is by far in favor of the movie from people with a vested ideological interest in its success not the other way around.

Similar campaigns were launched to flood the Modern Library's online poll of the 20th century's greatest books by Objectivists and Scientologists, leading to 4 of Rand's books and 3 of L. Ron Hubbard's finishing in the top ten including the top three spots. http://www.modernlibrary.com/top-100/100-best-novels/

 

[rightwinger]

Atlas shrugged.......America yawned

And fascists like "rightwinger" hid under their bed.....

The Libertarians are coming...the Libertarians are coming

 

[Uncensored2008]

The literate immediately identify it as one of the worst novels ever.

That would be "mindless idealogues," not the "literate."

Character development is an important part of any well-crafted novel.

That depends on the purpose of the novel.

"Sicko" had no character development, but I'll bet you embraced every lie as a revelation from god (Barack Obama) himself..

Atlas Shrugged doesn't fit into that company, because it doesn't contain a single fully realized character, merely caricatures.

Yawn...

A mindless fascist attacking Rand - how unique...

 

[rightwinger]

Well....Atlas Shrugged had its long awaited premier and will be out of the theaters by next week

Did it....."Change the face of American politics" ?.........Nope
"i further suggest that this hollywood production will play a large roll in unseating the president of obama, how ultimately and deliciously ironic.".........Nope

"how do you like us now. " ....... Same old Rand Libertarians overworshipping her novel. Kind of like Scientologists

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well....Atlas Shrugged had its long awaited premier and will be out of the theaters by next week

Did it....."Change the face of American politics" ?.........Nope

The movie will make money. It will do well on Netflix and DVD.

 

[konradv]

The literate immediately identify it as one of the worst novels ever.

That would be "mindless idealogues," not the "literate."

Character development is an important part of any well-crafted novel.

That depends on the purpose of the novel.

"Sicko" had no character development, but I'll bet you embraced every lie as a revelation from god (Barack Obama) himself..

Atlas Shrugged doesn't fit into that company, because it doesn't contain a single fully realized character, merely caricatures.

Yawn...

A mindless fascist attacking Rand - how unique...

How about telling us what you think, instead of telling me what I think? You're no psychic by a long shot. As for "Sicko", that was a documentary not a novel!!! In other words, your point is worthless. Of course, there are other novels without character development, but they like "Shrugged" are usually put in the "Bad" category, regardless of their purpose. This work is simply a political screed masquerading as a novel.

 

[QUENTIN]

Well....Atlas Shrugged had its long awaited premier and will be out of the theaters by next week

Did it....."Change the face of American politics" ?.........Nope

The movie will make money. It will do well on Netflix and DVD.

Perhaps but I'm not sure what you're basing that on.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed which was also an independently financed movie distributed by the same specialty house and targeting a similarly small but devoted base (but a much, much larger one - Creationist Evangelicals make up nearly a third of the country, Objectivists and Libertarians less than 10%) made nearly twice as much money in its opening weekend, finishing with 7.7 million total gross domestic box-office.

On DVD, it made 1.85 million which is respectable for a small, niche movie like that but far from being considered a success. Its budget was only 3.5 million so it wound up in the black, but Atlas Shrugged's budget is $10 million and that doesn't take into account marketing costs.

An American Carol, a conservative-themed and targeted film which had some name actors (Kelsey Grammer, Jon Voight, Dennis Hopper, Leslie Nielsen) and a successful, well-known director (David Zucker), twice the budget of Atlas Shrugged, a much larger and more powerful distribution company, substantially more advertising and campaigning including appeals to see it from the nation's most popular conservative pundits who reach an audience of tens of millions:

An American Carol was strongly advertised by notable Republicans and conservative personalities such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Mark Levin. On October 3, 2008, actors Kevin Farley and Kelsey Grammer appeared on the Fox News program The O'Reilly Factor to promote their film, in which show host Bill O'Reilly made a guest appearance. An American Carol has also been described by newspapers such as the Dallas Morning News as being "for the right wing".The American Conservative reported, "The movie has been promoted by bloggers on National Review Online. The Leadership Institute, an activist group that maintains contact with College Republicans nationwide, urged its charges to see the movie on opening weekend, even handing out tickets to its interns."

Opened on five times as many screens, grossed nearly three times the opening weekend of Atlas Shrugged, and finished with 7 million in theaters then made 2.4 million on DVD, which again isn't terrible but is far from a success and it failed to make back its $20 million budget.

Both of those movies had appeal to a broader audience (Creationist and Conservatives generally, not just a small subset of the latter), greater exposure (in terms of advertising both free and paid, number of theaters playing, etc), more name talent, and all the things a film wants going for it to be successful and neither of them made much money on DVD.

If Atlas Shrugged does as expected and finishes with less than the 7 million theatrical gross of Expelled and American Carol, which both played in many more theaters and made substantially more in their opening weekends, then there's no reason to believe it would make back its money on DVD given the precedents in the market.

As for Netflix, they make deals with studios for access to all of their catalogue without restrictions for a fixed rate rather than paying movie by movie. Given that Atlas Shrugged doesn't have studio backing, they will likely work out a deal like they do with most small independent features to be streaming on Watch Instantly where there isn't a percentage for each rental/viewing but an upfront price for the right to carry it streaming. That price is negotiated and determined by the box-office success of the film, which predicts revenue in post-theatrical distribution. In other words, if it doesn't make much money in theaters, it won't get much money from Netflix for the right to rent it. Certainly well under a million dollars which would still make it difficult for the film to make back its money.

Every expert I've read or encountered on indie financing and distribution (and I work with a few) is predicting the film will not break even.

 

[rightwinger]

Well....Atlas Shrugged had its long awaited premier and will be out of the theaters by next week

Did it....."Change the face of American politics" ?.........Nope

The movie will make money. It will do well on Netflix and DVD.

Oh I get it.....any movie that makes a profit changes the face of American politics

Is Obama still afraid of it?

 

[QUENTIN]

I'll say this much. There is going to be a lot of false data about how bad this film regardless of it's worth and actual quality because the left has a vested interest on destroying anything by Ayn Rand lest her ideas catch on with the populace at large. If the military has plans and programs to manipulate online memes... it's not far off to think that there are similar tactics being used by leftist radicals seeking to harm anything conservative.

From a devoted Rand fan and filmmaker:

Ayn Rand's book 'Atlas Shrugged' railed against mediocrity, but the filmmakers of 'Atlas Shrugged Part 1' seem to revel in it as they've turned a powerful lightening rod of a story into the exact thing that Rand fought against.

'Atlas Shrugged' has been one of those books that people either praise as having had a major effect on their lives or discount as nothing more than propaganda. I fall into the former as I first read the book in my early 20's and could relate to it's base message. I didn't agree with everything in Ayn Rand's philosophy, but it formed a nice base. Over the years I've given out countless copies of the books to friends who wound up saying that it was one of the best gifts they've ever gotten. So, when news first hit that the film version of the book would finally be coming out, I was rather hopeful since Rand seemed to have had foresight into what was coming for our country.

At first when the Baldwin's took on the film and were pushing out Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt to star, I knew the film would never get made. It was becoming way to big to handle and do in a two hour film. Then when the trailer for 'Atlas Shrugged Part 1' hit this past February, I was hoping that maybe it was just one of those badly cut trailers, but deep down, it was obvious what we were in for. The time couldn't have been better for a movie of this magnitude to hit and be a success as the story has some great cinematic moments, plus it could expose Rand to an entirely new generation that would have never paid much attention.

After seeing 'Atlas Shrugged Part 1', this will never happen, and the people behind this film claiming to want to honor Rand's legacy have just crapped all over it. The sad part about this is that Rand loved the movies. As a child in communist Russia, American films were her escape and propelled her to want to better her life. She was alive to see what King Vidor attempted to do with 'The Fountainhead', but with the studio jumping in, it still turned into more of a melodramatic film than what was intended. I'm so glad Rand isn't around to see that her most influential book, which still sells over 400,000 copies each year, be turned into the exact type of thing that she railed against; mediocre. Even the most diehard Rand fan will have trouble sitting through this film, and only the most loyal will admit that her most famous book has been violated in its message. In contrast with 'Atlas Shrugged Part 1' , 'The Fountainhead' movie looks absolutely brilliant with a stellar cast of Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal. Atlas doesn't even come close to that type of talent.

This may sound harsh, but as a very big fan of the book, I feel very offended by the filmmakers lack of respect for the source material which is rich with big movie moments. Producer John Aglialoro was about to lose the rights to 'Atlas Shrugged', which he'd had for 18 years, and it's obvious this has been a passion project for him as he's worked to get it into the right creative hands. Those are things that I understand and respect that, but what I've lost respect for is the fact that in a desperate attempt to hold on to the rights, which would have expired last June if production didn't start on the film, he pulled together a mediocre crew to get something made, quality be damned. I've had projects that I have fought for, but the idea of just putting out something mediocre to hold on to them never crossed my mind. Ayn Rand's books taught me that. Mr. Aglialoro and crew have become Peter Keatings (from The Fountainhead) who've sold out to get what they wanted. To me, that is a true crime to Ayn Rand's memory.

What they've made is a low budget film that was shot in 5 weeks on a $10 million budget and looks every bit the part. Just nine days before production “One Tree Hill” star Paul Johansson replaced Steven Polk as director. I'm confused as to why Aglialoro couldn't renegotiate the rights with the Rand estate who gave their permission for this film to be made arguing that a subpar film would result from having to work under those restrictions. That's very much the plotline of 'The Fountainhead' with Howard Rourke.

Now on to the film itself. 'Atlas Shrugged' is about a strong willed woman (Dagny Taggert) who is trying to save her transcontinental railroad from disaster set by laws and regulations threatening to end entrepreneurs in the United States. She's also fighting a man who is stealing away the men and women who have kept the motor of the world running, and it's slowly winding down as she continues struggling to keep it going. Just that alone shows that in the hands of a good production team, this could've been a fun action packed movie that would be both timely and show Hollywood that something fresh can make money like Chris Nolan's 'Inception'.

What we get with Johansson's 'Atlas Shrugged' is a movie set in 2016 where railroads rule. I don't get why they didn't just set this film back to a time when railroads truly did rule the country, but that would have cost more money so we can only imagine how much worse it would have looked. The cast includes: Graham Beckel (Brokeback Mountain) in the role of oil magnate Ellis Wyatt; Edi Gathegi (from the Twilight movies) in the part of Dagny’s loyal lieutenant Eddie Willers; and two veterans of Coen brothers films, Michael Lerner and Jon Polito, to play political fixer Wesley Mouch and the collusive corporate sleaze Orren Boyle. For the key roles, the production made a major misstep with Taylor Schilling (Mercy) and Grant Bowler (True Blood) as Dagny Taggert and Hank Reardon. (Fay Dunaway was once attached for the Dagny role and would have been perfect casting, but no such luck this time.)

The lack of direction in this film doesn't give anyone in the cast much to do so their speech sounds more like comic book speak which only diminishes the message they're trying to give. The lack of chemistry between Schilling and Bowler is just so bad that when they finally have their sexy scene, it reminded me of when Vin Diesel had a kissing scene in 'XXX' that looked like he couldn't wait for it to be over.

Even the 'Who Is John Galt' question is lost in all this as anyone unfamiliar with the book will be wondering why it even matters, not to mention that this film probably won't get picked up by even Lifetime on cable.

The filmmakers knew that the stakes were very high in getting this film made, and they blown it in the worst way possible where they only look like scavengers attempting to cash in on Ayn Rand's legacy and nothing else. Even on a tight budget (I've worked on plenty of those types of films), there is no excuse to strip a book with so much material of its essence. I understand the filmmakers thinking that they should keep so much of the talky dialogue, but the beauty of film is that you can say so much without having to say so much. There's so much sitting around talking about things with only a cable news show to break up all the talking with more exposition. I'm assuming that using so much covered sets kept the budget low rather than filming outside, but with CGI costs not being so high anymore, there's no excuse for having such bad use of it with the constant showing of trains whisking through the countryside. If you're planning on relying on this as scene bumps, make sure it looks good.

Rand originally thought 'Atlas Shrugged' would work best as a mini-series and began working on the script before she died, and it seems that following this would have been the much smarter route. Trying to break this book up into three parts for a trilogy hoping that the first one will make enough money back to continue with the second is just not a smart business move. It's highly doubtful that 'Atlas Shrugged Part 2' will get made as the marketing for this film is pretty hokum and rather sloppy. James V. Horner is still listed as the writer on Rotten Tomatoes website.

I hope that the filmmakers don't try to claim that all the bad reviews (and there will be many) is just people trying to keep the film from succeeding, because that's simply not the case. If they attempt this, they will be no better than James Taggart and his bunch of moochers. The meaning of the title 'Atlas Shrugged' was the idea that what would happen to the world if the movers and makes shrugged and quit, but in this film's case, the few moviegoers it gets will be doing all the shrugging wondering what all the fuss about Ayn Rand is all about.

 

[Big Fitz]

I'll say this much. There is going to be a lot of false data about how bad this film regardless of it's worth and actual quality because the left has a vested interest on destroying anything by Ayn Rand lest her ideas catch on with the populace at large. If the military has plans and programs to manipulate online memes... it's not far off to think that there are similar tactics being used by leftist radicals seeking to harm anything conservative.

From a devoted Rand fan and filmmaker:

Ayn Rand's book 'Atlas Shrugged' railed against mediocrity, but the filmmakers of 'Atlas Shrugged Part 1' seem to revel in it as they've turned a powerful lightening rod of a story into the exact thing that Rand fought against.

'Atlas Shrugged' has been one of those books that people either praise as having had a major effect on their lives or discount as nothing more than propaganda. I fall into the former as I first read the book in my early 20's and could relate to it's base message. I didn't agree with everything in Ayn Rand's philosophy, but it formed a nice base. Over the years I've given out countless copies of the books to friends who wound up saying that it was one of the best gifts they've ever gotten. So, when news first hit that the film version of the book would finally be coming out, I was rather hopeful since Rand seemed to have had foresight into what was coming for our country.

At first when the Baldwin's took on the film and were pushing out Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt to star, I knew the film would never get made. It was becoming way to big to handle and do in a two hour film. Then when the trailer for 'Atlas Shrugged Part 1' hit this past February, I was hoping that maybe it was just one of those badly cut trailers, but deep down, it was obvious what we were in for. The time couldn't have been better for a movie of this magnitude to hit and be a success as the story has some great cinematic moments, plus it could expose Rand to an entirely new generation that would have never paid much attention.

After seeing 'Atlas Shrugged Part 1', this will never happen, and the people behind this film claiming to want to honor Rand's legacy have just crapped all over it. The sad part about this is that Rand loved the movies. As a child in communist Russia, American films were her escape and propelled her to want to better her life. She was alive to see what King Vidor attempted to do with 'The Fountainhead', but with the studio jumping in, it still turned into more of a melodramatic film than what was intended. I'm so glad Rand isn't around to see that her most influential book, which still sells over 400,000 copies each year, be turned into the exact type of thing that she railed against; mediocre. Even the most diehard Rand fan will have trouble sitting through this film, and only the most loyal will admit that her most famous book has been violated in its message. In contrast with 'Atlas Shrugged Part 1' , 'The Fountainhead' movie looks absolutely brilliant with a stellar cast of Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal. Atlas doesn't even come close to that type of talent.

This may sound harsh, but as a very big fan of the book, I feel very offended by the filmmakers lack of respect for the source material which is rich with big movie moments. Producer John Aglialoro was about to lose the rights to 'Atlas Shrugged', which he'd had for 18 years, and it's obvious this has been a passion project for him as he's worked to get it into the right creative hands. Those are things that I understand and respect that, but what I've lost respect for is the fact that in a desperate attempt to hold on to the rights, which would have expired last June if production didn't start on the film, he pulled together a mediocre crew to get something made, quality be damned. I've had projects that I have fought for, but the idea of just putting out something mediocre to hold on to them never crossed my mind. Ayn Rand's books taught me that. Mr. Aglialoro and crew have become Peter Keatings (from The Fountainhead) who've sold out to get what they wanted. To me, that is a true crime to Ayn Rand's memory.

What they've made is a low budget film that was shot in 5 weeks on a $10 million budget and looks every bit the part. Just nine days before production “One Tree Hill” star Paul Johansson replaced Steven Polk as director. I'm confused as to why Aglialoro couldn't renegotiate the rights with the Rand estate who gave their permission for this film to be made arguing that a subpar film would result from having to work under those restrictions. That's very much the plotline of 'The Fountainhead' with Howard Rourke.

Now on to the film itself. 'Atlas Shrugged' is about a strong willed woman (Dagny Taggert) who is trying to save her transcontinental railroad from disaster set by laws and regulations threatening to end entrepreneurs in the United States. She's also fighting a man who is stealing away the men and women who have kept the motor of the world running, and it's slowly winding down as she continues struggling to keep it going. Just that alone shows that in the hands of a good production team, this could've been a fun action packed movie that would be both timely and show Hollywood that something fresh can make money like Chris Nolan's 'Inception'.

What we get with Johansson's 'Atlas Shrugged' is a movie set in 2016 where railroads rule. I don't get why they didn't just set this film back to a time when railroads truly did rule the country, but that would have cost more money so we can only imagine how much worse it would have looked. The cast includes: Graham Beckel (Brokeback Mountain) in the role of oil magnate Ellis Wyatt; Edi Gathegi (from the Twilight movies) in the part of Dagny’s loyal lieutenant Eddie Willers; and two veterans of Coen brothers films, Michael Lerner and Jon Polito, to play political fixer Wesley Mouch and the collusive corporate sleaze Orren Boyle. For the key roles, the production made a major misstep with Taylor Schilling (Mercy) and Grant Bowler (True Blood) as Dagny Taggert and Hank Reardon. (Fay Dunaway was once attached for the Dagny role and would have been perfect casting, but no such luck this time.)

The lack of direction in this film doesn't give anyone in the cast much to do so their speech sounds more like comic book speak which only diminishes the message they're trying to give. The lack of chemistry between Schilling and Bowler is just so bad that when they finally have their sexy scene, it reminded me of when Vin Diesel had a kissing scene in 'XXX' that looked like he couldn't wait for it to be over.

Even the 'Who Is John Galt' question is lost in all this as anyone unfamiliar with the book will be wondering why it even matters, not to mention that this film probably won't get picked up by even Lifetime on cable.

The filmmakers knew that the stakes were very high in getting this film made, and they blown it in the worst way possible where they only look like scavengers attempting to cash in on Ayn Rand's legacy and nothing else. Even on a tight budget (I've worked on plenty of those types of films), there is no excuse to strip a book with so much material of its essence. I understand the filmmakers thinking that they should keep so much of the talky dialogue, but the beauty of film is that you can say so much without having to say so much. There's so much sitting around talking about things with only a cable news show to break up all the talking with more exposition. I'm assuming that using so much covered sets kept the budget low rather than filming outside, but with CGI costs not being so high anymore, there's no excuse for having such bad use of it with the constant showing of trains whisking through the countryside. If you're planning on relying on this as scene bumps, make sure it looks good.

Rand originally thought 'Atlas Shrugged' would work best as a mini-series and began working on the script before she died, and it seems that following this would have been the much smarter route. Trying to break this book up into three parts for a trilogy hoping that the first one will make enough money back to continue with the second is just not a smart business move. It's highly doubtful that 'Atlas Shrugged Part 2' will get made as the marketing for this film is pretty hokum and rather sloppy. James V. Horner is still listed as the writer on Rotten Tomatoes website.

I hope that the filmmakers don't try to claim that all the bad reviews (and there will be many) is just people trying to keep the film from succeeding, because that's simply not the case. If they attempt this, they will be no better than James Taggart and his bunch of moochers. The meaning of the title 'Atlas Shrugged' was the idea that what would happen to the world if the movers and makes shrugged and quit, but in this film's case, the few moviegoers it gets will be doing all the shrugging wondering what all the fuss about Ayn Rand is all about.

What I was saying... since it seemed so few got the point I'll reiterate... was:

You have no proof that those posting negative criticism claiming to be lifelong fans of Rand are what they say they are. It's a known phenomenon that activists post false claims on the internet all the time to attempt to discredit their opponents by pretending to BE their opponents.

Therefore, since there is such hatred for this project regardless of it's actual quality, you cannot trust any criticism.

Conversely, you also cannot trust any praise either because there is also a concerted effort to pimp the project as well. The best idea is to see it yourself, or listen to people whom you PERSONALLY know who have seen it. Do not trust online, or other media sources that you cannot confirm their actual bias.

 

[washamericom]

Quote: Originally Posted by konradv
The literate immediately identify it as one of the worst novels ever.

well... i guess that's it then

 

[washamericom]

Well....Atlas Shrugged had its long awaited premier and will be out of the theaters by next week

Did it....."Change the face of American politics" ?.........Nope
"i further suggest that this hollywood production will play a large roll in unseating the president of obama, how ultimately and deliciously ironic.".........Nope

"how do you like us now. " ....... Same old Rand Libertarians overworshipping her novel. Kind of like Scientologists

yes, and so might i, i just got the permit applications from the national parks department... to stage a series of birher rallies begining this summer after the fourth of july, right here in beautiful in washington d.c. hope to see you there !!. trump says he's omaba's biggest nightmare, neither has ever met me, but you can read all about that on my website.

 

[QUENTIN]

I'll say this much. There is going to be a lot of false data about how bad this film regardless of it's worth and actual quality because the left has a vested interest on destroying anything by Ayn Rand lest her ideas catch on with the populace at large. If the military has plans and programs to manipulate online memes... it's not far off to think that there are similar tactics being used by leftist radicals seeking to harm anything conservative.

From a devoted Rand fan and filmmaker:

Ayn Rand's book 'Atlas Shrugged' railed against mediocrity, but the filmmakers of 'Atlas Shrugged Part 1' seem to revel in it as they've turned a powerful lightening rod of a story into the exact thing that Rand fought against.

'Atlas Shrugged' has been one of those books that people either praise as having had a major effect on their lives or discount as nothing more than propaganda. I fall into the former as I first read the book in my early 20's and could relate to it's base message. I didn't agree with everything in Ayn Rand's philosophy, but it formed a nice base. Over the years I've given out countless copies of the books to friends who wound up saying that it was one of the best gifts they've ever gotten. So, when news first hit that the film version of the book would finally be coming out, I was rather hopeful since Rand seemed to have had foresight into what was coming for our country.

At first when the Baldwin's took on the film and were pushing out Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt to star, I knew the film would never get made. It was becoming way to big to handle and do in a two hour film. Then when the trailer for 'Atlas Shrugged Part 1' hit this past February, I was hoping that maybe it was just one of those badly cut trailers, but deep down, it was obvious what we were in for. The time couldn't have been better for a movie of this magnitude to hit and be a success as the story has some great cinematic moments, plus it could expose Rand to an entirely new generation that would have never paid much attention.

After seeing 'Atlas Shrugged Part 1', this will never happen, and the people behind this film claiming to want to honor Rand's legacy have just crapped all over it. The sad part about this is that Rand loved the movies. As a child in communist Russia, American films were her escape and propelled her to want to better her life. She was alive to see what King Vidor attempted to do with 'The Fountainhead', but with the studio jumping in, it still turned into more of a melodramatic film than what was intended. I'm so glad Rand isn't around to see that her most influential book, which still sells over 400,000 copies each year, be turned into the exact type of thing that she railed against; mediocre. Even the most diehard Rand fan will have trouble sitting through this film, and only the most loyal will admit that her most famous book has been violated in its message. In contrast with 'Atlas Shrugged Part 1' , 'The Fountainhead' movie looks absolutely brilliant with a stellar cast of Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal. Atlas doesn't even come close to that type of talent.

This may sound harsh, but as a very big fan of the book, I feel very offended by the filmmakers lack of respect for the source material which is rich with big movie moments. Producer John Aglialoro was about to lose the rights to 'Atlas Shrugged', which he'd had for 18 years, and it's obvious this has been a passion project for him as he's worked to get it into the right creative hands. Those are things that I understand and respect that, but what I've lost respect for is the fact that in a desperate attempt to hold on to the rights, which would have expired last June if production didn't start on the film, he pulled together a mediocre crew to get something made, quality be damned. I've had projects that I have fought for, but the idea of just putting out something mediocre to hold on to them never crossed my mind. Ayn Rand's books taught me that. Mr. Aglialoro and crew have become Peter Keatings (from The Fountainhead) who've sold out to get what they wanted. To me, that is a true crime to Ayn Rand's memory.

What they've made is a low budget film that was shot in 5 weeks on a $10 million budget and looks every bit the part. Just nine days before production “One Tree Hill” star Paul Johansson replaced Steven Polk as director. I'm confused as to why Aglialoro couldn't renegotiate the rights with the Rand estate who gave their permission for this film to be made arguing that a subpar film would result from having to work under those restrictions. That's very much the plotline of 'The Fountainhead' with Howard Rourke.

Now on to the film itself. 'Atlas Shrugged' is about a strong willed woman (Dagny Taggert) who is trying to save her transcontinental railroad from disaster set by laws and regulations threatening to end entrepreneurs in the United States. She's also fighting a man who is stealing away the men and women who have kept the motor of the world running, and it's slowly winding down as she continues struggling to keep it going. Just that alone shows that in the hands of a good production team, this could've been a fun action packed movie that would be both timely and show Hollywood that something fresh can make money like Chris Nolan's 'Inception'.

What we get with Johansson's 'Atlas Shrugged' is a movie set in 2016 where railroads rule. I don't get why they didn't just set this film back to a time when railroads truly did rule the country, but that would have cost more money so we can only imagine how much worse it would have looked. The cast includes: Graham Beckel (Brokeback Mountain) in the role of oil magnate Ellis Wyatt; Edi Gathegi (from the Twilight movies) in the part of Dagny’s loyal lieutenant Eddie Willers; and two veterans of Coen brothers films, Michael Lerner and Jon Polito, to play political fixer Wesley Mouch and the collusive corporate sleaze Orren Boyle. For the key roles, the production made a major misstep with Taylor Schilling (Mercy) and Grant Bowler (True Blood) as Dagny Taggert and Hank Reardon. (Fay Dunaway was once attached for the Dagny role and would have been perfect casting, but no such luck this time.)

The lack of direction in this film doesn't give anyone in the cast much to do so their speech sounds more like comic book speak which only diminishes the message they're trying to give. The lack of chemistry between Schilling and Bowler is just so bad that when they finally have their sexy scene, it reminded me of when Vin Diesel had a kissing scene in 'XXX' that looked like he couldn't wait for it to be over.

Even the 'Who Is John Galt' question is lost in all this as anyone unfamiliar with the book will be wondering why it even matters, not to mention that this film probably won't get picked up by even Lifetime on cable.

The filmmakers knew that the stakes were very high in getting this film made, and they blown it in the worst way possible where they only look like scavengers attempting to cash in on Ayn Rand's legacy and nothing else. Even on a tight budget (I've worked on plenty of those types of films), there is no excuse to strip a book with so much material of its essence. I understand the filmmakers thinking that they should keep so much of the talky dialogue, but the beauty of film is that you can say so much without having to say so much. There's so much sitting around talking about things with only a cable news show to break up all the talking with more exposition. I'm assuming that using so much covered sets kept the budget low rather than filming outside, but with CGI costs not being so high anymore, there's no excuse for having such bad use of it with the constant showing of trains whisking through the countryside. If you're planning on relying on this as scene bumps, make sure it looks good.

Rand originally thought 'Atlas Shrugged' would work best as a mini-series and began working on the script before she died, and it seems that following this would have been the much smarter route. Trying to break this book up into three parts for a trilogy hoping that the first one will make enough money back to continue with the second is just not a smart business move. It's highly doubtful that 'Atlas Shrugged Part 2' will get made as the marketing for this film is pretty hokum and rather sloppy. James V. Horner is still listed as the writer on Rotten Tomatoes website.

I hope that the filmmakers don't try to claim that all the bad reviews (and there will be many) is just people trying to keep the film from succeeding, because that's simply not the case. If they attempt this, they will be no better than James Taggart and his bunch of moochers. The meaning of the title 'Atlas Shrugged' was the idea that what would happen to the world if the movers and makes shrugged and quit, but in this film's case, the few moviegoers it gets will be doing all the shrugging wondering what all the fuss about Ayn Rand is all about.

What I was saying... since it seemed so few got the point I'll reiterate... was:

You have no proof that those posting negative criticism claiming to be lifelong fans of Rand are what they say they are. It's a known phenomenon that activists post false claims on the internet all the time to attempt to discredit their opponents by pretending to BE their opponents.

Therefore, since there is such hatred for this project regardless of it's actual quality, you cannot trust any criticism.

Conversely, you also cannot trust any praise either because there is also a concerted effort to pimp the project as well. The best idea is to see it yourself, or listen to people whom you PERSONALLY know who have seen it. Do not trust online, or other media sources that you cannot confirm their actual bias.

This isn't necessarily a bad or unreasonable outlook but it seems a little unnecessarily paranoid. Anonymous commenters on IMDb could absolutely be sockpuppets pretending to be Rand devotees who hated the film.

Established movie critics however who post hundreds of reviews a year and have for years and whose biographies, political inclinations, influences, and tastes are well-known are not going to try and certainly wouldn't successfully be able to suddenly pretend to be conservatives or fans of the novel if they weren't. Thinking they would, that there is a concerted effort to mislead among those professionals, strikes me as conspiratorial and without evidence or rational basis.

The guy who posted the review I linked to, the in-house film critic for bestmoviesevernews.com has published 148 articles since 2009 and has mentioned Ayn Rand 9 times, always favorably, referring to Atlas Shrugged as "the one book that I read when I’ve had to deal with too many stupid people, and the movie version has been a painfully slow process, but it’s finally been done in a trilogy with the first part hitting theaters on April 15, 2001, which is a pretty appropriate date for the Ayn Rand bestseller." back in February of 2011 and Rand as "among my favorite authors" in March of 2010 and "inspirational...prescient" in the same month. To assume, or even really speculate, that this was all a well-concocted ploy planned a year in advance so he could damn the film while pretending to be an adherent of its source material seems highly dubious.

We can agree that a lot of anonymous internet commenters may have an agenda or not be on the up-and-up (though in terms of actual campaigns, so far that has only gone one way) and thus their opinions not to be given much weight, but that's different than when I refer to a film's Rotten Tomatoes rating you suggesting there will be false data about the film regardless of its worth or quality because the radical left wants to destroy and marginalize Rand. We're talking movie critics, not The Weather Underground.

 

[QUENTIN]

Well....Atlas Shrugged had its long awaited premier and will be out of the theaters by next week

Did it....."Change the face of American politics" ?.........Nope
"i further suggest that this hollywood production will play a large roll in unseating the president of obama, how ultimately and deliciously ironic.".........Nope

"how do you like us now. " ....... Same old Rand Libertarians overworshipping her novel. Kind of like Scientologists

yes, and so might i, i just got the permit applications from the national parks department... to stage a series of birher rallies begining this summer after the fourth of july, right here in beautiful in washington d.c. hope to see you there !!. trump says he's omaba's biggest nightmare, neither has ever met me, but you can read all about that on my website.

Do you care to address the fact that your bold predictions about the Atlas Shrugged film, now that it's out and has been released to little fanfare, audience interest, critical or commercial success, seem to have been totally wrong? That it's barely a blip on the radar, may not even make back its quite small budget, and seems to not be a factor in the national (political, economic, or even just cinematic) conversation rather than a film that will change the face of American politics?

It's okay to admit you thought or hoped the film would have a big impact and it hasn't. It just kinda seems like you're dodging that point and want to avoid saying you were wrong.