Atlas Shrugged - the Movie (Part one)

www.youtube.com...

Looks pretty good.
Modernized.
There was talk about Angelina Jolie being Dagny.
Glad that didn't happen.
Comes out April 15. (traditional tax day! )
Kinda fits.

TYPICAL HOLLYWOOD. :shk:

They are censoring what we get to see. They aren't putting it out for far distribution because .. allegedly .. they think there aren't enough people interested. BAH! This is one of the best selling books and recently enjoyed yet another selling spike. Hollywood won't put it out because it exposes what will happen if their far left socialist way of doing things actually were to take over the country. In this case, they are all acting on poltiics .. not money.


Washington Post

The film has not yet been picked up for distribution.

"Hollywood does not think enough people" are interested in the message of "Atlas Shrugged," says executive producer Harmon Kaslow to the room. This is why he has brought the film clips to CPAC - to prompt a grass-roots groundswell of demand for the film at theaters, "spread through the technology of freedom."

"Atlas Shrugged" was Rand's final work, the book in which she most clearly laid out her theory of objectivism, which argues that the pursuit of one's own happiness - "rational self-interest" - will ultimately lead to the betterment of society. It features a female railroad executive, the man she loves and the government who keeps trying to bring her down. The book is split into three parts; if enough interest and financing can be drummed up, "Atlas Shrugged: The Movie" will be followed by two sequels.

s&f for bringing attention to my favorite book.

I don't think I want to see the movie. There's no way it will capture the meaning and tell the story completely. I've seen movie production teams and Hollywood turn good books into bad movies.

Also, why does Dagny have BLOND hair?! That's just wrong, she's a brunette, and certainly wouldn't highlight her hair.

Originally posted by BenIndaSun
Also, why does Dagny have BLOND hair?! That's just wrong, she's a brunette, and certainly wouldn't highlight her hair.

I know. But at least they didn't tag Angelina Jolie for the part. That would have been horrifying.
They modernized this. The train looks like a freak'n bullet train.
The story doesn't work as well modernized. Rail was a major factor back in the 20s-40s.
Nowadays it's not and if it went under it wouldn't have the same effect.

reply to post by FlyersFan


True, railroads are old-fashioned today. I wish they wouldn't have modernized it, the book still has meaning today even though it's set over 50 years ago. I don't think Ayn Rand would have approved of this modern form
.....

Yeah Jolie would have not been good for this. I haven't seen much of her, but if she used one of her accents it would have really sucked although she does have a good look for Dagny except the lips. I'm curious to see how they casted the fellas (Francisco, Ragnar). I guess that old man smoking is Wesley..looks like him, although a little older than I thought.

I'll still probably end up watching this, after it's released just to see how good or bad it really is.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by BenIndaSun
Also, why does Dagny have BLOND hair?! That's just wrong, she's a brunette, and certainly wouldn't highlight her hair.

I know. But at least they didn't tag Angelina Jolie for the part. That would have been horrifying.
They modernized this. The train looks like a freak'n bullet train.
The story doesn't work as well modernized. Rail was a major factor back in the 20s-40s.
Nowadays it's not and if it went under it wouldn't have the same effect.

wow!
But its not in "color "! when I read it I saw it in film noir b&W!!Agree" modern time/place" really doesn't fit as well as a 40's picture.
dagny: Demi moore?
Julianne Moore?
IMHO :Meryl Streep would tear into it.and has the "chops"( talent to pull it off)

Why are you wishing for "modernization" of the story? Whats wrong with using trains as a device? The point is not in "the thing" but in the symbol.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
The story doesn't work as well modernized. Rail was a major factor back in the 20s-40s.
Nowadays it's not and if it went under it wouldn't have the same effect.

I think you completely underestimate the value of the rail transportation system. The amount of freight tonnage hauled by railroads could not be replaced by trucks if they were to suddenly stop shipping. Railroads carried 420+ billion ton miles in the 19030's and are now at 1.5+ trillion ton miles.

On topic, it looks like a well made movie, I will make a point of seeing it although it will be hard to live up to the novel.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
The story doesn't work as well modernized. Rail was a major factor back in the 20s-40s.
Nowadays it's not and if it went under it wouldn't have the same effect.

Trains might very well be back as a main form of shipping.
I heard the movie makers proposed that the middle east conflict caused world gas proiced to skyrocket the price of gas and diesel to $50./gallon.

Look at the prices at the pump and athen look at your paycheck which one is going up faster?

You might be taking a train yourself.

Here is a clip from the movie Scene 10
"Henry Rearden Comes Home."
I don't think this movie will
succeed in getting the
audience to identify
with the heros.

At least, not an audience that has neither read the book, nor thinks on their own.

Also don't take that last comment as an endorsement of Ayn Rand, as I despise her work,
but Holy Smokes Man, I could have written a better screen play than this.
If her work is to fail then maybe it should fail on it's own merits,
not through an interpretation that is out of step with what
people are feeling and believing.

In this scene we are supposed to feel sympathy for a man who works hard,
has a bitter condecending wife, and is guilted into giving away money
while at the same time being denied credit for doing so.

As much as I criticize Ayn Rand, this is not
the intelectual leader she described.
He looks needy and disappointed
by lack of approval from others.

/fail


David Grouchy

Another clip.
Again the supposed strong individualist leader
seems naive and uninformed. Resorting
to agressiveness in the face of
obsticle or dumbness.
With a plea for
sympathy
on top.

Ayn Rand was intimidating and intelectual,
none of the things this movie represents.


David Grouchy

it is an easy explanation

the writer of the script is not a libertarian

the idea is grand and now I want to see it... net clips only do so much....

It appears that it is more garbage then close to the idea....

Anyone seen it yet?

Saw the movie tonight and it is pretty damn good!! If you want to get a visual idea where we are heading this is it. I can see why Hollywood is not promoting it and the makers had to distribute it themselves. It exposes what's going on and how government intervention is ruining this country. Lets circumvent the Hollywood machine and everyone go see it and tell all your family and friends to go see it!

I was worried about the modernization of it but they did a good job. Due to government intervention other means of hauling freight was breaking down and stifled so trains were the main means left. And the gal playing Dagney does a good job.

reply to post by FlyersFan


I saw this movie.
It was great!
I can't wait until part 2 and 3 is out.

My wife have read the book.
And it is going to be awesome.

Originally posted by BenIndaSun
s&f for bringing attention to my favorite book.

I don't think I want to see the movie. There's no way it will capture the meaning and tell the story completely. I've seen movie production teams and Hollywood turn good books into bad movies.

Actually it was fantastic good.
They got the message out from the book completely.

Go see it, you won't regret it.