On the Set of Atlas Shrugged Part II

Production is now underway on the second installment of the movie adaptation of Ayn Rand's famous novel.

(Page 2 of 2)

Atlas Shrugged Part II is scheduled to hit theaters in October 2012, just before the election, with a screenplay written by Part I writer Brian O’Toole, working with Scott and Duke Sandefur. Scott notes that the decades-long effort to film Atlas might have been a blessing in disguise; he thinks right now is exactly the time when Atlas’s message will likely resonate the most with mass audiences. “The elements of this movie is so relevant to everything going on in this country, it’s a natural fit” for 2012, Scott says. “People will watch this movie and say, ‘This is what’s going on.’”

A recent Hollywood Reporter story hinted that the October release was a deliberate attempt to have the movie’s pop culture impact influence the November election. Kaslow says that isn’t so; they mostly wanted to meet their stated goal of having the second volume out this year. Still, October won’t be a bad time for a movie like this to open. Kaslow knows that questions about the value and propriety of free capitalism vs. government control central to the novel and movie will be at the top of people’s minds this fall, especially in scenes like Rearden defending his rights as a creator and producer before the Unification Board—though Kaslow insists there is no partisan political purpose to the timing. “What people will see in Atlas Part II is an even more cinematic depiction of what’s going on in the book," he said, "while being greatly entertained and finding moments of inspiration.”

Senior Editor Brian Doherty is author of Radicals for Capitalism (PublicAffairs) and the forthcoming Ron Paul’s Revolution (Broadside).

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • shrike||

    Dagny should have been played by Sasha Grey to insure commercial success.

  • shrike||

    Plus, Sasha has 99.9% name recognition with libertarians.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Ok, I lol'd.

  • Copernicus||

    Stacie Halas. She's got science creds.

  • Pro Libertate||

    New cast members?

  • T o n y||

    What a clusterfuck.

  • ||

    Exactly, thus shrike's suggestion.

  • ||

    I think I'll hold out for the deluxe ultra mega three movie boxed set.

  • ||

    I still have not seen the first one....

    Seriously I watched Battleship already.

    These movies offer nothing of interest to me.

  • ||

    Speaking of battleship here is my review:

    You may think it is movie based on a hasbro board game.

    You may think it is an aprox 1 hour and 30 min gag about a chicken burrito with the punch line delivered by this guy:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqA577_IoBk

    But it is actually an American live action remake of Star Blazers.

    Needless to say it is an unmitigated disaster.

  • Libertarian Barbarian||

    You are the worst type of person and people like you are the reason this country is so fucked up. Everything is about you and what affects YOU. "These movies offer nothing of interest to me." WTF? If these movies hold no interest to you then why are you commenting? You offer no critique of the film or it's ideas. You just like to shit in everyone's cereal. Douse yourself in gasoline and have a cigarette douchebag.

  • SusanM||

    "Everything is about you and what affects YOU"

    Yeah, it's really weird to hear an attitude like that here :P

  • DT||

    :)

  • ||

    Considering part 1 of the novel is about the determined human spirit overcoming major obstacles in an impossibly compressed schedule to build an unprecedented bullett train, I think Ayn would have been dissapointed in the final product of the movie paying tribute to that part of her story.

    That said, I will probably see the second one. Even though the entire original cast has been wasted, if it means the dreadful Matthew Marsden isn't playing James Taggert, I will give it a shot. I would have passed part 1 as decent if not for his performance.

  • ||

    *bullet (not bullett), stand down trolls.

  • shrike||

    Conservative cannot make movies. They suck at it, in fact.

    The best movie about Capitalism ever is 'There Will Be Blood'.

    Plainview = Galt.

  • RFID||

    Says the man who's never seen Red Dawn.

  • The Derider||

    "...shot outside the Los Angeles convention center"

    Apparently the makers of this movie, much like Rand herself, don't care about using the infrastructure of the state as long as their ends are furthered-- morality be damned.

  • ||

    Yes, I understand that public roads may have even been used during the production of the movie.

  • DT||

    You mean how Ayn Rand accepted state money for medical help when she got sick from all her chain smoking? Like that, you mean?

  • shrike||

    Damn, there are only 12 comments on an Ayn Rand article at 7:50 EST on Friday and three of them are mine.

    I love Ayn Rand myself. We are both liberals although she is hostile to sensible regulations while I am not.

    Hey, that is a small difference today.

  • Hyperion||

    There is some sort of comment blackout on blogs all over the blogospshere. WTF is going on? Friday night and no one is commenting on anything, anywhere? Fuck, it is 2012 and all. Did the rapture happen and I am one of the few sinners left on planet earth and the all the others still here are wack-o liberals? Holy Fuck, where did I put those cyanide capsules....

    Wait, I need to see the first Atlas Shrugged first. I started watching it a few nights ago on netflix but wifey got me drunk and took advantage of me and I can't remember anything, so I need to try again tonight.

  • shrike||

    It must be the Rapture because I am still present on Earth.

    And yes, there is some sort of weirdness going on. I will confirm while watching Liberty Loving Bill Maher at 10pm EST unless the Rapture pulls me into an unknown to me GOP Vortex.

  • Hyperion||

    Even on yahoo on articles that typically would have thousands of posts by now... 7 posts? My wife is still here, so she must be a sinner too. I should call someone I know that was religious, or pretended to be...

  • SusanM||

    I didn't notice it at first, but yeah, it's odd. You'd think the Rand-love spooge would be knee-deep by now ;)

  • Copernicus||

    The term is "splooge".

  • SusanM||

    As I've said before I really don't take Rand seriously. But, hey, anyone who can take neurotic self-pity and make an influential cult out of it maybe deserves some consideration.

  • Copernicus||

    I've admired Rand's work for 30 years now. Neurotic self-pity is, I think, such a turn-on. Well played.

  • SusanM||

    Oh, come on. First off, self-pity really is a powerful emotion. Most of any political movement these days (and liberjectivism is not exempt from this) is one long woe-is-me whine.

    Rand's books - if you understand that she really tried to be a groundbreaking screen writer only fail because she sucked at it - are all one long "why doesn't anyone recognize my awesome genius right away and without any effort on my part?" screed against the world. It's all to typical for some mediocre loser to view themselves as persecuted and unrecognized geniuses and Rand got lucky and tapped into that.

  • Copernicus||

    The thing I like best about Rand's books is the way people respond to them.

    Weak losers identify with the weak losers in the book and therefore hate the books for making them confront their failings.

    Intelligent, strong, productive people indentify with the heroes and therefore love the books as an affirmation of the values they hold.

  • The Derider||

    I read Atlas Shrugged and didn't identify with any of the characters because they're all shallow, one dimensional caricatures.

  • hk||

    And she's still more articulate than you.

    :)

  • DT||

    I've found the exact opposite. It was part of what clued me in to the joke-factor of Ayn Rand when I was really into her in high school -- I just enjoyed her books a lot, and I didn't think too much about the larger philosophy behind them. I liked the drama, I thought she was a good -- if long-winded -- writer.

    But then I met all these total effing losers who were her fans. And it was so embarrassing! It was worse than going to some comic-con (though those can be a lot more fun).

    I realized that all these shmucks wanted to see themselves as heroes in a world that didn't recognize their greatness. They were motivated by a lot of hatred of other people and a totally overblown sense of themselves. They had no humility, no wisdom, and were mostly humorless and unattractive.

    So, that was the end of it for me. That's just my experience.

  • Plisade||

    "...got lucky..."

    Oh my. Only someone who viewed themself as "persecuted and unrecognized" would discount another's success in such a bitter manner. You may not like what Rand had to say, but she was very good at saying it, and commercially so. She deserves props at least for that.

  • SusanM||

    And I'm giving her them. But...let's take an - ahem - objective look at her fiction. First, let's tackle the "very good at saying" bit. Rand couldn't leave a thought until she thoroughly ran it into the ground. Every monologue is a rambling, directionless rehash of one or two basic ideas. Galt's speech is a classic example of this. Find an online copy and edit it yourself if you don't believe me. Take out the filler and anything redundant and you may be left with a coherent thought but one that's much, much shorter.

    But Roark, Prometheus and Galt tell you what you need to know about Rand's inner workings and her own over-inflated ego. She was too good (in her mind) to work her way up so she really didn't put too much effort into it, felt "the world" gave her the bum steer that made her into a penniless department store clerk instead of a famous screenwriter and rationalized it by saying her half-assed approach to life in the early years was some sort of protest against the system. And she ground her teeth in envy at the success of others while her own "groundbreaking" stuff was ignored - attributing it to ass-kissing or a faceless plot by "the system" which ws just "unprepared" for her greatness and which didn't give her the instant success she felt she was entitled to - rather than facing down what a mediocre hack she was. The rest of objectivism is just shit to rationalize her near-psychotic narcissism.

  • SusanM||

    The people who truly identify with her heroes are those losers who think it's everyone else's fault. Sadly, too many of her villains would be her biggest fans IRL. (Frickin' character limit)

  • Copernicus||

    Susan,

    I can do no better than quote the wisdom of Ace Ventura:

    "Obsess much?"

  • SusanM||

    yes ;)

  • SusanM||

    I'm honored to have a representative from the Ayn Rand Institute join the discussion.

  • SusanM||

    *yawn*

  • SusanM||

    Ancap - Do the world a favor and get laid. Please.

  • DT||

    Ancap here is doing a stellar job of representing the psyche of many Rand supporters -- frustrated, furious, mean spirited loonies. There's often a nice fragrant strain of racism and misogyny to complement the sense that a big bad world is against their greatness.

    The Randians at top of the heap (like Greenspan) are a small cadre of criminals who actually resemble her villains quite closely. Insider looters, basically. And the lower-heap folks who love Rand have always been embarrassingly inept at most of what they do. I knew one guy who had a bumper sticker company, and he gave me a Randian sticker once. The ink was the wrong kind of ink, and it smeared off all over my clothes.

    This article is a perfect example as well -- a bunch of Randian super-achievers who can't make a remotely decent movie.

    Really capable people who also have a developed character and a semblance of wisdom find Ayn Rand to be, in the end, a joke. It has always been thus.

    I actually enjoyed her books, but I was a teenager. I grew up and over time understood the many fundamental flaws in her arguments and her premises, and could see the 1-dimensional characters for what they were -- which was nothing that resembled human beings in reality.

    I suppose there's the off chance Ancap is a liberal progressive posing as the most disgusting kind of Ayn Rand loony in order to make fun of the whole Randian cult. If so, well played, Ancap!

  • DT||

    Though you could lay off the lines like "discharge dripping slut" -- I mean, I just ate breakfast for godsake.

  • Copernicus||

    Re Greenspan: If Rand were alive today she would do a "Steven Mallory vs. Ellsworth Toohey" smackdown of the SpanMan.

    In General, Rand would despise anyone in either of the 2 major political parties as well as all the various other bureaucrats, so it is pointless to argue about which of these clowns is a Randian hero or villain.

  • DT||

    :)

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    Given that you are actually talking about a product of metallurgy, Brian, I think the word you wanted was "alloy," not "amalgam." The latter refers to an alloy of mercury (usually with silver, as in old school tooth fillings). Although the word is commonly used to mean "mixture" or "combination" when the subject is NOT metals, it has a specific technical meaning when the topic IS metals.

  • Tagalog||

    I'm glad, after the lukewarm reception even among conservatives and libertarians that the first movie got, that they're making a Part II.

  • some guy666||

    An overrated piece of shit book was made and then adapted into a piece of shit film. Now we are going to make a piece of shit sequel. I thought Libertarians were all about being rational? But they fall into one of America's great pastimes also: wasting money.

  • Tagalog||

    It's not a waste of money to the people who are voluntarily spending it. Doesn't libertarianism say that if they want to spend THEIR money on some project, they're free to do so, even if some guy666 disapproves?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement