Ayn Rand

Reason.tv: On the Set of Atlas Shrugged—53 Years in the Making

|

Many actors and producers have talked about adapting Ayn Rand's classic Atlas Shrugged for the big screen, but 53 years after its publication no one has dared tackle the ambitious project—until now.

Reason.tv heads to the set of Atlas Shrugged Part One to offer viewers a rare behind-the-scenes glimpse of this most anticipated film.

Director Paul Johansson (One Tree Hill) and Grant Bowler (Lost, True Blood, Ugly Betty), who plays Henry Rearden, discuss the perils, pressures, and pleasure involved in telling the epic tale of a society where the "men of the mind" go on strike and refuse to contribute to a collectivist world.

Produced by Ted Balaker and Hawk Jensen. Camera by Austin Bragg and Hawk Jensen. Production support by Sam Corcos. 

Music: "Eu Nao Sabia" by Anamar available from Magnatune Records.

Approximately 5.3 minutes.

Go to Reason.tv downloadable HD, iPod, and audio versions of this and all our videos and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

NEXT: Congress Approves Crack Sentencing Reform Bill

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.

  1. Now it is about time Reason got on this one.

    Back when Weigel was here, oh wait, don’t drink to that.

  2. I have higher hopes for this film after seeing that interview with the director. I think that’s a first.

    1. Seconded.

    2. I don’t know. After that whole, “You never see his face” line, it’s starting to sound very made-for-TV cheesy.

      1. Actually I thought that was a brilliant idea. In the novel itself, John Galt is never fleshed out as a person very much.

      2. Kind of plays along with the “Who is John Galt” line I think. I’ll admit when he first said it I cringed a bit but he pulled me back in when he started stressing individuality and personal responsibility.

      3. This movie is only over part one of the book. John Galt is mostly unseen in that part anyway, or rather, the reader doesn’t know who he’s looking at when he sees him. I think not showing his face in this part can be done appropriately.

      4. In the old days in Hollywood, there was an unwritten rule that you never showed Jesus’ face in movies set during his life. Looks like libertarians have the same pious predilections about their sky fairies.

        1. When you find someone who prays to Rand, please get back to us.
          Tired non-sequitors only prove you have no argument.

        2. what are you talking about hobie? Have you read the novel? you don’t ever see john gault (or at least know who he is) until part 3… this is part 1 of 3… How about you read the book before judging it… what do you think you are a talking head?

        3. How old of days are you talking about?

      5. But that’s exactly how it’s played out in the novel! Eddie Willers talks to this stranger every so often, and we never learn who he is….

        1. That’s true; I’d forgotten that Eddie talks to him. And there’s the scene where Dagny sees his shadow outside her office at the John Galt line. But I think that’s it, and it can all very easily be done without seeing Galt’s face. Just sit Galt with his back facing to the camera when he’s talking with Eddie.

    3. That Johannsen guy isn’t as bad as I thought he would be. I’m cautiously hopeful that this movie will be good.

      1. I cautiously hopeful it will be better than Transformers 2: Revenge of the Bullshit, the new benchmark of suck after Battlefield Earth. Outside of that, I’m not holding my breath.

        1. I think The Last Airbender set a new benchmark, actually.

          1. Ah…I’ve been fortunate enough to avoid it. I would have also accepted The Happening, another Shyamalan bomb, as a contender for the crown.

        2. Did you hate the book or do you just think the movie won’t do it justice?

    4. This novel has the potential to be a great screen play, but it will be very difficult.

  3. I wish Johannson all the best, but the fact that he doesn’t know how to pronounce “Ayn” scares the crap out of me!

    1. Yeah that one got me too. Still, I think it looks more promising than not given everything presented. Can’t possibly be worse than Starship Troopers was.

      1. I’ve heard many seriously committed Objectivists pronounce it “Ann” before. It isn’t really a big deal to me (but I’m no Objectivist either, I’m one of the “right-wing hippies” Rand hated). The guy is clearly familiar with the material. He was referred to the project by a close friend who is himself a libertarian with a deep appreciation for Rand’s work.

        1. I have heard it was pronounced like “Ine” so rhymes with mine.

          1. ?

            She has her own letter in Arabic.

            1. and Hebrew: ?

              They’re actually the same letter.

              1. and the number 1 in German

                1. Yeah and like “ie..n gunna do that”

                2. Yeah and like “ie..n gunna do that”

          2. I have been told that is the “pure” way to pronounce it.

      2. rustedangel, you set such a high bar.

      3. If you thought Starship Troopers was bad, then you didn’t get it.

        1. If you thought Starship Troopers was bad, then you didn’t get it had read the book.

          FTFY

  4. This guy is a real professional. He’s decent actor, but his directorial abilities are very solid, too. He’s won 3 Emmy’s for a movie he wrote and directed. In the interview, he really sounds like he’s got it down, and that he understands the core message of individualism and self-ownership in a way that can be effectively conveyed in a film, and also will appeal to a wider audience than just Objectivists.

    Also, the cast is great. These are all likable, relatable and talented actors with experience in popular and successful TV productions (which now are no less demanding than films, and use al the same digital technology, think 24, Weeds, Sopranos, etc. TV is on par with movies, and has been for a while now). Let’s hope this movie is a success and makes their careers take off. I am also hoping that they keep the same cast throughout the series of films. I hate sequels where they change lead actors ever other film.

    1. I hope you are right…. this book and story line has the potential to change a lot of people’s lives… lets just hope they don’t butcher it and that when he “cuts the fat” he doesn’t cut something that should have been left in… not that i would compare the quality of the story to harry potter, but we all saw what happened to that didn’t we?

    2. BZZZZZT! Daytime Emmy ? Emmy.

      The dude is a jumped-up soap star with aspirations of greatness. I bet he thinks if he stops making weak movies and TV (the ultimate in disposable), the world will crumble. This will be funny to watch.

    3. BZZZZZT! Daytime Emmy ? Emmy.

      The dude is a jumped-up soap star with aspirations of greatness. I bet he thinks if he stops making weak movies and TV (the ultimate in disposable), the world will crumble. This will be funny to watch.

  5. Apparently Grant Bowler follows the Kirk Lazarus school of “I don’t break character until the DVD commentary.”

    1. And never, ever go full retard.

  6. “You can’t have a character in a movie go ‘this is what I stand for'”. Does that mean no great speeches? I’ll be pissed if d’Anconia’s money speech isn’t done verbatim. How else will we ever get the message through everyone’s heads?

    1. It’s didn’t work in the book, remember?

      1. It did “work”, but everyone knew it was true, and they were very uncomfortable with the truth. The difference is the curtain on our corrupt government has already fallen for many Americans. These are the words that can embody the thoughts people are having.

        1. Well, hopefully his goal is to distill things down into shorter versions of the long speeches in the novel, without losing any key information, and perhaps making it easier to digest.

          Sadly, people’s reading and speech comprehension levels in general are lower than they were fifty years ago.

          1. I managed to get through volumes of Das Kapital, but I had to close the book on Atlas Shrugged during one of Galt’s speeches.
            I appreciate the free market overtones, but I’d just like to point out how shit and impossible to read the book is. I don’t think there’s been a single adaptation that was better than the book, so meh.

            1. What you’re saying is, you have the attention span of a fly.

              1. I wouldn’t go that far. As much as I’m a fan of Rand, Galt’s speech got a bit repetitive and droned on a bit. I think it could have been cooked down to a nice, taut 10 pages.

                1. Nope. The speech was a piece by piece refutation of all the horrible philosphy people were arguing for and living by at the time(Mostly Immanuel Kant). She actually covers a tremendous amount of material. The speech would probably have to be 200 pages written today.

              2. As I said, I had the patience to read 3 volumes of Das Kapital. Atlas Shrugged was just not too readable as a piece of literature.

                1. You can say whatever you want about free markets, if you read 3 volumns of Das Kapital and couldn’t read Galt’s speech you are not an individualist.

            2. I skipped the long speech, “This is John Galt” at the end too. For me the novel was more like a text book, chrystalizing the things I knew but couldn’t articulate so well. But by the end, I didn’t need the speech. I think a lot of that stuff will need to be cut. Express the concept, then move on. Don’t hammer it in for 3 pages.

              1. Doesn’t one of Rand’s non-fiction books reprint the entire speech?

                1. Yes. For The New Intellectual contains the entire speech, if I recall correctly.

            3. I don’t think there’s been a single adaptation that was better than the book…

              Godfather I & II.

              1. The Sand Pebbles

              2. Godfather I & II

                This.

                The book was good, but there are many better books. There is no movie, IMO, better than Godfather II or Godfather I, in that order.

                1. Once Upon A Time In America

    2. I’m going to be pissed if John Galt’s 80 page metaphysical dialogue isn’t in one of the sequels.

      1. That was fucking torture, even after skipping 65 pages of it.

        1. This director really sounds like he knows what he’s talking about.

          1. I don’t know a damn thing about making a movie, so I was easily impressed.

            I was struck with the most severe case of doublethink I’ve ever encountered whilst reading the book – how great a story told so badly. If ever there were a case for why editors are necessary, it’s Atlas Shrugged.

            I think that it’s possible for a movie to accomplish the addition-by-subtraction Atlas Shrugged really needs… I hope this guy can pull it off.

          2. (From the video above:) “He doesn’t owe you shit!”
            Lol! Yeah, that sentiment will go over beautifully in today’s society – I can’t wait to see the Left fill their britches over this movie. I’d say the director really gets it – even though the main theme of the book is so much more than that.

            1. Not only the Left, but the religious right as well – and maybe even more so.

        2. Many of the speeches were tough to get through, most of all Galt’s 75 page rambler. Great stuff, don’t get me wrong, but tough to get through, as a novel. Great book though. I am cautiously optimistic about the movie.

      2. I’m sure all the speeches will be DVD bonus features.

    3. Francisco’s money speech isn’t that long, and just because they’re not going to do every monologue verbatim doesn’t mean they won’t do any. If you’re only going to do one, Francisco’s speech is a serious contender, as I think that’s one of the most widely circulated parts of Rand’s book, and the one that made the strongest impression on non-Objectivists and non-libertarians.

  7. How come no one told those folks that Dagny Taggart is not a blonde? If I recall correctly, the only blonde heroine in the book is the actress married to Ragnar. Way back in the 70’s when a film of Atlas Shrugged was being considered Natalie Wood was chosen for the role of Dagny – definitlely not a blonde.

  8. is this a “made-for-tv” type movie? I bet it’s going to have a hard time trying to find an outlet.

  9. Aren’t they making a bioshock film as well?

    Atlas Shrugged would work much better as mini series

    1. HBO kind of has a reputation for making extremely good tv series. I’d be interested in seeing that.

      Another book they should make as a tv series is The Three Musketeers. Dumas originally published the book a chapter at a time in a local newspaper.

      Also, a lot of adaptions have been made, but none of them of stuck to the actual story. The end of the book where they try Milady in front of the executioner of Bethune is bone chilling.

      1. It’s a disgrace how poorly the Three Musketeers series has been done, though I thought the Count of Monte Cristo was pretty good.

        1. the Count of Monte Cristo was pretty good.

          I thought it was good, too. But it also left out several plot lines from the book.

    2. True, I can?t see how you can make it into a movie, that?s probably why its part 1. More suited to a tv series, but heck why would you expect tv producers to make a tv adaptation of such a low-selling book?

      Will it be set in the 50s with railroads, or in modern times? You could do some interesting retro visuals but on the other hand it would be less appealing to the general audience.

      It looks like a serious project, but I had to laugh when the director says “what if there are no great action scene”? So there won?t be a car chase scene? Will there be endless chainsmoking?

      1. From the look of the clothing it won’t be retro. Although the hotel had a classic look to it. Maybe they will do both.

      2. Why would retro be less appealing? Have you not heard of “Mad Men?” Reason’s been pimping the shit out of season 4 all week!

        1. Yeah, serious. What’s Reason’s reason?

      3. Did you just say that Atlas Shrugged is a low-selling book?

        1. Yeah, I had a doubletake there as well. Atlas has been selling like gangbusters for quite a few years.

      4. blubi|7.28.10 @ 5:05PM|#
        “….why would you expect tv producers to make a tv adaptation of such a low-selling book?”
        “…her book, which sold six million copies…”
        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new…..ssion.html
        Uh, what?

  10. I imagine that if I was to watch even a single frame of this movie I would wince so severely that my face would disappear into a new singularity which would then suck in the Earth and wipe us all out.

    So I guess I have to pass.

    1. Ditto.

      There’s a reason no one made “Leviticus: The Movie!” yet either.

      1. I lol’d

        On a serious note, most seem to agree the LOTR films were good. And the source material was almost as long-winded as Atlas Shrugged.

        1. At least Tolkien could write 10 or 15 pages without beating you upside the head repeatedly with the same idea. Critics can’t fuck with the fact that the stories were good in the first place.

          Another point in LOTR’s favor is that Christianity is still on the (mostly) approved list.

          Atlas Shrugged is pure, concentrated apostasy, hated by all political types.

          1. At least Tolkien could write 10 or 15 pages without beating you upside the head repeatedly with the same idea.

            Someone’s never read the Silmarillon.

            1. That wouldn’t exactly be Tolkien’s fault, since that book was compiled by Christoper Tolkien and Guy Gavriel Kay.

          2. Atlas Shrugged is pure, concentrated apostasy, hated by all political types.

            All the more reason to get it in their faces.

        2. A lot of Tolkein’s long-windedness was description. Cut out ten pages of what the mountains or the forest looked like by one picture of the mountains or the forest, and you’d be surprised how much shorter LOTR can get.

      2. I’m still giggling. What a great line. Now ‘Numbers’ would be a page turner.

  11. Johansson, FYI. Re the 3.10m mark of this clip: it’s “Ayn Rand”, not “Ann(e) Rand”, dammit!

    Just thought you should know, since you’re kinda MAKING A FEATURE-LENGTH MOVIE BASED ON HER MAGNUM OPUS!

    On the other hand, thanks for having the balls to do that in Hollywood.

    1. Oh, for crying out loud. Calm down. Lots of people pronounce her name as “Ann” simply because they’ve never heard to correctly pronounced. It doesn’t mean they have any less affinity for the material.

      1. I pronounce it “Throat-Wobbler Mangrove.”

        1. Well you’re wrong! It’s pronounced Throat-Wobbler Minegrove

          1. It’s spelled that way, but there are a lot of silent consonants. It’s actually pronounced “strap-on”.

      2. Affinity? Maybe. Actual knowledge of her philosophy? The Ayn->Ann(e) thing makes me doubt this.

  12. The actor playing Rearden also played Captain Gault on Lost.

    1. He is best known as Wolfgang West on the NZ show Outrageous Fortune.

  13. The director sounds competent, but it seemed like that whole interview was just him setting us up for failure.

  14. I can’t wait to see this film, but I’m not expecting anything great, the director can’t even pronounce Ayn Rand’s name right.

    1. Yeah. I think he’s gonna cut all the wrong stuff. And as long as you’re releasing it as three full length features, why the fuck does he have to cut anything. The whole video is about “you gotta cut, you gotta edit, you gotta condense”. Grow a pair and put the whole book on screen. Have galt speaking over a film montage of the state of things as he speaks and flashbacks to tie it back in to the first two movies. If people want to zone out they can or they could pay attention with the support of visual reinforcement. It could be done really well with some imagination.

      1. Dude, if Galt read out his full monologue, that would be a movie in itself. Atlas is 1000 pages long and a masterwork of integration between the events and the philosophy, not to mention it includes a boatload of dialogue both between the characters and within the characters’ heads. Give the guy a break, yes?

  15. For modern-day audiences, I think a real science fiction approach — setting it in the near-future, after a new type of rail travel had risen in the aftermath of the 2nd Great Depression — would be better than setting it in the “present” of an imaginary, parallel Art Deco universe.

    I like the idea of filming the book as a series of made-for-premium-cable movies. That would seem to be the only way to retain most of the characters, events, dialogue, and descriptive details of the book — to do it justice, in other words.

    1. You’re going to be heavily restricting the audience, though.

      1. If you mean the “premium cable” aspect of it, that would only be temporary. There’s a long list of pay-cable movies or TV shows that eventually showed up on broadcast TV (Dexter, Sex and the City, and Stargate SG-1, as just three examples of many). And of course all these things then move on to DVD, allowing them to be rented and re-rented by patrons of Blockbuster, Netflix, etc. The point of a premium cable genesis would be to ensure a budget and an attention to quality that broadcast networks can’t provide. AMC might be able to do pull this off. I certainly admire and respect what they have done with Mad Men and Breaking Bad. But with those two productions already requiring considerable resources and attention from the network, I worry that an A.S. series might get the short stick unless it were to become an overnight ratings-and-emmy sensation. (And then, would BB or MM get the short stick? We can’t have THAT!)

        I look at the TV show Firefly and the theatrical movie Serenity. Both are built around the same cast of characters, the same core ideas and plot elements. Both are lovingly hand-crafted by the same creative team. Both are satisfying examples of their respective media. But in my view, Firefly has more texture and offers by far the more satisfying dramatic experience. People who never watched Firefly can enjoy Serenity well enough. But having seen all the episodes of Firefly, someone can fill in a lot of gaps and shorthand concerning the characters and their individual and collective histories, which Whedon necessarily had to use in the Serenity movie.

        Just so, a “limited series” of AS, comprising maybe 10-12 hours of material, presented one or two hours per month until the end (or 40 or 80 minutes at a time, if you include commercial breaks on a regular broadcast network), would allow the book to be much more faithfully translated to the screen (and by “faithfully,” I do not mean slavishly or mechanically) than even a series of two or three movies.

    2. I like what you’re getting at, J.A.M.

      1. Yeah, me too – especially the setting of it in the future.

        1. By setting the movie in the future, you allow for the possibility that events depicted could still plausibly happen, instead of the less dramatically compelling certainty that they never happened but could have under some circumstances.

          You also have the possibility of still being able to be true to Rand’s original film noir, deteriorating art deco aesthetic by assuming that, in its recovery from the Great Depression II, American society went through a retro phase. We have already seen glimmerings of this in automobile styling, ladies’ fashion, various other expressions of noir chic and even some fantasy movies that anachronistically mix 40s architecture, autos, and clothing with modern trappings (cell phones, computers, etc.). We’re seeing a great deal of that kind of thing, in fact, now that the interventionist Obama administration and the problems it must deal with are being compared with FDR’s.

          There are cycles of political, cultural, and technological development. Rand understood this and alludes to it in her writing. By making this explicit through setting A.S. in a future in which society once imploded due to collectivist mismanagement and abuse, went through a period of rebuilding and impressive economic growth through free-enterprise, but finally once-again faces decline due to the resurgence of collectivism, an A.S. mini-series can remain completely faithful to Rand in virtually all respects, while acquiring an immediacy and an urgent relevance that will be necessary for it to be a hit with audiences and critics on the home screen.

          1. I was thinking that the movie could be set the very near future, in the period after the next presidential election actually – you know, sorta begin with the present recession/depression/impending economic collapse. 😉

            1. It couldn’t be TOO close to our own time: It will take 5-10 years for the economy to completely fall (about the time the USSR took, once we started noticing cracks in the iron curtain), then another 10 years of floundering and regrouping. Then perhaps 30 years of growth before rot begins to set in, helped along by Gault’s strike. So maybe 50-60 years from now: 2060-70s, say. That’s still close enough for the world of the future to bear a reasonable resemblance to our own (especially considering the stagnation that the economic implosion must cause), yet credibly have certain futuristic features and technologies (for instance, the force-shield cloak for Gault’s Gulch, or the materials savvy that enables the discovery and production of Rearden Metal).

              1. Speaking of the force shield cloak for Gault’s Gulch – that’s not entirely out of the realm of possibility even now, I think. If I recall, it was comprised of two components. One was the projection of a mirage to hide the valley from the air and the second was an energy field that could knock out the electrical ignition system of an aircraft engine. I don’t know about optical projection system, but I have seen demos of microwave devices that can shut down an automobile’s engine at a distance. Seems like a larger, more powerful one would be mostly a matter of developing a sufficient energy source. Can’t be too terribly different than the military’s “star wars” ideas.

          2. I absolutely love this idea, but it isn’t feasible given they had to shotgun the production to make the deadline.

  16. As someone who has never read the book I am qualified to say that this movie is going to be horrible.

    Note: I have read Shogun and Foucault’s Pendulum and Dune multiple times…so i can handle long boring romance novels with utterly no value aside from wasting time….yet i still refuse to read Atlas Shrugged.

    1. So glad you stopped in to inform us that you’ve read some books but not the one were talking about.

      1. As someone who did not read your comment I am qualified to say that its content had no value.

        1. Of course, it goes without saying that are an authority on Atlas Shrugged because you abstained from reading it. But where do you get the beans to give opinions on books that you HAVE read? That’s just irresponisble!

  17. Chanel Watch White Ceramic, Chanel Watch White Ceramic

    Chanel Ladies Watch White Ceramic, Chanel Ladies Watch White Ceramic

  18. Grant Bowler of Outrageous Fortune. How can nayone forget Wolfgang West.

  19. In this interview Mr. Johansson says that Atlas Shrugged represents ‘what’s best in all people.’

    Really?? Is this is how he and his producers are going to frame ‘Atlas Shrugged’?

    Consider that Atlas Shrugged repeatedly sells hundreds of thousands of copies each year despite being over fifty years old, and surveys conducted for the Library of Congress list it as being one of the most influential American books, second only to the Bible. Many conservative political and business leaders cite the book as being ‘profoundly influential’ and it’s not uncommon to see ‘Atlas Shrugged’ referenced at Tea Party rallies.

    So if, as he says, Atlas Shrugged is about ‘what’s best in all people’, wouldn’t we expect those sectors of society that have embraced it, along with many of Ayn Rand’s other philosophies, to reflect ‘what’s best?’

    Places like Wall Street where Goldman Sachs made millions while selling securities that were secretly designed to fail. Or in West Virginia where a coal mine operator skirted regulations and left 25 dead, or BP, a corporation that did the same thing and left 12 dead along with the worst environmental disaster in American history.

    Are these the places where the producers of Atlas Shrugged see ‘what’s best in all people’?

    1. …along with many of Ayn Rand’s other philosophies,…

      What other philosophies?! She had only one – Objectivism.

      Places like Wall Street where Goldman Sachs made millions while selling securities that were secretly designed to fail. Or in West Virginia where a coal mine operator skirted regulations and left 25 dead, or BP, a corporation that did the same thing and left 12 dead along with the worst environmental disaster in American history.

      Are these the places where the producers of Atlas Shrugged see ‘what’s best in all people’?

      I can’t speak for the producers, but I should think those are places where one can see not only “the best in people”, but also the worst. Did you even bother to read the novel? There are villians like these in the book, too. And btw, if you think the BP oil spill is the worst disaster in American history, perhaps you should Google Johnstown Flood.

      1. Google Johnstown Flood ? read a book by David McCullough about it, well worth the time, Smartass, great reference !

    2. A novel that embodies what is “best in people” does not necessarily compel all readers to live accordingly.

      That’s pretty simple, right? Not everyone that reads or even praises “Atlas Shrugged” will live according the ethical precepts presented within in it–some will outright flout them, while others may simply have an insufficient will.

      1. And some may not even agree with their ethical or philosophical validity.

      2. And though you may be smarter than I, you probably are not an sob. But I am – so prong you. 😉

    3. They’ve probably all read other books, too.

  20. When Atlas Shrugged was first published, it was already too late. The country–and the world had already started down the path that would lead to Mr Thompsom and his insane directives(yes, I know he didn’t write them).

    Look at this–

    It will take 5-10 years for the economy to completely fall (about the time the USSR took, once we started noticing cracks in the iron curtain), then another 10 years of floundering and regrouping. Then perhaps 30 years of growth before rot begins to set in, helped along by Gault’s strike. So maybe 50-60 years from now: 2060-70s, say.

    Take a look at that timeline, then put it’s starting point at the books first publication date.

    This movie could be set in a contemporary setting and use actual current events–with only a tiny bit of tweaking.

    1. This movie could be set in a contemporary setting and use actual current events–with only a tiny bit of tweaking.

      Yes, pretty close.

      1. Hit “send” too fast. The problem is that the fixation with rail that is characteristic of A.S. is not something that is characteristic of our current cycle. But it could be a big deal in the NEXT cycle.

        1. I don’t think that’s very important; this book at its core was not about a railroad and it’s not THAT big a change from contemporary life. Besides, the railroad industry is actually still quite important with regards to freight, and Ellis Wyatt is a shipper, not a passenger.

    2. You seem to be missing the “cycle” part, though. Yes, we are arguably in the final years of the current cycle, which is why I suggested that the A.S. movie be set a few decades beyond the end of the current cycle.

  21. I’m not sure whether to like this guy or hate him. At least he was smart enough not to reveal Galt in the first installment.

  22. Who is playing Francisco???

  23. Ever since I read Atlas Shrugged some 20 years ago I knew that one day this would have to be made into a movie. It is just too important not to in this day and age of Obama collectivism.
    The director says that he is only shooting the first 127 pages of the book, does that mean that there will be sequels to the first movie? I sure hope so because everyone needs to see and understand what this movie is all about.

  24. There is no weight in space and no place to stand anyway, you dumb ass Greeks.

  25. This will be only so-so, despite the fact that the director seems to “get it” about the book and comes across as articulate.

    The choice of Dagny is very poor. For this role one needs–and really, for all of the roles–the elusive quality of “bearing”. You need an aristocratic goddess-like comportment for such a role, an actress of a Katherine Hepuburn refinement. This girl looks ordinary, bored, and too girl-next door in a black dress. She won’t carry off Dagny’s intelligence and maturity. One can tell already. There is no charm, no spark.

    The Henry Rearden is “okay”. The actor playing him came across well in the interview, but in no way does he look the powerful industrialist. And he is also not handsome enough. Rearden had enormous physical presence—what is needed here would be a younger kind of John Forsyth type. That, or someone with a “Bond” quality.

    The Francisco does not work. There are pictures of the actor on IMBD. They should have found an Italian actor, or some dashing Argentine.

    Eddie Willers is black in this film, so we get the modern day PC touch. Political Correctness on Ayn Rand? Give me a break. Why not just stick to the characters as depicted in the book? Are we really so touchy?

    I also fear that the movie will lose the book’s beautiful formality to make it try to sound “up to date”. The “hero” characters in the book were attractive not only for their integrity, but because of their maturity, language, emotional discipline and cool. I am not getting that feeling here, at all. It is fine to have unknown actors–and in a way that makes it more mysterious–but these are not the right ones.

    Finally, what is with the “first 127 pages” bit? I always thought this should be a big, bold four hour movie with one or two intermissions, like Lawrence of Arabia. People would sit through a long Atlas. The excitement and curiosity would be enough to keep them there.

  26. Wow, I loved the director interview. I have been waiting for this film to come out for so long and now, finally I will be able to see it on the big screen. I only hope the movie is life altering for some as the book was for me! I can’t wait!

  27. Two things
    1-One Tree Hill
    2-Beverly Hills 90210

    Ernest Saves Christmas had a bigger budget than this…

  28. 53 Years in the Making and now it’s over.

    “Atlas Shrugged” Producer Scrapping Plans For Pt. 2 & 3, Blames Reviews

    http://t.co/Xc4QizA

  29. It took 53 years to make the Atlas Shrugged movie and less than 2 weeks for the Free Market to kill it? http://t.co/wOCLLvM

  30. I’m impressed by the details that you’ve on this web site. It reveals how nicely you perceive this subject. Bookmarked this website page, will come back for extra articles.http://www.itunes.com/download

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.