Ayn Rand

Atlas Shrugged Part III Seeks Fan Financial Support Via Kickstarter


John Aglialoro, producer and main financier of the first two parts of the film version of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shugged, has launched a Kickstarter to get $250,000 worth of fan help for the third.

The movie's web site.

My reports from the set of Atlas Shugged Part One and Part Two.

Note to Rand-ignorant irony seekers: there is nothing un-Objectivist or un-libertarian about either spending money to produce a work of art that doesn't make a profit in the market (see The Fountainhead, for goodness sake) nor in asking others to freely contribute to helping you realize your artistic dream.

NEXT: Family, Including Three Children, Found Dead in Texas

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. So is Part III going to be a quarter of Galt’s speech or will they be bold and go Titanic-length with half of the speech?

    Note to Rand-ignorant irony seekers: there is nothing un-Objectivist or un-libertarian about either spending money to produce a work of art that doesn’t make a profit in the market (see The Fountainhead, for goodness sake) nor in asking others to freely contribute to helping you realize your artistic dream.

    That won’t stop the Huffington Post, Slate, and Salon readers from making the same jokes over and over again when they hear about this.

    1. I once knew someone who found it screamingly funny that Libertarians would volunarily organize or even volunteer to bring food to a meeting. Some people need a stepladder to address such issues, so that the point won’t go quite so far over their heads.

  2. Good deal – they are using a law pushed by Obama in 2012 to crowdsource.

    The Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act or JOBS Act, is a law intended to encourage funding of United States small businesses by easing various securities regulations. It passed with bipartisan support, and was signed into law by President Barack Obama on April 5, 2012. The term “The JOBS Act” is also sometimes used informally to refer to just Titles II and III of the legislation (an example is here), which are the two pending pieces of most importance to much of the crowdfunding and startup community.


    1. I think I found your problem: easing various securities regulations.


      1. Hey, cutting securities regulations is a good thing. Where did you wander in from?

        1. Then why did half the senate Democrats vote against it?

    2. Oh, you mean this JOBS Act?

      Another section of the law, however, will not be as freeing to young businesses as some of them had hoped ? and investor advocates had feared ? under the initial version of the bill. The section on crowdsourcing ? an increasingly popular yet, until now, unregulated way for entrepreneurs to raise capital in the United States ? puts many caveats on entrepreneurs that want to trade equity for financing. The Senate added new rules, including new documentation that the intermediaries, or brokers, of these deals and the start-ups looking for capital will have to provide.


      Because that JOBS Act eased securities rules on startups seeking traditional sources of capital, but imposed new rules on crowdfunding.

      1. Yes, it got compromised in Congress. On the net though a very good bill. It even reduced Sarbox compliance headaches.

      2. So, they aren’t really “using a law pushed by Obama in 2012 to crowdsource”.

        They could crowdsource before Obama put his chop on the JOBS Act.

        What they are doing is crowdsourcing in spite of a law pushed by Obama in 2012, which made it more difficult.

        1. What they are doing is crowdsourcing in spite of a law pushed by Obama in 2012, which made it more difficult.

          You know, RC, if you keep pointing out obvious facts like that you’re going to make Shrieking Idiot’s Obama boner go all flacid before he can finish.

  3. Sorry. Perhaps if the first two didn’t suck…

    1. The first one was lame, but IMO, the 2nd one was pretty damn good.

  4. The first one’s only redeeming quality was Taylor Schilling. She’s mighty nice on the eyes. Samantha Mathis is OK, but not like Schilling. They better pick a honey to play Dagny in the third one or I’m just going to have to pass. Unless it’s on Netfix and I’m really fucking bored.

    1. They have to get away with the anachronism. Too late I know. But seriously, rewrite to get the point across of go period…ONE OR THE FUCKING OTHER!

      1. Worst sentence I have typed in a while. I have let myself down and request myself to be my own pallbearer. Just like…

    2. have you checked out Orange is the New Black yet?

      1. Nope. I might check it out when I’m done with Weeds.

        1. You know, after U-Turn got killed I just didn’t care about the show any more.

          1. I’m starting the third season, and I do see what you mean.

      2. I didn’t get any of the drooling over Taylor Schilling, but there are some shots in Orange is the New Black where she looks absolutely gorgeous. I don’t find her very sexy or anything, but with the right light hitting those eyes, she’s stunning.

    3. Pump Up the Volume Samantha Mathis is a very different story than current Samantha Mathis. If they wanted a very attractive older chick, Gretchen Mol or Lena Headey are better choices.

      1. And I apparently do not know how to close an italics tag.

        1. I demand a preview button!

      2. Haha, I bet you liked Rounders.

  5. How many trilogies have there been where Part III has been the best?

    1. Army of Darkness!

    2. Indiana Jones & The Last Crusade was the best of that trilogy.

      1. You…you think that Last Crusade is better than Raiders? Have you had a lobotomy, or are you just thinking about it?

        1. Might be that thom is a young pup who saw the third one first, unlike old farts like myself who saw the first one in the theater back when a VCR was something you rented.

          1. I watched them all in adulthood. For some reason I never saw them when I was a kid, even though all the other kids had. Objectively, the third one is the best.

            1. Although, looking the dates of these movies up, I was really really young for the first couple, so maybe there’s something to that.

              1. It’s different when you’re a kid in a theater eating candy until you get sick.

            2. Raiders of the Lost Ark had a better storyline; I’m not fond of the “Hero and his daddy issues” subplot in Last Crusade that Spielberg has worked into far too many of his movies.

              But Last Crusade had the yummy Alison Doody, so it’s kind of a wash. “That’s how Austrians say goodbye.”

        2. It’s been a while since I’ve seen Raiders, but Last Crusade had Sean fuckin’ Connery in it.

          1. I highly suggest you go back and watch Raiders again. It, like so many early Spielberg movies, is nearly a perfect movie (Jaws is, in fact, a perfect movie). Last Crusade is damned good, but Raiders is amazing.

            (I still remember going into the cafeteria at school and hearing my friend who had seen Raiders the night before freaking out about how awesome it was. Raiders at around 10 years old was like possibly the coolest thing since Star Wars.)

        3. He’s right Last Crusade is better than Raiders.

        4. Thom is right, Epi. The Last Crusade is TEH BEST!

          Return of the King was the best… though the multiple fakeout endings were a bit much.

          National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation was by far the best one.

          1. oh wait… the vacation movies were not a trilogy.


          2. Return of the King was the best… though the multiple fakeout endings were a bit much.

            Randal Graves from Clerks 2 on the RotK endings:

            “If Peter Jackson really wanted to blow me away with those “Rings” movies, he would have ended the third one on the logical closure point, not the 25 endings that followed…

            When Frodo wakes from his coma or whatever and Sam leans around the corner and gives him that very gay look…

            That look was so gay. I thought Sam was gonna tell the little hobbits to take a walk so he could saunter over to Frodo and suck his fucking cock. Now *that* would have been an Academy Award worthy ending…

            And then, right after the Sam/Frodo suckfest, right before the credits roll, Sam fucking flat out bricks in Frodo’s mouth.”

    3. The Matrix trilogy is the only one I can think of off the top of my head.

      1. Now this is lobotomy material.

    4. Sergio Leone’s Man with No Name Trilogy.

      1. Return of the King wasn’t as good as The Two Towers.

      2. No, sorry, but the last 20 minutes of RotK pretty much serves to give all the pleasure you got from the movie(s) plenty of time to drain out of you.

    5. Star Trek, obviously. I always wondered why they ended the series after three movies.

    6. Also, the Star Wars prequel trilogy. I mean, hypothetically, if such a thing had been made.

      1. Also, the Star Wars prequel trilogy

        Isn’t that like choosing the best option between having a chainsaw, a cobra, or a pound of molten lead shoved up your ass?

    7. Obviously, the original Star Wars trilogy.

      1. Uhh Empire dude.

  6. I love AS. I really do. But after watching part I, I don’t even have plans to watch part II, let alone kick in anything toward part III.

    If Bryan Fargo decides to put together an AS-based RPG, though, I’ll hand over my retirement fund.

  7. I will donate, provided part three is directed by Trey Parker and Matt Stone and done entirely with puppets.

    1. It’s the sex scene we don’t want, but it’s the sex scene an Ayn Rand book deserves.

  8. Ayn Rand is maybe the worst *possible* introduction to libertarian-ish philosophy. I’d much rather people start with Roderick Long (for the moral POV) or FA Hayek (for the economic one) than Rand, who immediately turns off anyone that doesn’t already buy into the moral greatness of capitalists.

    If I didn’t know better, I’d say Rand was a plant specifically designed to make libertarians look bad. (I know better because when she was writing, libertarianism wasn’t a thing.) Libertarians have had to apologize for this embarrassment for decades: enough already!

    1. The best intro to libertarianism i have seen yet is John Locke.

      1. Heinlein. Worked for me.

        … Hobbit

  9. Yeah, she is not the one we want championing our cause. Although she had some good ideas, she was a dreadful novelist. Heinlein’s The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is the best novel we have.

    Maybe what we need is ongoing prizes for literary works which promote libertarianism.

    1. Yeah, she had some good ideas, mixed in with the glorification of greed and outright dismissal of anything even remotely resembling altruism. Individualism is great, but part of reason I am libertarian is *because* I care about the well-being of others in general, though those feelings are of course tempered by the set of actions I am willing to take to help them.

      I get the feeling Ayn Rand would have been happy to live on an island with a bunch of yes-men pretending to be her friends, telling her just what she wanted to hear… which is roughly how it went down, IIRC.

  10. Atlas Shrugged is simply unadaptable, except perhaps as a cable television miniseries. I could also imagine a situation in which a unrelated media franchise explored similar themes regarding individualism and the evils of crony capitalism, but in a way that flew under the radar, similar to Iron Man 2.

    1. Or it could be book-raped into a movie. Discard everything and rebuild it as a science fiction film set in the future, with no direct ties to current events, so that people can agree with some of what’s being said without realizing what they’re agreeing to.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.