jordanz

Atlas Shrugged Movie trailer

54 posts in this topic

"My only goal IS to make money."

I agree.

I am very impressed. I thought it would be extremely hard not just to take Atlas Shrugged into today's world, but to do so with the original industries of the book (Taggart trains, Rearden Steel, etc.) as opposed to the modern version (Taggart Air, Rearden Semiconductors, etc.). Ayn Rand would have pulled it off but not many other writers would have been capable of updating AS.

I love the look, the confidence of the actors. It works. I can't wait. Let's hope this will not be a Wall Street II - enormous hype followed by enormous disappointment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see Francisco anywhere. Did they drop him from the story, I wonder? You have to cut somewhere - maybe it makes sense to focus on the three main characters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see Francisco anywhere. Did they drop him from the story, I wonder? You have to cut somewhere - maybe it makes sense to focus on the three main characters.

Francisco is played by this guy, Jsu Garcia. I didn't see him in the trailer, either.

41607_22763567193_4072_n.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francisco is played by this guy, Jsu Garcia. I didn't see him in the trailer, either.

41607_22763567193_4072_n.jpg

He does appear in the trailer at 1:25 saying "It's a battle." Rearden says "I don't fight the disarmed," and Francisco says "Oh, they have a weapon against you."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He does appear in the trailer at 1:25 saying "It's a battle." Rearden says "I don't fight the disarmed," and Francisco says "Oh, they have a weapon against you."

Ah great! He looks the part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He does appear in the trailer at 1:25 saying "It's a battle." Rearden says "I don't fight the disarmed," and Francisco says "Oh, they have a weapon against you."

Ah great! He looks the part.

He also appears briefly at 2:08 and 2:10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They showed The trailer on Sean Hannity's show on Fox News Channel tonight at about 56 minutes into the show. The reason why is that a liberal on Hannity's Great American Panel -- Bob Beckel -- has a brother who is an actor and plays Ellis Wyatt in the movie and appears in the trailer. They didn't mention anything about the content of the film or the book though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking forward to seeing the film after watching the trailer (though I will "proceed with caution", not counting on it being a great adaptation of the novel). I'm especially curious to hear what the "Concerto of Deliverance" will be like, and about who the composer is. It won't be the first time a composer has worked on a concerto specifically for a film; there was Richard Addinsell, who composed the "Warsaw Concerto" for the 1941 film, Dangerous Moonlight, and that wasn't too bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some more footage! And, behind the scenes footage. Very interesting how the actors seem to really understand who they are playing:

http://reason.com/blog/2011/02/17/behind-s...-atlas-shrugged

Thank-you for that . . . Mr. Marsden seems to have a quite impressive grasp on his character (James T.).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My only concern is that Dagny doesn't seem "strong" enough. But maybe my opinion will change after seeing the movie. Looks much better than I expected though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My only concern is that Dagny doesn't seem "strong" enough. But maybe my opinion will change after seeing the movie. Looks much better than I expected though.

The actress didn't sound believable as a strong character who uses her mind or that she understood that that is what she is portraying, as opposed to heroic-sounding lines put it into the mouth of the glamorous. Maybe she is better in the full context of the film..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some more footage! And, behind the scenes footage. Very interesting how the actors seem to really understand who they are playing:

http://reason.com/blog/2011/02/17/behind-s...-atlas-shrugged

Hope that they understand it better than the screenwriter as he expressed it in the video "Adapting the Epic: The Making of Atlas Shrugged the Movie":

To me, this was the underdog story... The whole theme of the story really is human evil. And human evil spawns from good intentions. I mean, the government isn't malicious. They think what they are doing is right. They don't realize there are consequences. That's human evil. And that to me was what the government in this book was doing. That's the theme that I'm going to take through the whole story, all three parts.

Ayn Rand thought that she was portraying the good, not a "theme of human evil". What she envisioned as the ideal man was her primary purpose in writing the novel, in a theme of the role of man's mind in human existence, illustrated within a plot about what happens when the mind is withdrawn from the evil of those who deny it while trying to control the minds of others.

She was not writing about a "good intentioned" government that "isn't malicious" and only doesn't "realize there are consequences", as the nature of "human evil", which was an astonishing thing for him to say. She illustrated over and over just how malicious the government and those driving it were and how they would destroy the whole world including themselves before they would give up their power. Lillian Rearden, James Taggert in both his politics and his destruction of his own idealistic wife Cheryl, Floyd Ferris, Cuffy Meigs, and all the rest of them are anything but "good intentioned" and not "malicious" who simply didn't realize "there are consequences".

How could Ayn Rand, who believed that evil is impotent, think she was writing the "underdog story"? You have to wonder how he intends to carry out his alternate version of the theme in the depiction of the Valley in Part II, and the actions of the heroes -- including Galt's speech -- in defiance of the goons who "have eyes but refuse to see" or to stop their wholesale destruction throughout Part III of the novel. O'Tool's theme is a major blunder which can only wreck the movie and undermine the book to the extent that he successfully expresses it despite actors and directors who might understand better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hope that they understand it better than the screenwriter as he expressed it in the video "Adapting the Epic: The Making of Atlas Shrugged the Movie":
To me, this was the underdog story... The whole theme of the story really is human evil. And human evil spawns from good intentions. I mean, the government isn't malicious. They think what they are doing is right. They don't realize there are consequences. That's human evil. And that to me was what the government in this book was doing. That's the theme that I'm going to take through the whole story, all three parts.

Ayn Rand thought that she was portraying the good, not a "theme of human evil". What she envisioned as the ideal man was her primary purpose in writing the novel, in a theme of the role of man's mind in human existence, illustrated within a plot about what happens when the mind is withdrawn from the evil of those who deny it while trying to control the minds of others.

She was not writing about a "good intentioned" government that "isn't malicious" and only doesn't "realize there are consequences", as the nature of "human evil", which was an astonishing thing for him to say. She illustrated over and over just how malicious the government and those driving it were and how they would destroy the whole world including themselves before they would give up their power. Lillian Rearden, James Taggert in both his politics and his destruction of his own idealistic wife Cheryl, Floyd Ferris, Cuffy Meigs, and all the rest of them are anything but "good intentioned" and not "malicious" who simply didn't realize "there are consequences".

How could Ayn Rand, who believed that evil is impotent, think she was writing the "underdog story"? You have to wonder how he intends to carry out his alternate version of the theme in the depiction of the Valley in Part II, and the actions of the heroes -- including Galt's speech -- in defiance of the goons who "have eyes but refuse to see" or to stop their wholesale destruction throughout Part III of the novel. O'Tool's theme is a major blunder which can only wreck the movie and undermine the book to the extent that he successfully expresses it despite actors and directors who might understand better.

Well said. That certainly is colossally stupid. How do you reconcile "good intentions" with the internal monologues of characters such as James Taggart and Lillian Rearden? Rand does not leave their motives open to interpretation. If he read the book, he's intentionally evading Rand's intent and substituting his own subjectivist interpretation. I'm assuming he did at least read the book. So Floyd Ferris, James Taggart, the management mediocrities left to run the railroad that sent a coal-burning train into the tunnel, had "good intentions"??? According to whom? By what standard?

The truth is, although I hoped for better, I didn't expect it. The movie will come out, people will see it and those who are motivated to read the book and have the capacity to think and are honest will dismiss the movie and embrace the book. If it attracts more people to apply Objectivism in their own lives, my life will improve. Those who will use it to trash Rand and/or Objectivism will have weak tea to work with, a straw man that, as it mis-reports Rand's philosophy, undermines its critics as well. Not so bad. But I wish they could have found a writer who understood Objectivism. It would have made a better, more useful, more heroic, more exciting, more uplifting movie. C'est la vie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The truth is, although I hoped for better, I didn't expect it.

And periodically I will remind people that this abomination did not have to be made - it was the result of the voluntary, unconditional sale of the rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anybody noticed the movie release date: April 15?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites