Who is John Galt? Who cares?

[Bakustra]

The entire story of the making of this movie is gold. For one thing, the movie was shot in a total of 50 days, comparable to the much smaller-scale Moon and started three days before the rights expired, with a director that had been on the project for 9 days total. Apparently, if part one succeeds, then part three will contain the unabridged Galt radio address, so look forward to three hours of a guy talking, perhaps played over apocalyptic imagery. My Fantasia-esque suggestion to improve the potential experience is to have the ushers vigorously kick the audience in the crotch, one by one, in order to get them in the right frame of mind for the experience.

[Pelranius]

Does that include marketing costs?

[Patrick Degan]

Apparently, if part one succeeds, then part three will contain the unabridged Galt radio address, so look forward to three hours of a guy talking, perhaps played over apocalyptic imagery. My Fantasia-esque suggestion to improve the potential experience is to have the ushers vigorously kick the audience in the crotch, one by one, in order to get them in the right frame of mind for the experience.

They'd probably have to do that repeatedly during the showing just to keep the audience members from falling asleep.

I imagine that will be the third movie of the trilogy: John Galt, boring the audience to death for three hours as he does his monologue.

Movie audiences are quite safe. I doubt if part two will ever get made, much less the part three Galt-a-thon.

[Pelranius]

Is Part I doing a limited release? That's what Gawker says (of course, it's a gossip website but still).

I thought there would be enough wealthy Randroids out there who could have ponied up some more cash to improve the production values (after all, if they truly believe the Word of Rand (tm), then there should be plenty of sheeple to recoup any investment)?

[Sidewinder]

I'm surprised those responsible didn't change "railroad" to "airline," and "new steel" to "new lightweight alloy." That MIGHT make the film more palpable to 21st century viewers.

[Axiomatic]

Or make it superconductors and have floating maglev trains. SOMETHING.

[Sam Or I]

What boggles me is why the hell they7 didn't just cast it in the 50's ?
I mean from watching the previes it LOOKED like it was set then, all the interiors and fancy nearly artdeco sets, why is it movies are obsessed with casting movies in modern times. ESPECIALLY when it makes no sense from the story used?

If I would have done it, it would have been in a "timeless" era in B&W. But then again almost every movie I would do would take place in a "timeless" era. Timeless I am referring to a Sin City, Gataca, Pi, Batman the animated series and Tim Burtons original Batman. Where there is a mix of technologies, so the era is not really defined.

Hopefully it makes it to Atlas Shrugged Part 4: Bioshock.

[Metahive]

Where there is a mix of technologies, so the era is not really defined.

Well, it's certainly not ancient Rome or renaissance Italy and Gattaca is definitely some time off in the future from when the movie was made /snark. Timelessness depends more on what themes a movie touches upon than on the tech level IMHO. Certain themes (love, loss, war etc.) are so universal that people from pretty much any time period can relate to it in some way even when removed by centuries or millenia.

I'm surprised those responsible didn't change "railroad" to "airline," and "new steel" to "new lightweight alloy." That MIGHT make the film more palpable to 21st century viewers.

Agreed. Sticking to the source here only helps dating both the novel and the movie horribly. They really should have stuck to a more 50's-ish setting to minimize this effect. Rand wasn't exactly a great future visionary (utopian or dystopian) and the moviemakers shouldn't have replicated this particular failure of hers.

Besides, has anyone noticed how much the mannikin on the movie poster looks like the Lucasarts logo?



If I were Lucas I'd consider suing the moviemakers over this.

[Simon_Jester]

Where there is a mix of technologies, so the era is not really defined.

Well, it's certainly not ancient Rome or renaissance Italy and Gattaca is definitely some time off in the future from when the movie was made /snark. Timelessness depends more on what themes a movie touches upon than on the tech level IMHO. Certain themes (love, loss, war etc.) are so universal that people from pretty much any time period can relate to it in some way even when removed by centuries or millenia.

That's not the sense he meant it in, as is fairly obvious.

There's "timeless" in the sense that the plot makes sense to people long after the work is made.

Then there's what he was talking about: "timeless" in the sense of "ageless-" not having a defined period that it belongs to, not having a defined age. It's not really that difficult to set a given piece of fiction in Deliberately Indeterminate Time, up to a margin of error of two or three decades either way.

[The Yosemite Bear]

well lucas has shown a tendancy to sue over a drop of the hat, which makes me wonder who would win in a battle between games workshop, the RIAA, and George Lucas....

[Metahive]

Then there's what he was talking about: "timeless" in the sense of "ageless-" not having a defined period that it belongs to, not having a defined age. It's not really that difficult to set a given piece of fiction in Deliberately Indeterminate Time, up to a margin of error of two or three decades either way.

What should have been obvious is that I was disputing this very usage of the adjective "timeless".

[Iroscato]

Besides, has anyone noticed how much the mannikin on the movie poster looks like the Lucasarts logo?



If I were Lucas I'd consider suing the moviemakers over this.

Oh that is PRICELESS. Literally everything about this movie is screaming 'shit'. They didn't even go for the tried and tested approach of slapping the actors onto the poster looking concerned, and into the middle distance. I think the makers have tried to do something different with this film, and failed at every turn.

Anyway, newsflash: Atlas Shrugged has managed to scrape one good review on rotten tomatoes, by the New York Post. Woop. That gives it 5%.

[Phantasee]

How is that priceless? It's a common style, and the movie poster is clearly a man holding up the world, just like the titan, Atlas. LucasArts has a dude holding up a sun or something.

Shit, is that train tracks in the globe? And a fucking dollar sign shadow? I think the poster might be better than the book or the movie.

[Falarica]

The first thing that I thought of when I saw that poster was Obama's campaign logo.

Coincidence?

[Sidewinder]

The first thing that I thought of when I saw that poster was Obama's campaign logo.

Coincidence? :roll:

Considering Obama's policies are the direct opposite of Randroid ideals, I think it's safe to say the art department for Atlas Shrugged was starved of ideas, and grasped at anything "epic looking" their meager budget could cover, regardless of source.

[Elfdart]

What boggles me is why the hell they7 didn't just cast it in the 50's ?
I mean from watching the previes it LOOKED like it was set then, all the interiors and fancy nearly artdeco sets, why is it movies are obsessed with casting movies in modern times. ESPECIALLY when it makes no sense from the story used?

Probably because making a film in a 50s setting can be expensive. Cities won't just redirect traffic for moviemakers, nor will the owners of vintage cars let them be used without serious money changing hands.

[Elfdart]

I've always considered Ayn Rand to be like L. Ron Hubbard, only not as likeable. The only other difference is that Hubbard's disciples are mostly scam artists who prey on wealthy closeted homosexuals while Rand's acolytes have real political ambitions and are behind a great deal of real mischief.

[Sam Or I]

It is the Battlefield Earth of Objectivism.

[Metahive]

How is that priceless? It's a common style, and the movie poster is clearly a man holding up the world, just like the titan, Atlas. LucasArts has a dude holding up a sun or something.

Two yellow and rather puny stick figures holding up large round objects. Even if you don't see any resemblance between the two, picturing the mighty Atlas in such a wimpy way is a failure in on itself considering the message of both the book and the movie.

I've always considered Ayn Rand to be like L. Ron Hubbard, only not as likeable.

Ye gods, L.Ron was a vain, arrogant, self-absorbed, egocentric, dishonest, racist and bigoted piece of bumshit but I think you're right, between him and Ayn Rand he's really the more tolerable one.

[The Yosemite Bear]

you forgot sexist, when his all female crew of his yatch got pregnant he used to either replace theem with younger ones, or force them to have abortions.

[Phantasee]

How is that priceless? It's a common style, and the movie poster is clearly a man holding up the world, just like the titan, Atlas. LucasArts has a dude holding up a sun or something.

Two yellow and rather puny stick figures holding up large round objects. Even if you don't see any resemblance between the two, picturing the mighty Atlas in such a wimpy way is a failure in on itself considering the message of both the book and the movie.

A resemblance doesn't imply theft of the idea. It's a common style, as I already said. It's a shitty style, and it's a fucking plague on good logo design, but it is common. If you really want to abstract things that much then I can't argue with you, anyway. LucasArts has never tried to claim Atlas for their logo, the movie has the name Atlas in it so they can just use the damn thing and fuck LucasArts, and the fucking globe has train tracks, that's as representative of the movie as you can get. I don't even know what the other one is, a dude embracing a sunrise?

[Metahive]

Doesn't matter. All that is important is that the two logos look remarkably similar and that Lucasarts had theirs first, sitck-figure mannikin and all. Lightning bolts are common symbols too and yet if I create a logo that looks like the one of Opel I still run the risk of them coming down on me if I plaster it all over a shitty product for sale. That's all I have to say about this.

[Zor]

It is the Battlefield Earth of Objectivism.

Unless it can match this level of Ham...



it will not even be that.

Zor

[Iroscato]

How is that priceless? It's a common style, and the movie poster is clearly a man holding up the world, just like the titan, Atlas. LucasArts has a dude holding up a sun or something.

Two yellow and rather puny stick figures holding up large round objects. Even if you don't see any resemblance between the two, picturing the mighty Atlas in such a wimpy way is a failure in on itself considering the message of both the book and the movie.

A resemblance doesn't imply theft of the idea. It's a common style, as I already said. It's a shitty style, and it's a fucking plague on good logo design, but it is common. If you really want to abstract things that much then I can't argue with you, anyway. LucasArts has never tried to claim Atlas for their logo, the movie has the name Atlas in it so they can just use the damn thing and fuck LucasArts, and the fucking globe has train tracks, that's as representative of the movie as you can get. I don't even know what the other one is, a dude embracing a sunrise?

They're the exact same colour, both are very similiar shapes (right down to tapered limbs), they are both holding circular objects, both have bowed leges.
It just takes the piss a wee bit, that's all I'm sayin'.

[Phantasee]

If you really want to abstract things that much then I can't argue with you, anyway.