Atlas' Torch is still alive for a Movie


Selene

Recommended Posts

http://features.csmonitor.com/books/2009/07/22/will-ayn-rand-finally-make-it-to-the-small-screen/

Don’t hold your breath. A movie version of Ayn Rand’s 1957 classic “Atlas Shrugged” is under discussion – but it’s a project that producers have been dreaming about for 37 years now, without anyone being able to bring it to fruition.

Today, however, according to the Hollywood Reporter, the project might be finding new life. Oscar winner Charlize Theron is reported to have been meeting with Lionsgate and producers Howard and Karen Baldwin to discuss the possibility that she would play main character Dagny Taggart. Theron’s involvement, however, remains “uncertain.”

The new twist to the project this time around is the idea that it could be released as a TV mini-series – a vehicle perhaps better adapted to conveying the ideas in the massive 1,000-page novel than a standard-length Hollywood feature film.

The Hollywood Reporter goes on to detail the various efforts to film “Atlas Shrugged” that have been discussed on and off since 1972. Perhaps, though, as the Reporter suggests, “The book, which has sold tens of millions of copies since being published in 1957, has gained new traction in this era of Wall Street bailouts and corporate responsibility.”

It could be that the time for “Atlas” is now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be the perfect time.

Ginny

I will give 8 to 5 odds that we will be having the same discussion five years hence.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ginny:

Yes indeed.

I have been talking about this country's citizens reaching a tipping point - we can thank this marxist mentality in our White House for tipping

the scales our way.

Now is the time, everyone needs to push within there centers or spheres of influence now.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be the perfect time.

Ginny

I will give 8 to 5 odds that we will be having the same discussion five years hence.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I am a total optimist, but I bet in the real world, I am afraid you would clean up.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm afraid I agree with Ba'al that while it's the perfect time, the odds are long. However, the recent "Go Galt" movement did increase interest in the book. What else can we do? Any ideas? A crazy idea top of my head might be to turn another one of Rand's books into a movie. Like, would a remake of We The Living go over? The poverty, the state intrusion, etc. It's a good story. I think it could work. It would generate interest in Rand and her other books, like Atlas. (Not The Fountainhead. Bad time to be bombing buildings.)

Crazy? Anyone have anything better?

Ginny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm afraid I agree with Ba'al that while it's the perfect time, the odds are long. However, the recent "Go Galt" movement did increase interest in the book. What else can we do? Any ideas? A crazy idea top of my head might be to turn another one of Rand's books into a movie. Like, would a remake of We The Living go over? The poverty, the state intrusion, etc. It's a good story. I think it could work. It would generate interest in Rand and her other books, like Atlas. (Not The Fountainhead. Bad time to be bombing buildings.)

Crazy? Anyone have anything better?

Ginny

Already done by the Italian Fascists.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> A crazy idea top of my head might be to turn another one of Rand's books into a movieA crazy idea top of my head might be to turn another one of Rand's books into a movie [ginny]

YES!!! That is what they should have done first. Not take the most difficult, long, controversial of her books. [see below.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subject: Trying to Get an Ambitious, Controversial Movie Made -- Without Common Sense

> it could be released as a TV mini-series – a vehicle perhaps better adapted to conveying the ideas in the massive 1,000-page novel than a standard-length Hollywood feature film. [Christian Science Monitor]

Well, obviously!!

The more times I read the most recent fingernails on the edge of a cliff, perils of Pauline episode about the latest failed or flawed attempts to make the movie, the more irritated I get. It didn't have to play out this way. After the first couple failures over the decades, you would think the enthusiasts would step back and look at the nature of the obstacles. To a corporation and maybe to an actor: It's an enormously controversial book and an ambitious undertaking. Ideological or complex books often don't succeed as films. It would be expensive. The "Fountainhead" with Gary Cooper was not one of Hollywood's most super successful movies, although a hard core of enthusiasts like it.

Solution:

Instead of swinging for the fences with a home run movie (rather than TV for example), try to achieve an intermediate step that is successful which shows the market exists: a remake of the Fountainhead should have been done sometime in the last thirty years, one with a more convincing actor to play Roark. [Whoops, no, Ginny just made good point about doing it now: "Not The Fountainhead. Bad time to be bombing buildings." I wouldn't make it in the shadow of the world trade center: the subtlety, the difference, the evacuating of the building, the property rights would go over most viewers' head in a movie. It would become one of the most despised movies in American history.]

Or make Atlas overseas then remake it here after it is successful overseas.

Or - as above - do it for TV which is less expensive and doesn't require major superstars to draw the teenagers to the big screen and allows enough time to build the story and can attract the adult audience which is not drawn much to go out to movie theaters these days.

Unfortunately, it's now too late to go the one-step-at-a-time approach, since the rights to Atlas expire next year.

Most of these points are all simple common sense.

And might have avoided decades of failure.

PS, then there is the story from the 80's, I was in Peikoff's apartment when he told us that Clint Eastwood had approached him and wanted to make the movie. Guess what? Peikoff was never willing to "pull the trigger". D'Ya Feel Lucky Professor? Go Ahead, Make My Movie. Jesus H. Christ.

PPS, If there was ever a time, its now when the novel's sales are going thru the roof. If they can't get their Sh** together NOW - when it's finally pretty clear there would be a huge market. . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See now to me it is the perfect time to remake the Fountainhead and fly right into the teeth of shock by demolishing, which is quite different than 'BLOWING UP THE BUILDING!", a new building under construction, with no injuries, which was going to house a new state run GM corporation building.

It would clearly show the difference in values and actions.

Lest we forget, the only one who was injured was Dominique and the injury was self inflicted.

I never had a problem with demolishing Cortland with no injuries.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://features.csmonitor.com/books/2009/07/22/will-ayn-rand-finally-make-it-to-the-small-screen/

Don’t hold your breath. A movie version of Ayn Rand’s 1957 classic “Atlas Shrugged” is under discussion – but it’s a project that producers have been dreaming about for 37 years now, without anyone being able to bring it to fruition.

Today, however, according to the Hollywood Reporter, the project might be finding new life. Oscar winner Charlize Theron is reported to have been meeting with Lionsgate and producers Howard and Karen Baldwin to discuss the possibility that she would play main character Dagny Taggart. Theron’s involvement, however, remains “uncertain.”

The new twist to the project this time around is the idea that it could be released as a TV mini-series – a vehicle perhaps better adapted to conveying the ideas in the massive 1,000-page novel than a standard-length Hollywood feature film.

The Hollywood Reporter goes on to detail the various efforts to film “Atlas Shrugged” that have been discussed on and off since 1972. Perhaps, though, as the Reporter suggests, “The book, which has sold tens of millions of copies since being published in 1957, has gained new traction in this era of Wall Street bailouts and corporate responsibility.”

It could be that the time for “Atlas” is now.

(Sorry about my "non-post" above, I hit it in error and can't delete it)

Selene,

The Hollywood Post is in error. They have mis-interpreted a message from 2057 that was caught in a warp in the space/time continuum. I also received this message and have translated it from its native Martian dialect with my trusty TRS-80.

The dateline is October 10, 2057. Utopia Planitia Studios, Mars. (Following is a partial translation as my TRS-80 overheted and needs a rest):

UTOPIA PLANITIA STUDIOS is proud to announce, at long last, the completion of the ATLAS SHRUGGED movie on the 100th anniversary of the novel's publication. Long in the works (having gone through 153 attempts, all sadly aborted), ATLAS SHRUGGED will finally be available for immediate download to your Apple VIRTUAL REALITY MACHINE for use on your view-screen, or through use of the headsets. You will actually be able to be John Galt! Or Hank Reardan! Or Dagny Taggart!! OR, you can cast your favorite current stars or those from Hollywood's glorious nostalgic past into any of the roles! When we ran the beta version at the Terra Planitia University, students and faculty in the Department of Intellectual History had fun casting many of the villains and heroes of the Objectivist Movements of the last 100 years into the roles of major and minor characters of the novel! Be creative - try it yourself!!(Of course, dialog is copyrighted and cannot be changed from the original script which remains true to the actual novel by Ayn Rand!)

Since the original concept was that of a movie, UTOPIA PLANITIA STUDIOS is proud to announce that the premier of ATLAS SHRUGGED will be actually shown in motion picture format using ULTRA LASERMAX projection onto the thousand foot walls of one of our most famous Martian canyons, at Echus Chasma! Reservations for this once in a lifetime event are being taken now! FINALLY - AFTER 100 YEARS AYN RAND'S MAGNIFICENT VISION HITS THE SCREENS!!

Well, this is VERY exciting! And it only took one hundred years! Now all I have to do is wait another 48 years!

Edited by Jerry Biggers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam, I must disagree. A bombed building, even sans injuries, just wouldn't make it today. These are the days when its illegal to even bring an aspirin into a high school. I think an English remake of WtLiving would be better. But hell, what are the chances of any of it being made?

Ginny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam, I must disagree. A bombed building, even sans injuries, just wouldn't make it today. These are the days when its illegal to even bring an aspirin into a high school. I think an English remake of WtLiving would be better. But hell, what are the chances of any of it being made?

Ginny

What's the old saying ...

slim and none and Slim left the building.

I am sorry to say that is the answer to your plaintive question.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subject: Trying to Get an Ambitious, Controversial Movie Made -- Without Common Sense

> it could be released as a TV mini-series – a vehicle perhaps better adapted to conveying the ideas in the massive 1,000-page novel than a standard-length Hollywood feature film. [Christian Science Monitor]

Well, obviously!!

The more times I read the most recent fingernails on the edge of a cliff, perils of Pauline episode about the latest failed or flawed attempts to make the movie, the more irritated I get. It didn't have to play out this way. After the first couple failures over the decades, you would think the enthusiasts would step back and look at the nature of the obstacles. To a corporation and maybe to an actor: It's an enormously controversial book and an ambitious undertaking. Ideological or complex books often don't succeed as films. It would be expensive. The "Fountainhead" with Gary Cooper was not one of Hollywood's most super successful movies, although a hard core of enthusiasts like it.

Solution:

Instead of swinging for the fences with a home run movie (rather than TV for example), try to achieve an intermediate step that is successful which shows the market exists: a remake of the Fountainhead should have been done sometime in the last thirty years, one with a more convincing actor to play Roark. [Whoops, no, Ginny just made good point about doing it now: "Not The Fountainhead. Bad time to be bombing buildings." I wouldn't make it in the shadow of the world trade center: the subtlety, the difference, the evacuating of the building, the property rights would go over most viewers' head in a movie. It would become one of the most despised movies in American history.]

Or make Atlas overseas then remake it here after it is successful overseas.

Or - as above - do it for TV which is less expensive and doesn't require major superstars to draw the teenagers to the big screen and allows enough time to build the story and can attract the adult audience which is not drawn much to go out to movie theaters these days.

Unfortunately, it's now too late to go the one-step-at-a-time approach, since the rights to Atlas expire next year.

Most of these points are all simple common sense.

And might have avoided decades of failure.

PS, then there is the story from the 80's, I was in Peikoff's apartment when he told us that Clint Eastwood had approached him and wanted to make the movie. Guess what? Peikoff was never willing to "pull the trigger". D'Ya Feel Lucky Professor? Go Ahead, Make My Movie. Jesus H. Christ.

PPS, If there was ever a time, its now when the novel's sales are going thru the roof. If they can't get their Sh** together NOW - when it's finally pretty clear there would be a huge market. . .

Ah, Phil, if life were only as simple as you make it out to be. Clearly, you have little or no idea what the efforts of the " enthusiasts" have been over the years, or how dedicated to the project they have been, or how intelligent is their understanding of the obstacles they face. Your confident suggestions either have been tried or should not be tried. You have no way of knowing that "It didn't have to play out this way." You really should have made many more inquiries into the nature of their efforts before concluding that you have common sense and a knowledge of the world of Hollywood and television, but they don't. You are defaming men and women whom you should be thanking for their dedication, their willingness to spend a great deal of their own money on the project, and their understanding of what needs to be done to bring so controversial a book to the big or little screen.

Barbara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subject: Trying to Get an Ambitious, Controversial Movie Made -- Without Common Sense

> it could be released as a TV mini-series – a vehicle perhaps better adapted to conveying the ideas in the massive 1,000-page novel than a standard-length Hollywood feature film. [Christian Science Monitor]

Well, obviously!!

The more times I read the most recent fingernails on the edge of a cliff, perils of Pauline episode about the latest failed or flawed attempts to make the movie, the more irritated I get. It didn't have to play out this way. After the first couple failures over the decades, you would think the enthusiasts would step back and look at the nature of the obstacles. To a corporation and maybe to an actor: It's an enormously controversial book and an ambitious undertaking. Ideological or complex books often don't succeed as films. It would be expensive. The "Fountainhead" with Gary Cooper was not one of Hollywood's most super successful movies, although a hard core of enthusiasts like it.

Solution:

Instead of swinging for the fences with a home run movie (rather than TV for example), try to achieve an intermediate step that is successful which shows the market exists: a remake of the Fountainhead should have been done sometime in the last thirty years, one with a more convincing actor to play Roark. [Whoops, no, Ginny just made good point about doing it now: "Not The Fountainhead. Bad time to be bombing buildings." I wouldn't make it in the shadow of the world trade center: the subtlety, the difference, the evacuating of the building, the property rights would go over most viewers' head in a movie. It would become one of the most despised movies in American history.]

Or make Atlas overseas then remake it here after it is successful overseas.

Or - as above - do it for TV which is less expensive and doesn't require major superstars to draw the teenagers to the big screen and allows enough time to build the story and can attract the adult audience which is not drawn much to go out to movie theaters these days.

Unfortunately, it's now too late to go the one-step-at-a-time approach, since the rights to Atlas expire next year.

Most of these points are all simple common sense.

And might have avoided decades of failure.

PS, then there is the story from the 80's, I was in Peikoff's apartment when he told us that Clint Eastwood had approached him and wanted to make the movie. Guess what? Peikoff was never willing to "pull the trigger". D'Ya Feel Lucky Professor? Go Ahead, Make My Movie. Jesus H. Christ.

PPS, If there was ever a time, its now when the novel's sales are going thru the roof. If they can't get their Sh** together NOW - when it's finally pretty clear there would be a huge market. . .

Ah, Phil, if life were only as simple as you make it out to be. Clearly, you have little or no idea what the efforts of the " enthusiasts" have been over the years, or how dedicated to the project they have been, or how intelligent is their understanding of the obstacles they face. Your confident suggestions either have been tried or should not be tried. You have no way of knowing that "It didn't have to play out this way." You really should have made many more inquiries into the nature of their efforts before concluding that you have common sense and a knowledge of the world of Hollywood and television, but they don't. You are defaming men and women whom you should be thanking for their dedication, their willingness to spend a great deal of their own money on the project, and their understanding of what needs to be done to bring so controversial a book to the big or little screen.

Barbara

I think it should be noted how the little screen is getting bigger and bigger--and the sound's getting better too.

I think that with The Fountainhead as a movie today you might have Roark put in a critical design flaw that if not corrected during or after construction by him would make the buildings worthless. It might work, but I'd much prefer the older movie for all its quirks. The movie I intend to see again soon, if available, is Love Letters. As a screenwriter Rand revealed she was a master.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks:

I have not heard much discussion of the Night of January 16th. Am I the only one who saw it in my beloved city?

Adam

Post script:

<h2 class="date-header">Tuesday, April 28, 2009</h2> <h3 class="post-title entry-title"> <a href="http://exaltedmoments.blogspot.com/2009/04/night-of-january-16th.html">The Night of January 16th </h3> Ayn Rand on The Night of January 16th:

This means that its events are not to be taken literally; they dramatize certain fundamental psychological characteristics, deliberately isolated and emphasized in order to convey a single abstraction: the characters' attitude toward life. The events serve to feature the motives of the characters' actions, regardless of the particular forms of the actions—i.e., the motives, not their specific concretization. The events feature the confrontation of two extremes, two opposite ways of facing existence' passionate self-assertiveness, self-confidence, ambition, audacity, independence—versus conventionality, servility, envy, hatred, power-lust.

I do not think, nor did I think when I wrote this play, that a swindler is a heroic character or that a respectable banker is a villain. But for the purpose of dramatizing the conflict of independence versus conformity, a criminal—a social outcast—can be an eloquent symbol. This, incidentally, is the reason of the profound appeal of the "noble crook" in fiction. He is the symbol of the rebel as such, regardless of the kind of society he rebels against, the symbol—for most people—of their vague, undefined, unrealized groping toward a concept, or a shadowy image, of man's self-esteem.

That a career of crime is not, in fact, the way to implement one's self-esteem, is irrelevant in sense-of-life terms. A sense of life is concerned mainly with consciousness, not with existence—or rather: with the way a man's consciousness faces existence. It is concerned with a basic frame of mind, not with rules of conduct.

If this play's sense of life were to be verbalized, it would say, in effect: 'Your life, your achievement, your happiness, your person are of paramount importance. Live up to your highest vision of yourself no matter what circumstances you might encounter. An
exalted
view of self-esteem is a man's most admirable quality: How one is to live up to this vision—how this frame of mind is to be implemented in action and in reality—is a question that a sense of life cannot answer: that is the task of philosophy.

The Journals of Ayn Rand, David Harriman (editor), p.22

Edited by Selene
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ginny:

I can't remember the year, but my wife was picked for the jury and she was floating on air as she went off stage.

How long did in run in NY?

Great idea with the double endings, I really bit on that "gimmick" for the plot conclusion.

Any other play writers use that technique?

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 1973 Phillip Smith production was commercially unsuccessful and closed quickly. Barbara Branden's biography gives details.

The French Lieutenant's Woman by Fowles was a novel that gave readers a choice of endings. I once went to a showing of Love, a 1927 silent adaptation of Anna Karenina, at which we saw both the original ending, true to the book, and the happy ending that most viewers saw.

Edited by Reidy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good for your wife! How did she feel about the play? It ran at a small theater on 23rd Street, one block from my house, for just a couple of weeks.

Ginny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good for your wife! How did she feel about the play? It ran at a small theater on 23rd Street, one block from my house, for just a couple of weeks.

Ginny

LOL

Sorry Ginny - I will never have a significant relationship with a woman who has not read Rand. So she was already enlisted in the movement. She was my

student and I had her ex-husband as a student the semester before and he had told her to take my class. They had divorced during the summer.

She loved it and actually I have to pick that up and read it again - I only read it once.

Adam

Post script:

And thank you for the info Reidy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that We the Living would be a great re-introduction to Ayn's forethought. I really need to pick that book up. I'd almost wager that Terry Goodkind's book, Faith of the Fallen had some inspiration from it.

Put a modern face on the movie keeping all the book's authenticity. That would be a good wakeup call.

Based on how it's received, other Hollywood producers might fight to put their money on the table to get Altas made.

Anyone know Peter Jackson's political affiliation? :)

~ Shane

Edited by sbeaulieu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://features.csmonitor.com/books/2009/07/22/will-ayn-rand-finally-make-it-to-the-small-screen/

Don’t hold your breath. A movie version of Ayn Rand’s 1957 classic “Atlas Shrugged” is under discussion – but it’s a project that producers have been dreaming about for 37 years now, without anyone being able to bring it to fruition.

Today, however, according to the Hollywood Reporter, the project might be finding new life. Oscar winner Charlize Theron is reported to have been meeting with Lionsgate and producers Howard and Karen Baldwin to discuss the possibility that she would play main character Dagny Taggart. Theron’s involvement, however, remains “uncertain.”

The new twist to the project this time around is the idea that it could be released as a TV mini-series – a vehicle perhaps better adapted to conveying the ideas in the massive 1,000-page novel than a standard-length Hollywood feature film.

The Hollywood Reporter goes on to detail the various efforts to film “Atlas Shrugged” that have been discussed on and off since 1972. Perhaps, though, as the Reporter suggests, “The book, which has sold tens of millions of copies since being published in 1957, has gained new traction in this era of Wall Street bailouts and corporate responsibility.”

It could be that the time for “Atlas” is now.

Et al,

I hope that Charlize Theron, who is physically well endowed for the Dagny Taggart role, is willing to take on this venture. Does anyone know if she has ever read the book and whether she has any understanding of Objectivism?

Of course, knowing me as you all do, you can appreciate that I would naturally think that perhaps the efforts of Ron Paul supporters might be brought to bear, if there is a way for them to do so, to help make this miniseries happen. After all their hero, Ron Paul, has recommended Atlas Shrugged in his best seller, The Revolution: A Manifesto. Question is what to advise the 186,907 of them to do? They have been quite successful in persuading their Congressmen and Senators to cosponsor HR1207 and S604.

Does Lionsgate have to start all over again with a new screenwriter? The last one was going to make it a two hour movie. Does anyone here know enough about such things as miniseries to hazard an opinion as to the feasibility of an Atlas Shrugged miniseries? As we all know the book is divided into three major book sections each of which has ten chapters. Thus thirty chapters to squeeze into say twelve segments. Would they break into pleasing episodes? Would the storyline be maintained as well as the suspense and tension? Or twelve one hundred page episodes. One would include Galt's Speech entirely!

My wife and I drove up to see the Night of January 16th when it played in downtown Manhattan. We enjoyed it. Afterwards we had an opportunity to speak with and question a couple of people who were on the jury. They made their decision based on the evidence as I recall, saying there was not enough evidence to prove guilt. Rand had suggested that the decision and verdict would be the result of the sense of life of the jurists!

Anyway today was a good day for me as I "beat" a speeding ticket despite the fact that I confessed that I had no idea how fast I was going when I was clocked by the State Police on an interstate. 85 in a 65 plus I had left my drivers license in my wife's car. I had the audacity to ask if I could just be fined for the failure to have the license and could be given a warning on the moving violation so I could avoid the surcharge on my insurance which would harm my wife rather than me. Did the trick.

I hope we can look forward to an Atlas Shrugged miniseries after all and hope it really happens this time. Its almost tempting to say that they should go ahead with it quickly before the stimulus money finds its way out of bank vaults into circulation and drives all the prices skywards.

gulch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 1973 Phillip Smith production was commercially unsuccessful and closed quickly. Barbara Branden's biography gives details.

The French Lieutenant's Woman by Fowles was a novel that gave readers a choice of endings. I once went to a showing of Romance, a 1927 silent adaptation of Anna Karenina, at which we saw both the original ending, true to the book, and the happy ending that most viewers saw.

It didn't close so quickly you didn't have time to see it if you were in the metro area. I saw it early so the audience was decently sized. You don't want to see a play with only a few people sitting around looking at it. Smith was my acting teacher '69-'71.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subject: On being a frequent critic [this is a post that I have had to make before - on other issues and in other venues]

> men and women whom you should be thanking for their dedication, their willingness to spend a great deal of their own money on the project, and their understanding of what needs to be done to bring so controversial a book to the big or little screen. [barbara]

The first two parts are very good points. My view of those who have tried to advance Objectivism in general (or in this case make the movie) is that I respect and benefit from their dedication. And I don't question their good will. I don't need to repeat that every time I make a criticism.

But I still reserve the right to speak out, to *strongly criticize* when I think (or even have a strong sense) mistakes are made - or the reasoning for certain approaches seem baffling to me. I don't accept the idea that Leonard Peikoff or David Kelley or the movie attempt makers *necessarily know more than I do because they are insiders*.

Until and unless I see the reasons in black and white. And, in this, I've never seen a reason why the attempt to make one of the other novels into a movie or to go overseas or to try another medium than big screen movies (a tv series is not the only one) are unreasonable if one is blocked for a time with one's first choice [i do know that the miniseries route was tried for a time.]

Maybe I could have worded it more diplomatically than 'lack of common sense'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now