Atlas Shrugged: The Making of a Movie! In NYC, 12/7/2010!


Ed Hudgins

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

... remember that Hollywood is to its source what moonshine is to real liquor.

Kimmler,

Oh, for God's sake.

Moonshine is real liquor. You just showed that you never tasted any.

(I'm from the backwoods, don't forget.)

You Brits are all alike...

Michael

Mikey, the first erm...moonshiners were Brits. Oh the shame!

Backwoods? Like in the film Deliverance?

Edited by Kimmler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mikey, the first erm...moonshiners were Brits. Oh the shame!

Backwoods? Like in the film Deliverance?

Kimmler,

Precisely like in the film Deliverance, except throw in the coal mines. That's where I come from (southern part of Virginia and West Virginia).

Maybe you Brits adulterated your moonshine with antifreeze or whatever, but to the folks I am descended from (the Scot and Irish immigration), that would be worse than heresy.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You never know until it is done, right?

My take on it is a little different, maybe. Like most of us here, I am of course a total film junkie. I don't know if anyone else here has taken it beyond that, but I have. I was very, very involved in independent film around the nineties on a lot of levels, including being a part of making one (which, while not the greatest, did launch the careers of Joe and Anthony Russo). I never forgot that. For about the last ten months, I have been immersed in it because I decided I wanted to make one, which I am, and no, it didn't end up being what I said--something totally different. Outside of the music thing, film is what I study, write, and work on anytime my little eyes are open and I'm not having to attend to the daily living things, which includes not neglecting my wife for my art. Right now, I am hyper-sensitized to the movie business.

I was watching the footage of these guys working on the set, I was reading up on things, the interviews, you know--been waiting for this bitch to come out for years like most of the rest of us.

And remember, they are going way off the standard Hollywood machine. The odds here are daunting. No one really knows, but it seems like that there are about 100,000 screenplays written a year, and maybe 7000 of those get made, and then maybe 200 of those get wide showing.

Anyway, what I'm seeing is that these guys are working very passionately, competently, tightly. That's what I see. And I really don't care if they had an overpriced party. Why the fuck not? This is not outrageous by entertainment industry standards. Ridiculous is kind of an outmoded word in showbiz.

I like the way they are running their shots and sets--looks very good, lots of attention to detail. It's not going to interest me much what the O-worlders have to say when they see it. It's how it will stand on its feet as a movie when shown to anyone, cold. Will it hit all four quadrants? That is the brass ring of the movie business.

rde

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the way they are running their shots and sets--looks very good, lots of attention to detail. It's not going to interest me much what the O-worlders have to say when they see it. It's how it will stand on its feet as a movie when shown to anyone, cold. Will it hit all four quadrants? That is the brass ring of the movie business.

rde

What are the quadrants? Please specify.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are the quadrants? Please specify.

Males older than 25, Females older than 25,

Males younger than 25 and Females younger than 25.

Super primal demographic breakdown, but the general thought/experience in the industry is that is how it rolls.

If I ever looked at any surveys on Atlas, I don't remember them. But I do believe the conventional wisdom is that is seems to be very high impact on the say, jr. high/high school through college ranges, which might theoretically mean that while it is coming off as a very maturely-filmed piece, it could start firing hard in the M/F under 25 market, which is juicy. Of that, I am not sure what the M/F ratio would be. It's all speculation on my part, but I bet they did some studies. Anyone? See, if they do it right and it got decent theatrical screening, maybe it would go hard on all four markets. It's all about the distribution, assuming the movie is decent.

Additionally, vision is blurred by the general instant gratification/adrenalin-pheremone rush/low attention span that is (pretty rightfully) assumed to exist in the lower age range audiences of today, but who really knows? They probably aren't going to be blowing up enough shit or spilling a lot of brass, and there aren't any vampires, so things are a little stacked against in that way, I guess. :)

This all is an interesting area, including the flipside. Consider Mike Judge's film "Idiocracy," for instance. He made a film that had all the bells and whistles, lampooning the total intellect situation, and it did pretty good. But my guess is that the reason it took a fairly hasty exit from the theaters is because it was too close to the bone--the knuckleheads that were attracted to see it might have actually figured out that he was truly making fun of them, and that pissed them off--you gotta be careful with that kind of line--they might have gotten their feelings hurt. :( Just a theory.

rde

Go away--bate'in

Edited by Rich Engle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"As moonshine is to real liquor" is an interesting analogy: as the authentic, undeniable reality is to the effete modifications of dilution, flavoring and aging.

They are both quite useful. It depends what you are up to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you guys kidding?

Nobody is applauding the quality of the movie yet. This project has been in limbo for decades over irrational BS. The applause is for someone actually cutting through all that BS and getting it done on a professional market level.

If the movie is lacking, I have no doubt other versions will follow. But at least the trail will have been opened and a movie version will be part of the movie cultural landscape.

This criticism of applause sounds like bashing those who applaud Daniel Boone by saying he (possibly) did not build skyscrapers when he opened trails in the wilderness on horseback.

Michael

I think that there may be a lot more at stake here, with this movie production:

1) John Aglialoro, the producer of the film, is a Trustee of The Atlas Society and quite likely has contributed substantial time, money, and effort to this organization, for which he should be commended and congratulated.

2) The Atlas Society even changed its name shortly before or around the time of the previous attempt to develop Atlas Shrugged as a movie. At the time of that name change (from The Objectivist Center), it was strongly implied, if not stated outright, that one of the reasons for making that change was to take advantage of the increasing interest in Atlas Shrugged as a novel and cultural phenomenon, and the coinciding development of a movie version. In fact, I would venture to say that the movie production (the Lionsgate version) was the primary reason for the name change. The involvement of IOS/TOC/TAS founder David Kelley in the preparation of the philosophical speeches for the Lionsgate screenplay quite likely played a factor in this decision.

3) By changing the name of their organization and publicly supporting these recent and current production efforts, The Atlas Society clearly was/is planning to take full advantage of the hoped-for success of the movie to attract support to their organization (credits shown at the beginning or end of the film will include mention of the role of TAS and David Kelley). Again, nothing wrong with that. But along with the credit, comes the risk. My point here, is that The Atlas Society has staked its reputation on this production. If it flops, they will be blamed for its failure by the ARIans, and by others who identify as Objectivist or supporters of Rand's ideas (and, unfortunately, not without some justification due to its close relationship to the movie's production). Anger or disappointment at the movie's failure may lead to a consequent withdrawal of member support to an organization that already operates on a shoestring budget.

4) There is no guarantee for the success of any film, no matter what its subject matter or who is starring or involved in its production. As we all know, many purported "blockbusters" turned into bombs of another sort. So, if this film fails disastrously at the box office, despite its promotion and build-up, those responsible for its development will likely pay the price. The adverse publicity of its failure may also have impact on the sales and reputation of the novel, itself (For example the movie's inevitable critics, probably the same that reviled the book and its author, will jubilently announce that the movie is even more wretched than the book). And, by the way, its failure would also likely dissuade financial support for a future remake.

I'm sure that TAS has considered these possibilities and decided that the benefits of backing the film outweigh the risks. Another risk for TAS that they would have had good reason to avoid, would be the disappointment of Mr. Aglialoro if TAS had not supported his production. However, the production of a film version of Atlas Shrugged has long been a dream of its fans and accounts of the many attempts to bring it to the screen has taken on mythic proportions. Let's hope that the current effort, clearly a labor of love, is successful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point here, is that The Atlas Society has staked its reputation on this production.

This evokes Peikoff’s line about not criticizing Harriman’s (and his) book. Imagine if the Atlas Shrugged movie were an ARIan backed production, how many people would be excommunicated for the negative comments on this site. Oh, and the comments would be deleted, too. "Weird dogmatism" (says Comrade Sonia) my foot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point here, is that The Atlas Society has staked its reputation on this production.

This evokes Peikoff's line about not criticizing Harriman's (and his) book. Imagine if the Atlas Shrugged movie were an ARIan backed production, how many people would be excommunicated for the negative comments on this site. Oh, and the comments would be deleted, too. "Weird dogmatism" (says Comrade Sonia) my foot.

In the case of Harriman we have a bird in the hand to criticize. That's a bit different from ugly sour-grapes comments above suggesting that we should count this movie as a cracked egg before it's hatched.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) John Aglialoro, the producer of the film, is a Trustee of The Atlas Society and quite likely has contributed substantial time, money, and effort to this organization, for which he should be commended and congratulated.

ABSOLUTELY. These guys are clearly busting tail on this project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point here, is that The Atlas Society has staked its reputation on this production.

This evokes Peikoff's line about not criticizing Harriman's (and his) book. Imagine if the Atlas Shrugged movie were an ARIan backed production, how many people would be excommunicated for the negative comments on this site. Oh, and the comments would be deleted, too. "Weird dogmatism" (says Comrade Sonia) my foot.

In the case of Harriman we have a bird in the hand to criticize. That's a bit different from ugly sour-grapes comments above suggesting that we should count this movie as a cracked egg before it's hatched.

...nor should we consider as a golden egg before we examine it!

Nothing I said (if not taken out of context) could be construed as "sour grapes." I clearly commended the producers/developers of this movie, including John Aglialoro and The Atlas Society, at several points in my post. However, it was not an unqualified endorsement of the end product, which we have not yet seen (a point made by Mr. Keer, but used to come to a different conclusion).

And because it has not yet been seen, and because it is attempting to make a gargantuan epic novel on a miniscule budget (apparently, based on most published accounts) - and hold its audience in eager anticipation to come back to the theater for its remaining two installments; and because it is being shot with practically unknown actors; and because it has been shot in record time; all of these are reasons to be concerned over what the finished product will be, and the reception it will get. Obviously, if the producers surmount all these obstacles, and literally produce a motion picture epic, they will have deserved their success (a gross understatement).

But, am I detecting something else going on in the discussion of this project on this site? Any criticism or concerns about the project are quickly attacked, and not only on the grounds that the critic's points are in error, but that those expressing any misgivings are somehow being disloyal to Objectivist principles by the mere mention of their concerns (or, I am misreading some of the comments made, which appear to me to be quite hostile). This is the sort of reaction that I would expect from the Peikovian and ARIan crowd. This has reached the point where I wonder if the Atlas Shrugged movie is becoming the Objectivist equivalent of the Quest for Holy Grail: an "article of faith," above criticism.

Those on a Quest for the Objectivist Grail need to get some perspective and consider where their devotion to this cause may be leading them.

Edited by Jerry Biggers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a lot of armchair quarterbacking going on with this. I'm getting the impression that some people don't quite get what goes into making a film, and not only that, but how maverick this whole thing is by Hollyweird standards. What I'm seeing is an indie-style effort being done in a very classy way. You look at how they have organized and executed so far, and it is no joke. I'd rather this than have a major studio pump zillions into it and turn it into some kind of whip cream piece.

As far as a five-week shooting schedule, that is not that unusual. Shooting is the fun part--the pre- and post- production phases are major grind-outs. At least they had what appears to be a viable screenplay--and getting that rendered from a book like Atlas must have been hard enough.

In any event, it doesn't matter what armchair quarterbacks woulda-shoulda about this--these guys are serious filmmakers and they left this kind of stuff in the dust a long time ago. I thought the director's interview was pretty much exactly what you'd expect. No matter how it turns out, though, somewhere someone in the core O-world is going to carp about it, even if they don't know how to use Windows Movie Maker, much less edit in Final Cut Pro or whatever.

r

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a lot of armchair quarterbacking going on with this. I'm getting the impression that some people don't quite get what goes into making a film, and not only that, but how maverick this whole thing is by Hollyweird standards. What I'm seeing is an indie-style effort being done in a very classy way. You look at how they have organized and executed so far, and it is no joke. I'd rather this than have a major studio pump zillions into it and turn it into some kind of whip cream piece.

As far as a five-week shooting schedule, that is not that unusual. Shooting is the fun part--the pre- and post- production phases are major grind-outs. At least they had what appears to be a viable screenplay--and getting that rendered from a book like Atlas must have been hard enough.

In any event, it doesn't matter what armchair quarterbacks woulda-shoulda about this--these guys are serious filmmakers and they left this kind of stuff in the dust a long time ago. I thought the director's interview was pretty much exactly what you'd expect. No matter how it turns out, though, somewhere someone in the core O-world is going to carp about it, even if they don't know how to use Windows Movie Maker, much less edit in Final Cut Pro or whatever.

r

Travolta and Co. were serious about Battlefield Earth and I did see the 'making of' extra on the DVD of said film. No one sets out to make a bad film and they had a modest budget and cast and stuck faithfully to the book. But no matter, the armchair quarterbacks rubbished that one too. Seems you don't get credit in this world for good intentions.

I actually though Hollywood did a good job with The Fountainhead. TAS considers it to be a classic and they had an A-list cast and King Vidor did an exceptional job directing that film. His camera man was also on the ball. But in the end the film feel short of greatness...I'd give it an 8 out of 10. Worth watching but not worth buying the DVD.

Edited by Kimmler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tensions are going to run high when so many of us have identified so intimately with Rand's opus for so long.

That's what Ive taken the carping and sour grapes to mean from the start.

Each and everyone wants to see this movie match his own imagery, AND, to see it do well; tough ask!, but it's just 'opening- night jitters' that I'm catching here.

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tensions are going to run high when so many of us have identified so intimately with Rand's opus for so long.

That's what Ive taken the carping and sour grapes to mean from the start.

Each and everyone wants to see this movie match his own imagery, AND, to see it do well; tough ask!, but it's just 'opening- night jitters' that I'm catching here.

Tony

Agree. It's close to the heart and we've all been waiting a very long time.

actually though Hollywood did a good job with The Fountainhead. TAS considers it to be a classic and they had an A-list cast and King Vidor did an exceptional job directing that film. His camera man was also on the ball. But in the end the film feel short of greatness...I'd give it an 8 out of 10. Worth watching but not worth buying the DVD.

Agree. I've seen it a number of times but never wanted to own it. If you consider the film's contemporaries from back then, I'm not even sure about the "8" part. To me it comes off as a bit stilted, even for back then. Still stands up well, though, for sure. Here's a quick sample for comparison (Sanderson Beck):

http://www.san.beck.org/MM/M1949.html

Edited by Rich Engle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, am I detecting something else going on in the discussion of this project on this site? Any criticism or concerns about the project are quickly attacked, and not only on the grounds that the critic's points are in error, but that those expressing any misgivings are somehow being disloyal to Objectivist principles by the mere mention of their concerns (or, I am misreading some of the comments made, which appear to me to be quite hostile). This is the sort of reaction that I would expect from the Peikovian and ARIan crowd. This has reached the point where I wonder if the Atlas Shrugged movie is becoming the Objectivist equivalent of the Quest for Holy Grail: an "article of faith," above criticism.

In case my earlier post was unclear, I was pointing out that one can get away with criticizing the upcoming movie, sight unseen and presumably once it’s out. Try criticizing an ARIan production, for contrast. Nevertheless, I don’t think much of the criticism that’s been aired here, I’m in wait and see mode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unqualified endorsement? Sources, please?

I hope I never have the opportunity to push Peter Jackson on the subway tracks.

Why do you say that? What has Peter Jackson done to you?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What has Aglialoro done to you?

Not a thing. Producing a bad movie (as Peter Jackson has done) is not a crime. In some cases it is a damned shame.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unqualified endorsement? Sources, please?

I hope I never have the opportunity to push Peter Jackson on the subway tracks.

Ted,

Your comment (post 61):

"In the case of Harriman we have a bird in the hand to criticize. That's a bit different from ugly sour-grapes comments above suggesting that we should count this movie as a cracked egg before it's hatched". italics added.

If I correctly understood you, your comment has the implication that it is "sour grapes" to make critical comments about Aglialoro's production of the Atlas Shrugged movie before it has been screened. Well, obviously, one cannot make valid crititicisms of a completed production that has not been seen by anyone besides those involved in its production.

However, I believe it is reasonable to voice concerns about what the final product will look like, based on information that has been released about its funding, selection of cast and production crew, and the extremely brief time that the movie was shot in.

Yet I concede that it is possible that they will somehow be able to surmount these obstacles, and produce a really great movie. (Then, perhaps I am being overly sarcastic when I say that accomplishment of such a feat may qualify as a miracle - and may necessitate some revisions to the Objectivist metaphysics).

And based soley on these issues, when compared to the time, money, location, cast, etc. that Peter Jackson expended on Lord of the Rings (reportedly, $93 million) versus Atlas shrugged 's paltry budget (usually reported as $5 million, although IMDB lists $15 million), there sure as hell is reason to be concerned about what the final product will look like.

Yeah, I know, "Money isn't everything." In this case, it better not be.

Edited by Jerry Biggers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not detected the hostility that Jerry B. seems worried about.

What I have detected is an eagerness to diminish--in advance--an effort that deserves no less than a presumption of goodwill, and an effort that requires far more effort than hitting the send button on one's keyboard. The only reason this inclination to diminish is of any note is it betrays something about what the Objectivist movement today has arguably become, i.e., something less about the Roarks and Ayn Rand and the Dagnys, and something much more related to spittle exchanges about theories of induction, and whether Frank O'Conner drank two or three or-- horror or horrors!--four fingers of Scotch each day.

Perhaps we should start calling Objectivism something more apt: "EddieWillerism".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not detected the hostility that Jerry B. seems worried about.

What I have detected is an eagerness to diminish--in advance--an effort that deserves no less than a presumption of goodwill, and an effort that requires far more effort than hitting the send button on one's keyboard. The only reason this inclination to diminish is of any note is it betrays something about what the Objectivist movement today has arguably become, i.e., something less about the Roarks and Ayn Rand and the Dagnys, and something much more related to spittle exchanges about theories of induction, and whether Frank O'Conner drank two or three or-- horror or horrors!--four fingers of Scotch each day.

Perhaps we should start calling Objectivism something more apt: "EddieWillerism".

Excellent! Well put.

Adam

As Pogo said, "We have met the enemy and he is us!"

Wehavemet01.jpg

From the foreword to The Pogo Papers, Copyright 1952-53

"The publishers of this book, phrenologists of note, have laid hands upon the author’s head and report the following vibrations:

Herein can be found that rare native tree, the Presidential Timber, struck down in mid-sprout by the jawbone of a politician. Pogo returns to the swamp from a couple of political conventions to find his unfinished business being rapidly finished, once and for all, by rough and ready hands.

With that much information you are about as well equipped as anybody to plunge into the still waters of the Okefenokee Swamp, home of the Pogo people. The activities in this present book were spread shamelessly over the past drought-ridden year. Looking back across the fertilizer, small shafts of green can be seen here and there, while off in the distance wisps of smoke denote the harvesters at work.

Some nature lovers may inquire as to the identity of a few creatures here portrayed. On this point field workers are in some dispute.

Specializations and markings of individuals everywhere abound in such profusion that major idiosyncracies can be properly ascribed to the mass*. Traces of nobility, gentleness and courage persist in all people, do what we will to stamp out the trend. So, too, do those characteristics which are ugly. It is just unfortunate that in the clumsy hands of a cartoonist all traits become ridiculous, leading to a certain amount of self-conscious expostulation and the desire to join battle.

There is no need to sally forth, for it remains true that those things which make us human are, curiously enough, always close at hand. Resolve then, that on this very ground, with small flags waving and tinny blast on tiny trumpets, we shall meet the enemy, and not only may he be ours, he may be us.

Forward!

*Quimby’s Law. (Passed by the Town of Quimby after the Trouble with Harold Porch in 1897)"

pogoplaque.jpgWalt Kelly first used the quote "We Have Met The Enemy and He Is Us" on a poster for Earth Day in 1970. The poster is shown above. In 1971, he did a two panel version with Pogo and Porky in a trash filled swamp. This is the only example I know of with a balloon, indicating Pogo responding to Porky with "YEP, SON, WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US." In 1972, it was the title of a book, Pogo: We Have Met the Enemy and He Is Us. OGPI had the version shown to the right produced for the Waycross, Georgia Pogofest in 1998 as a brass plate on a wooden plaque.

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