View the Atlas Shrugged Movie Trailer Today!


Ed Hudgins

Recommended Posts

By the way, lot of people on this site ... have been making the mistake of giving their gut reactions to something they don't like about one of the actors (appearance, age, emotional affect) based on the trailer and therefore being pessimistic about the movie.

Phil:

Could you kindly point our where more than one person on this site...OL...has made a negative remark about one of the actors AND was therefore pessimistic about the movie based on the trailer?

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 234
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

By the way, lot of people on this site ... have been making the mistake of giving their gut reactions to something they don't like about one of the actors (appearance, age, emotional affect) based on the trailer and therefore being pessimistic about the movie.

Phil:

Could you kindly point our where more than one person on this site...OL...has made a negative remark about one of the actors AND was therefore pessimistic about the movie based on the trailer?

Adam

Just the generalized smearing that's Phil's trademark.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, lot of people on this site ... have been making the mistake of giving their gut reactions to something they don't like about one of the actors (appearance, age, emotional affect) based on the trailer and therefore being pessimistic about the movie.

Phil:

Could you kindly point our where more than one person on this site...OL...has made a negative remark about one of the actors AND was therefore pessimistic about the movie based on the trailer?

Adam

Just the generalized smearing that's Phil's trademark.

--Brant

What the fuck is your (pl) problem? Phil did not say what you quoted him as saying. The ellipsis is rather slimy, since it changes the sense of what he said. And we have at least three people on this thread making negative or skeptical comments, not even counting Bob Kolker, who is sure to have noticed the trailer lacks equations. Then there are the twenty posts total on this thread by Dennis and William looking for an open wound to peck. I haven't seen such cattiness since junior high.

But I am sure the two of you will have the class to apologize.

Edited by Ted Keer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ted:

First, since I only care about OL, the ellipses was clearly eliminating the other sites.

Second, the capitalization of the word "AND" was to connect the two parts of the statement and clearly refer to only posts that had only those two elements.

Finally, I asked him politely to point them out to me.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remain skeptical. It is a lot easier to make an impressive two and a half minute trailer than to make a decent two hour movie. I thought the acting was okay but the choice of the actor to play Rearden was terrible. Dagny, on the other hand, looks really, really hot.

The animation was mediocre. It is difficult to tell how realistic it is on a computer screen. Here’s a shot of the John Galt Line. Does that look like a train—or a cartoonish drawing of a train? Is this the best they could do? For the damn promotional trailer??!!

As I have said all along, I hope I’m wrong. I hope the movie is the greatest thing since GWTW. But at this point we just don’t know.

Dennis,

Something like that will pass by most people. I actually like the Rearden character, as long as the physical appearance is in the ballpark, I think it's the voice that matters in an Ayn Rand portrayal. It must be intelligent, articulate and full of passion.

Jim

Jim,

Maybe that would be all that would matter in the cartoon version of Atlas Shrugged. But if we’re trying to bring Ayn Rand’s novel to the silver screen, we need to make some effort to be faithful to her theme. This “Rearden” looks more like Bruce Wayne than a man who began working in the iron mines at 14 and has spent his life in foundries and steel mills. We need to see a man whose face reflects years of passionate struggle and dedication toward a single purpose, not somebody who woke up one day and discovered he had lucked into a fortune. The character of Hank Rearden means everything to the plot of Atlas Shrugged—namely, the real nature of human genius and the enormous price paid for achievement. As a symbol of the true essence of a “captain of industry,” his character is more important than Galt.

I’m sorry. Francisco d’Anconia can look like a happy-go-lucky playboy. Not Hank Rearden. His strength, independence, tenacity and singular devotion to his work have to come through or the story is simply not going to work.

As for the animation, have you ever seen one of those ridiculous made-for-TV monster flicks on the Sci-Fi channel? One glimpse of the pathetically bad “special effects” is enough to destroy my interest in watching. Those films are laughably bad. If Atlas Shrugged includes animation that looks cheap and comical, the movie will do as much good for Objectivism as Battlefield Earth did for scientology.

Ted, et. al. can make all the snide remarks they want about those of us who are skeptical. I really don’t give a shit. I’m going to say what I genuinely think based on the evidence available. If I am wrong, I will be thoroughly delighted and more than eager to admit it when the time comes.

Edit: cartoon version of Atlas Shrugged i/o comic book version

Edited by Dennis Hardin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, lot of people on this site ... have been making the mistake of giving their gut reactions to something they don't like about one of the actors (appearance, age, emotional affect) based on the trailer and therefore being pessimistic about the movie.

Phil:

Could you kindly point our where more than one person on this site...OL...has made a negative remark about one of the actors AND was therefore pessimistic about the movie based on the trailer?

Adam

Just the generalized smearing that's Phil's trademark.

--Brant

What the fuck is your (pl) problem? Phil did not say what you quoted him as saying. The ellipsis is rather slimy, since it changes the sense of what he said. And we have at least three people on this thread making negative or skeptical comments, not even counting Bob Kolker, who is sure to have noticed the trailer lacks equations. Then there are the twenty posts total on this thread by Dennis and William looking for an open wound to peck. I haven't seen such cattiness since junior high.

But I am sure the two of you will have the class to apologize.

I made a true statement. He irritates me no end with this. Please give up the three names you haven't named. Dennis has been the harshest critic. What's wrong with him speaking his mind?

--Brant

edit: Dennis, William, moi or who?

edit: did I quote Phil?

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ted, after reviewing every post on this thread, I can say you are completely full of shit.

--Brant

six posts by William and Dennis, too, most by William (now seven)

wtf is your goddamn problem?

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... as the sun will rise in the east and set in the west. That's about it, there's my prediction.

You were doing pretty good until this. The sun does NOT rise and set. It's As the World Turns!

Touché

> Peikoff will refuse to see it [ND]

Why? Just because TAS people had a peripheral role?

That is my prediction. Isn't David Kelley a script consultant or some such? It looks like I have a different evaluation of the depth of Peikoff's enmity than you. There's evidence I could cite to back up my view, but it's not worth the time to look up links and such. You know the history very well. Apparently you think Peikoff will rise above, I think not. Time will tell, it won't be a big deal to me either way.

This “Rearden” looks more like Bruce Wayne than a man who began working in the iron mines at 14 and has spent his life in foundries and steel mills.

I think he looks good. He's got my vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This "Rearden" looks more like Bruce Wayne than a man who began working in the iron mines at 14 and has spent his life in foundries and steel mills.

I think he looks good. He's got my vote.

He looks fine. And so does the animation.

JR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re Dagny's age - this version is updated to now, when a woman can rise to the top job in her 20s, especially in a family business.

I think Dagny looks great. I've never seen this actress before. Before the movie was cast some people touted Jodie Foster, who I thought totally wrong, but this girl has something Fosterish about her and seems totally right. (A. Jolie would have been really wrong also unless she's an even better actress than I think she is)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re Dagny's age - this version is updated to now, when a woman can rise to the top job in her 20s, especially in a family business.

I think Dagny looks great. I've never seen this actress before. Before the movie was cast some people touted Jodie Foster, who I thought totally wrong, but this girl has something Fosterish about her and seems totally right. (A. Jolie would have been really wrong also unless she's an even better actress than I think she is)

Carol:

Jolie is actually a better actress than I thought also, but my starting point on her "actressing" skills was close to zero, so that is not saying too much.

I agree she would have been a physical mismatch to my image of Dagny. This actress perfectly represents my mental image of Dagny. I also think she nailed the few lines in the trailer. Her "pixieish" [sp??] look when she responds to the miscast Jim's question as to what she is going to call her railroad line is perfect.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re Dagny's age - this version is updated to now, when a woman can rise to the top job in her 20s, especially in a family business.

I think Dagny looks great. I've never seen this actress before. Before the movie was cast some people touted Jodie Foster, who I thought totally wrong, but this girl has something Fosterish about her and seems totally right. (A. Jolie would have been really wrong also unless she's an even better actress than I think she is)

Carol:

Jolie is actually a better actress than I thought also, but my starting point on her "actressing" skills was close to zero, so that is not saying too much.

I agree she would have been a physical mismatch to my image of Dagny. This actress perfectly represents my mental image of Dagny. I also think she nailed the few lines in the trailer. Her "pixieish" [sp??] look when she responds to the miscast Jim's question as to what she is going to call her railroad line is perfect.

Adam

Let's reduce all this to essentials, shall we? Dagny is hot. Unfortunately, since the movie is rated PG, I doubt if there are any nude scenes. Too bad. <_<

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George:

Smoking hot and as I said in my first post on this thread...

"I would follow Dagny down the railroad tracks."

PG...damn ...that sucks.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re Dagny's age - this version is updated to now, when a woman can rise to the top job in her 20s, especially in a family business.

I think Dagny looks great. I've never seen this actress before. Before the movie was cast some people touted Jodie Foster, who I thought totally wrong, but this girl has something Fosterish about her and seems totally right. (A. Jolie would have been really wrong also unless she's an even better actress than I think she is)

Carol:

Jolie is actually a better actress than I thought also, but my starting point on her "actressing" skills was close to zero, so that is not saying too much.

I agree she would have been a physical mismatch to my image of Dagny. This actress perfectly represents my mental image of Dagny. I also think she nailed the few lines in the trailer. Her "pixieish" [sp??] look when she responds to the miscast Jim's question as to what she is going to call her railroad line is perfect.

Adam

Jolie can act. She just usually doesn't have to. Her father could and can really act, and so can Brad, and if one of her bio kids goes into the biz,

I will quit smoking and drinking and try to live till they grow up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since some seem to be getting into the prediction game...

The fall-out from the movie in re the Ayn Rand Institute depends largely, I think, on how good the movie is and/or how well it is received. And I don't mean by the critics, but by the public, especially younger viewers. If it's really good -- or even "good enough" -- and they "get" it, then I think that ARI will fracture and decline, while TAS will grow...somewhat.

In particular, I would expect that (if it's reasonably good) ~many~ ARI members will sneak out to watch it and then be ~very~ conflicted emotionally, especially if the ARI hierarchy damns it, or even downplays it. Again, I think that ARI would fragment or unravel, in this case. They would lose credibility from their membership -- and the public would be wondering WTF, why aren't these people on board with this? It's their gal's biggest novel!

Nothing succeeds like success, and the bandwagon effect might be very powerful. FreedomWorks, which is part of the Tea Party movement, is hooked up with the Atlas movie, and there are a number of Objectivists involved in the TP movement (e.g., Robert Tracinski, who writes indefatigably, trying repeatedly to connect Objectivist ideas to Tea Party issues).

If the movie succeeds and the public gets behind it, it will embolden those TP folks in the Congress to push even harder. And again, if ARI (as I expect) stays aloof from it, they will become increasingly irrelevant. And if they ~condemn~ it, they will dilute the cultural impact of the very ideas they want to promote, and all just for spite.

Is it "malevolent" to expect ARI to react in this way? No, just realistic, judging by how vocally antagonistic the various ARI-aligned Objectivists have already opined about the movie in Internet discussion groups. They ~want~ it to fail. It ~can't~ succeed by their worldview, and if it does, their whole perspective is wrong. Ever know an Objectivist who ~wanted~ to be wrong??

On the other hand...

If the movie flops or fizzles, then ARI will have a huge "I told you so" moment, and TAS will finally sink into the dustbin of history, and the Tea Party will turn another direction for ideological underpinnings.

But I don't expect this to happen.

Hank and Dagny, please help make the world safe for Rational Individualism.

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The actor playing Rearden is fine. The animation is fine. I’m fine. You’re fine. We’re all just fine, thank you.

Well, as it turns out, I’m not the only one criticizing the computer generated imagery. . .

Oh My Galt! Atlas Shrugged, Part 1 Trailer Enters The Marketplace

And then there’s the scintillating dialogue. . .

Ellis Wyatt angrily says to Dagny Taggart: “Maybe you should let me finish speaking!” Wow! Such high drama! Feel the goosebumps! If this made it to the highlight trailer, just imagine how enthralling the rest of the script must be.

According to Michael Jaffe and Al Ruddy (100 Voices), Ayn Rand wanted Clint Eastwood to play Hank Rearden.

Clint_Eastwood_4.jpg

Well, okay. Maybe Dirty Harry is a bit past his prime, so instead let's go with Crocodile Dundee:

220px-Crocodile_dundee_ii_ver2.jpg

But the worst part of it is that this is how non-Objectivists will respond. . .

The Atlas Shrugged trailer stars a bunch of people yelling about the railroad industry

Despite all that, it is just possible that Taylor Schilling could save the film. She really is spectacular.

5680701.jpg

For the record, I don’t want it to fail. I want it to the greatest blockbuster of all time. But I happen to be a realist, and there is considerable basis for concern. This sums up my attitude:

. . . This is one project that probably should've stayed on the shelf a bit longer. A book of this scale and ambition deserves a film of equal size and balls; what we're getting is something that's been heavily compromised and rushed into production to meet a legal deadline. Aglialoro may yet surprise us, but what's not surprising is that with the low budget on offer, the first photos from the film are decidedly unimpressive and have a very TV movie feel to them. Whether this is seen as a bold vision or an absolute trainwreck, it'll be interesting to watch nonetheless.

darkhorizons.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well at least Phil got his review in...

"From Philip | Reply

Posted 13 Feb 2011, 12:02 PM The trailer was superb.

All in about two tightly-packed minutes, it had drama, great music, a pulse-pounding force, lots of little 'teaser' things that indicate momentous stakes, Dagny Taggart-intensity in the actress, the cryptic "Who Is John Galt?" line, the eventually-to-be-ironic idea that Dagny will name her own railroad business after him...

Really works as a trailer, as something which ropes in interest. Which is all a trailer needs to do.

i) I also liked the 'solidity' of the Rearden actor.)

ii) As a very minor side benefit, the Economic Dictator even reminds you just a bit of Barney Frank.

iii) I also felt it was appropriate (and looks as if it will be well-acted) that major heroic characters are a bit reserved toward each other at first until they find that they are dealing with people of character and not looters(or even expressing white-hot rage, as does Ellis Wyatt.)

In general, I have a good feeling so far about the two major characters - Dagny and Rearden - the trailer suggests a combination of steel in the spine and a certain je ne said quoi - lightness? good humor?

Which makes them likable human beings. Not philosophical abstractions."

And Dennis, I think you are wrong on all counts in terms of this trailer.

We shall see.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't wait to see this movie. I've always felt that this story would be a great movie and I'm glad I will finally get to see it. WOOOOO HOOOOOO!!!!!

I love this trailer and I think it will be a great movie. I'm so glad this was finally made. I just don't like having to wait 2 more months to see it.

Roger is probably right about the politics around it and I certainly hope that the Objectivist/libertarian/conservative/tea party communities can find a way to find some common ground and get behind it despite their differences. This should be the one thing that will unite the splintered Objectivist community. Let go of the party lines and perfectionism and enjoy the movie we have waited a lifetime to see.

Me, I get along fine with the other fellow travelers standing up for limited government. I'm glad to see Freedomworks is on board. I still support the Tea Party.

On April 14, Michael and I are going to see Glenn Beck at the Chicago Theatre. On April 15th I am taking the day off of work and going to the annual Chicago Tax Day Tea Party, followed by a nice little movie called Atlas Shrugged. How cool is that? :-)

Kat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> “Maybe you should let me finish speaking!” Wow! Such high drama! [Dennis]

Were you under the impression that in a two minute trailer, we needed long speeches or Shakespearean English to briefly indicate someone is angry? Or that simple Anglo-Saxon seven word sentences are not effective?

Or that every scene or phrase has to be 'high drama'? All those five seconds can or ought to do is indicate that there is some sort of conflict, introduce you to an important character in Part I, and make you curious to see what's going on... Remember that a trailer is a 'teaser'. That's its -sole- function: To get you into the theater. The movie itself is where you get the story, the sense of life, the full view of the issues at stake.

Filmmaking 101:

1. In a novel, you can take a hundred pages to develop Dagny and Francisco's childhood history, their romance, the mystery surrounding how he changes from a producer, and her anger at the playboy persona. You can also develop in similarly rich detail across hundreds of pages who Hank Rearden is, and Dagny's developing business and then personal relationship with him. You can similarly develop the Eddie Willers relationship.

2. In a movie you have to -choose- which of these to develop fully. Maybe you have her anger at Francisco and the depth of emotion involved 'telegraphed' and compressed by her throwing a glass of water in his face... Maybe you can't fully develop the frustration of Ellis Wyatt at dealing with Taggart Transcontinental and how he views them as looters, but have to compress, condense, and choose only one aspect -- and do it in very few minutes of film?

3. Everything I just said about the selectivity and condensation in a film made from a long, richly detailed book applies even more strongly to a brief trailer. It can only hint at things in the movie. In a rather terse, almost simplistic way.

For anyone who disagrees, I'd be very curious to see you put your brainpower where your mouth is:

Let's see you sketch for us the 2.5 minutes you would select and enact visually from the book.

You have to do it not in abstract or floating terms, but in concrete detail.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And then there’s the scintillating dialogue. . .

Ellis Wyatt angrily says to Dagny Taggart: “Maybe you should let me finish speaking!” Wow! Such high drama! Feel the goosebumps!

darkhorizons.com

Yes, it was, and I felt them. Chacun a son gout. For me this was the best moment of the trailer. It's the argument from authority, and a man speaking to a woman, so annoyed at having to pay attention to her in the first place. As I have learned, most objectivists are men, but they may have wives and girlfriends and sisters who will go to the movie with them. And the women will love that moment like I did,knowing who needs to finish speaking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted this to Slash Film, a blog where many of the comments about the trailer were negative. The postive comments were unattributed, i.e., the posters provided no links to themselves.

Generally, the reception within the Objectivist blogspace has been positive. The modernization was accepted as an alternative to a Sky Captain feel of an art deco Gernsback Continuum that never happened.

The cinematography that worries mavins and aficianados is largely lost on viewers who want a good story that they can relate to. Ultimately, it is easy to criticize what you cannot do.

With Atlas Shrugged, the political message always gets top billing, and a performer rarely complains about why the audience shows up. The movie is as "timely" now as the book was in 1957... 67... 87.... 2007 and will remain so, even in 2157 when asteroid miners get the latest sims and stims as plug-ins.

The book was written by someone who wanted to be in it. It sells on the same basis.

My wife and I do not get TV in the house. We seldom goto movies. We do try things that our friends recommend; and we ended up buying all seven seasons of The West Wing. Politics has nothing to do with it. With whom do you want to spend your working hours? That is the real question behind the question, "Who is John Galt?"

http://www.slashfilm.com/atlas-shrugged-trailer/#

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to report that at Randbash central (ARCHN), the consensus is the same as here: Looks good, way better than expected, hope the movie is great. Whingers will whinge everywhere, but the whole world which has been touched by Rand seems be as one (with reservations) on this. Savour the moment!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a WINNER!!

The AS movie TRAILER is the most exciting thing to come out of the Objectivist movement in, oh, about 50 years. If the movie lives up to it, or even comes close, then, to quote Nathaniel Branden, "this culture is cooked."

I agree completely with Phil who said:

I just watched the trailer.

It was superb.

All in about two tightly-packed minutes, it had drama, great music, a pulse-pounding force, lots of little 'teaser' things that indicate momentous stakes, Dagny Taggart-intensity in the actress, the cryptic "Who Is John Galt?" line, the eventually-to-be-ironic idea that Dagny will name her own railroad business after him...

Really works as a trailer, as something which ropes in interest. Which is all a trailer needs to do.

i) I also liked the 'solidity' of the Rearden actor.) ii) As a very minor side benefit, the Economic Dictator even reminds you just a bit of Barney Frank. iii) I also felt it was appropriate (and looks as if it will be well-acted) that major heroic characters are a bit reserved toward each other at first until they find that they are dealing with people of character and not looters(or even expressing white-hot rage, as does Ellis Wyatt.)

Yes, Rearden and Dagny were terrific, as was Ellis. And I chuckled in startled amusement at the Barney-Frank-like appearance of the Looter-in-Chief.

What a way to celebrate Tax Day 2011 this will be! This should give both the Objectivist and Tea Party movements a big boost -- not to mention my own spirits!

Excitedly,

REB

Roger,

Your comment, "The AS movie TRAILER is the most exciting thing to come out of the Objectivist movement in, oh, about 50 years." :huh::o

And I thought that award had already gone to Branden's The Vision of Ayn Rand: The Basic Principles of Objectivism! After all, it took 41 years for that to reach publication.! (sigh)

Anyway, I'm trying to digest the full implications of your pronouncement. Let's see,... if the trailer was "the most exciting thing in...50 years," that would mean that the actual movie, in order to wrest that achievement away from the trailer, must have scenes that will linger in our memories. You know, something to give us the audacity of hope, after the prints have been confiscated, and we're interned in the re-education camps.

Seriously, though, I liked the trailer. I am now cautiously optimistic. About the movie, not the camps. If it's really good enough, Leonard might grab a few prints for hideaway in his planned secret island relocation of the ARI archives for safekeeping :wub: , after the collapse of Western civilization. :rolleyes::wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted this to Slash Film, a blog where many of the comments about the trailer were negative. The postive comments were unattributed, i.e., the posters provided no links to themselves.

Generally, the reception within the Objectivist blogspace has been positive. The modernization was accepted as an alternative to a Sky Captain feel of an art deco Gernsback Continuum that never happened.

The cinematography that worries mavins and aficianados is largely lost on viewers who want a good story that they can relate to. Ultimately, it is easy to criticize what you cannot do.

With Atlas Shrugged, the political message always gets top billing, and a performer rarely complains about why the audience shows up. The movie is as "timely" now as the book was in 1957... 67... 87.... 2007 and will remain so, even in 2157 when asteroid miners get the latest sims and stims as plug-ins.

The book was written by someone who wanted to be in it. It sells on the same basis.

My wife and I do not get TV in the house. We seldom goto movies. We do try things that our friends recommend; and we ended up buying all seven seasons of The West Wing. Politics has nothing to do with it. With whom do you want to spend your working hours? That is the real question behind the question, "Who is John Galt?"

http://www.slashfilm...ugged-trailer/#

I'd've referred positively to gattaca rather than skeptically to sky captain but overall your point is excellently made.

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