View the Atlas Shrugged Movie Trailer Today!

[Jonathan]

[kiaer.ts]

Pussy-whipped?

[Selene]

Pussy-whipped?

Thanks Ted. I wanted to reach through the screen when I read that!

Of all people to use that phrase!

Adam

[kiaer.ts]

pussy-whipped

"Pussy-whipped"?

Thanks Ted. I wanted to reach through the screen when I read that!

[James Heaps-Nelson]

> what are the ten (10) cities that have been selected [to show Atlas Shrugged]. I know mine, New York is going to be one. My guess would be: L.A.; Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, Dallas, Washington, St. Louis, Dallas[or other Texas city] and Miami. [Adam]

I certainly hope they are not dumb enough to simply [or exclusively] select the largest cities and "biggest media" cities. Reason: They tend to be liberal and cultural establishment bastions with -very- liberal film critics who are more likely than most to pan the movie based on their dislike for Rand's politics. Just like they would pan a 'tea party' movie. And where left-leaning or 'trendy' audiences are less likely to go see it nonetheless, compared to say, some smaller cities or southern cities like Charlotte or Tampa or Salt Lake City.

If the reigning, dominant film critic pans a movie in New York or L.A. (or doesn't even review it!), , almost no one goes to see it and the show's run ends in two or three weeks. People in those places, pussy-whipped by the liberal press, have the mistaken view the 'elite' f.c.'s know what they are talking about.

It's *absolutely crucial* for a 'limited release' to choose places where the theaters are more likely to be full than nearly empty. Those are not going to be the traditional leading cities at least not for this particular, ideologically edged movie. (For the same 'cultural establishment blockade' reasons that ARI op eds across the last two decades basically never appear in the NYT or the LAT or the big Chicago, Miami, etc. papers but more frequently in little papers and in secondary cities.)

Otherwise no theater owners around the nation are going to want to pick up a 'stinker', and the film goes direct to DVD.

Phil,

My list of cities would be New York, Phoenix, Denver, Dallas, Las Vegas, Orange County (get the Southern California area, but miss Hollyweird), Houston, San Jose, Charlotte, and Salt Lake City.

Jim

Edited February 19, 2011 by James Heaps-Nelson

[william.scherk]

For all quiz fans (except Phil, who will win), a chance to correctly identify the cities that Atlas Shrugged Part 1 must not be screened in:

Can you name the Most Liberal US Cities?

(I got 10/25)

Edited February 19, 2011 by william.scherk

[william.scherk]

For all quiz fans (except Phil, who will win), a chance to correctly identify some of the cities that Atlas Shrugged Part 1 must be screened in:

Can you name the Most Conservative US Cities?

(I got 4/25 without cheating)

[Philip Coates]

Willie Boy, there is no contest more attractive to me than one which I'm banned from participating in.

[Philip Coates]

I beat Willie Boy, which is all I care about. (Since he's a canuckistani, I would have had to slash my wrists if I lost.)

[Philip Coates]

> My list of cities would be New York, Phoenix, Denver, Dallas, Las Vegas, Orange County (get the Southern California area, but miss Hollyweird), Houston, San Jose, Charlotte, and Salt Lake City.

Jim I have the actual list that was chosen and I like yours much better.

[william.scherk]

Willie Boy, there is no contest more attractive to me than one which I'm banned from participating in.

Huh?

There is no contest, since you will win. After your Jeopardy triumph, all I am asking is for a reasonable pause before you announce your further triumph here. As for 'banning,' I am asking for self-moderation, not banning, and you only have to hold yourself back for a few posts longer. You are only banned at SOLO and Noodlefood, as far as I know.

In the meantime, you can use your winning answers in this new contest to draft the optimum distribution plan for AS1, and get that over to the production team quickly to avert their disastrous rollout in major metropolitan markets.

Oh, and if you have 'the actual list,' how much money do you want to tell the list what the list actually is?

Edited February 19, 2011 by william.scherk

[Dennis Hardin]

I am bothered by this scene from the trailer: Dagny in Reardon's office saying, "I'm gambling on your metal .....it had better be everything you say it is." That strikes me as very un-Randian. Dagny didn't think she was gambling on the metal. She studied Reardon's reports and the formulas for the metal and made an engineering student's judgment that it was good.

I hate nitpicking, but I don't think lines like this reflect the characters very well. Of course, it is a trailer and all of the lines are out of context. Still.....

I agree with another post here that Ellis Wyatt seemed different than I would have expected. Of course, I also thought Angelina Jolie would be a great Dagny. Go figure.

Um...Excuse me, but we aren’t supposed to offer any negative criticism of the trailer here, Mary. Please retract these comments immediately and reassure all the progressive, broad-minded, non-moralistic neo-Objectivists on OL that you are sheepishly enthusiastic about every aspect of the forthcoming movie.

Thank you

[Dennis Hardin]

File this under: David Kelley was a consultant? Really?

Screenwriter Brian O’Toole:

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

A sampling of the comments on youtube:

"[The book] is not about human evil and the supposed good intentions of the looters. It's about the heroism of producers and the role of man's mind--in everything. You can even say it's about individualism, capitalism and/or reason. But the screenwriter claiming that "the whole theme of the story is really, human evil,and human evil spawns from good intentions," not only misses the point of the book but misrepresents it completely."

"I don't agree with what the script writer is saying - Rand's antagonists were not misguided gov't officials - they knew exactly what they were doing and serving humanity wasn't it…oh-oh.......confused writer."

"You who have never grasped the nature of evil. You, who describe them as 'misguided idealists,' and may the god you have invented forgive you. They are the essence of evil. They, those anti-living objects who seek, by devouring the world, to fill the selfless zero of their soul." -John Galt

I’m sure Ayn Rand would be thrilled to hear her novel described as being all about the ‘underdog,’ and then hear her “empowered” female character, Dagny Taggart, say: “If you double-cross me, I will destroy you.” Yeah, that really captures the essence of Dagny Taggart. I think I missed that line in the novel. In the book, she talked about ‘fighting’ the looters, but would never have wasted her productive genius on trying to destroy them. The only person she wanted to “destroy” was John Galt.

[Philip Coates]

WSS, hostile and sarcastically worded request ignored.

[RightJungle]

I am bothered by this scene from the trailer: Dagny in Reardon's office saying, "I'm gambling on your metal .....it had better be everything you say it is." That strikes me as very un-Randian. Dagny didn't think she was gambling on the metal. She studied Reardon's reports and the formulas for the metal and made an engineering student's judgment that it was good.

I hate nitpicking, but I don't think lines like this reflect the characters very well. Of course, it is a trailer and all of the lines are out of context. Still.....

I agree with another post here that Ellis Wyatt seemed different than I would have expected. Of course, I also thought Angelina Jolie would be a great Dagny. Go figure.

Um...Excuse me, but we aren't supposed to offer any negative criticism of the trailer here, Mary. Please retract these comments immediately and reassure all the progressive, broad-minded, non-moralistic neo-Objectivists on OL that you are sheepishly enthusiastic about every aspect of the forthcoming movie.

Thank you

Isn't it weird that it is opening so narrow? Sorta like a Woody Allen movie. I will no doubt be just waiting for the DVD. Des Moines, Iowa is not likely to be on anybody's list of qualifying cities.

[9thdoctor]

I’m sure Ayn Rand would be thrilled to hear her novel described as being all about the ‘underdog,’ and then hear her “empowered” female character, Dagny Taggart, say: “If you double-cross me, I will destroy you.” Yeah, that really captures the essence of Dagny Taggart.

Isn't she talking to James after setting up her own company to build the John Galt Line? Well anyway, this made me think of something from Barbara Branden's biography:

Only once during their association did Ayn’s wrath descend on Stirling Silliphant. He had added the word “perhaps” to a statement made by Dagny-and Ayn angrily shouted: “You’ve destroyed Dagny’s character on this page! You’ve made her qualify her thinking! She always knows what she’s doing-she doesn’t use words like ‘perhaps’ of ‘maybe.’” The offending word was removed.

Passion of Ayn Rand

, P.390

Just about 700,000 views as of now, I guess it's leveled off, still it bodes well. And yeah, some of the people involved have said some odd things. The director said something about Nietzsche, and now the screenwriter said something about the good intentions of government types. When the ARIan hatchet man gets dispatched, I'm sure he'll find something to swing at.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm sure Ayn Rand would be thrilled to hear her novel described as being all about the 'underdog,' and then hear her "empowered" female character, Dagny Taggart, say: "If you double-cross me, I will destroy you." Yeah, that really captures the essence of Dagny Taggart.

Dennis,

This tickled a memory, so I looked it up.

I believe that line is a typical cinematic dialogue shortening of the following passage. This passage is from when Dagny agreed to take a leave of absence to complete the John Galt Line--and take full responsibility for it--and James floated the idea to her that there might be problems with permits. Dagny and James are talking.

She whirled to face him. Something of the bright, violent look still remained in her face. But it was not gay and she was not smiling. The look now had an odd, primitive quality. When he saw it, he hoped he would never have to see it again.

"Listen, Jim," she said; he had never heard that tone in any human voice. "There is one thing you can do as your part of the deal and you'd better do it: keep your Washington boys off. See to it that they give me all the permissions, authorizations, charters and other waste paper that their laws require. Don't let them try to stop me. If they try ... Jim, people say that our ancestor, Nat Taggart, killed a politician who tried to refuse him a permission he should never have had to ask. I don't know whether Nat Taggart did it or not. But I'll tell you this: I know how he felt, if he did. If he didn't—I might do the job for him, to complete the family legend. I mean it, Jim."

"If you double-cross me, I will destroy you," sounds like a great way to shorten it to me. There's just not enough time on screen for all this other stuff.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I got no sense of actual Randian dialogue from the trailer. I do think there could have been better ways to convey what Dagny meant without traducing her characterization. The trailer did convey Randian forthrightness and clarity. If the movie does the same, it'll probably be good enough if it doesn't come across as cheap.

--Brant

[Selene]

I'm sure Ayn Rand would be thrilled to hear her novel described as being all about the 'underdog,' and then hear her "empowered" female character, Dagny Taggart, say: "If you double-cross me, I will destroy you." Yeah, that really captures the essence of Dagny Taggart.

Dennis,

This tickled a memory, so I looked it up.

I believe that line is a typical cinematic dialogue shortening of the following passage. This passage is from when Dagny agreed to take a leave of absence to complete the John Galt Line--and take full responsibility for it--and James floated the idea to her that there might be problems with permits. Dagny and James are talking.

She whirled to face him. Something of the bright, violent look still remained in her face. But it was not gay and she was not smiling. The look now had an odd, primitive quality. When he saw it, he hoped he would never have to see it again.

"Listen, Jim," she said; he had never heard that tone in any human voice. "There is one thing you can do as your part of the deal and you'd better do it: keep your Washington boys off. See to it that they give me all the permissions, authorizations, charters and other waste paper that their laws require. Don't let them try to stop me. If they try ... Jim, people say that our ancestor, Nat Taggart, killed a politician who tried to refuse him a permission he should never have had to ask. I don't know whether Nat Taggart did it or not. But I'll tell you this: I know how he felt, if he did. If he didn't—I might do the job for him, to complete the family legend. I mean it, Jim."

"If you double-cross me, I will destroy you," sounds like a great way to shorten it to me. There's just not enough time on screen for all this other stuff.

Michael

BRAVO Michael.

Exactly what I thought of when I saw the trailer and when I read Dennis' post. I have probably read Atlas about thirty (30) or so times and each time I give myself a task related to content analysis.

It took Ayn some twelve years to write the epic which comes out to 4, 380 days and the pocket book edition of Atlas has 1,074 pages in it which comes out to approximately four (4) days per page for her to write.

Each time I read Atlas, I engage in some content analysis and I make a lot of notes in the margins. Last year I labeled all the clues to Galt's identity and the Strike as I re-read it and it is amazing how many there were, e.g., on the bottom of page 135, Francisco is speaking to some folks at a party, he says,:

"Why hello, Professor!" said Francisco, bowing to Dr. Pritchett.

There was no pleasure in Dr. Pritchert's face when he answered the greeting and performed a few introductions.

"We were just discussing a most interesting subject," said the earnest matron. Dr. Pritchett was telling us that nothing is anything ."

"He should, undoubtedly, know more than anyone else about that," Francisco answered gravely.

"I wouldn't have supposed that you knew Dr. Pritchett so well, Senor d' Anconia," she said, and wondered why the professor looked displeased by her remark.

"I am an alumnus of the great school that employs Dr. Pritchett at present, the Patrick Henry University. But I studied under one of his predecessors --

Hugh Akston."

"Hugh Akston!" the attractive young women gasped . "But you couldn't have, Senor d' Anconia! You're not old enough. I thought he was one of those great

names of ....of the last century.

"Perhaps in spirit, madame. Not in fact.

"But, I thought he died years ago."

"Why no, he's still alive."

"Then why don't we ever hear about him any more?"

He retired, nine years ago." <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<this date's the beginning of the Strike, I believe.

"Isn't it odd, when a politician or a movie star retires, we read front page stories about it," But when a philosopher retires, people do not even notice it."

"They do eventually." <<<<<<<<<<<<<What a great line.

Or, Dagny's age, which I found last night and it confirms Jeff Riggenbach's idea that she is in her mid-thirties. On page 268, Dagny and Hank are talking to a woman in one of the depressed towns in Wisconsin[which, amusingly enough, is where the Twentieth Century Motor Company islocated - the State of Wisconsin],:

The woman looked at her , not in resentment, but merely as one looks at a pointless question. [The question was, how old are you?] "Thirty-seven," she answered.

They had driven five former blocks away, when Dagny spoke. "Hank, that woman is only two years older than I!" <<<<<<<<<[That makes Dagny 35 for the math challenged]

"Yes."

"God, how did they ever come to such a state. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<[OMG Ayn used the "G" word!!!!]

He shrugged, "Who is John Galt?"

Damn, this lady is a great writer.

Great pick up Michael

Adam

Edited February 20, 2011 by Selene

[jriggenbach]

I'm sure Ayn Rand would be thrilled to hear her novel described as being all about the 'underdog,' and then hear her "empowered" female character, Dagny Taggart, say: "If you double-cross me, I will destroy you." Yeah, that really captures the essence of Dagny Taggart.

Dennis,

This tickled a memory, so I looked it up.

I believe that line is a typical cinematic dialogue shortening of the following passage. This passage is from when Dagny agreed to take a leave of absence to complete the John Galt Line--and take full responsibility for it--and James floated the idea to her that there might be problems with permits. Dagny and James are talking.

She whirled to face him. Something of the bright, violent look still remained in her face. But it was not gay and she was not smiling. The look now had an odd, primitive quality. When he saw it, he hoped he would never have to see it again.

"Listen, Jim," she said; he had never heard that tone in any human voice. "There is one thing you can do as your part of the deal and you'd better do it: keep your Washington boys off. See to it that they give me all the permissions, authorizations, charters and other waste paper that their laws require. Don't let them try to stop me. If they try ... Jim, people say that our ancestor, Nat Taggart, killed a politician who tried to refuse him a permission he should never have had to ask. I don't know whether Nat Taggart did it or not. But I'll tell you this: I know how he felt, if he did. If he didn't—I might do the job for him, to complete the family legend. I mean it, Jim."

"If you double-cross me, I will destroy you," sounds like a great way to shorten it to me. There's just not enough time on screen for all this other stuff.

Michael

BRAVO Michael.

Exactly what I thought of when I saw the trailer and when I read Dennis' post. I have probably read Atlas about thirty (30) or so times and each time I give myself a task related to content analysis.

It took Ayn some twelve years to write the epic which comes out to 4, 380 days and the pocket book edition of Atlas has 1,074 pages in it which comes out to approximately four (4) days per page for her to write.

Each time I read Atlas, I engage in some content analysis and I make a lot of notes in the margins. Last year I labeled all the clues to Galt's identity and the Strike as I re-read it and it is amazing how many there were, e.g., on the bottom of page 135, Francisco is speaking to some folks at a party, he says,:

"Why hello, Professor!" said Francisco, bowing to Dr. Pritchert.

There was no pleasure in Dr. Pritchert's face when he answered the greeting and performed a few introductions.

"We were just discussing a most interesting subject," said the earnest matron. Dr. Pritchert was telling us that nothing is anything ."

"He should, undoubtedly, know more than anyone else about that," Francisco answered gravely.

"I wouldn't have supposed that you knew Dr. Pritchert so well, Senor d' Anconia," she said, and wondered why the professor looked displeased by her remark.

"I am an alumnus of the great school that employs Dr. Pritchert at present, the Patrick Henry University. But I studied under one of his predecessors --

Hugh Akston."

"Hugh Akston!" the attractive young women gasped . "But you couldn't have, Senor d' Anconia! You're not old enough. I thought he was one of those great

names of ....of the last century.

"Perhaps in spirit, madame. Not in fact.

"But, I thought he died years ago."

"Why no, he's still alive."

"Then why don't we ever hear about him any more?"

He retired, nine years ago." <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<this date's the beginning of the Strike, I believe.

"Isn't it odd, when a politician or a movie star retires, we read front page stories about it," But when a philosopher retires, people do not even notice it."

"They do eventually." <<<<<<<<<<<<<What a great line.

Or, Dagny's age, which I found last night and it confirms Jeff Riggenbach's idea that she is in her mid-thirties. On page 268, Dagny and Hank are talking to a woman in one of the depressed towns in Wisconsin[which, amusingly enough, is where the Twentieth Century Motor Company islocated - the State of Wisconsin],:

The woman looked at her , not in resentment, but merely as one looks at a pointless question. [The question was, how old are you?] "Thirty-seven," she answered.

They had driven five former blocks away, when Dagny spoke. "Hank, that woman is only two years older than I!" <<<<<<<<<[That makes Dagny 35 for the math challenged]

"Yes."

"God, how did they ever come to such a state. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<[OMG Ayn used the "G" word!!!!]

He shrugged, "Who is John Galt?"

Damn, this lady is a great writer.

Great pick up Michael

Adam

It's Pritchett, not "Pritchert."

JR

[Selene]

JR:

Thanks.

Maybe it is time for those reading glasses!

Adam

[Philip Coates]

Michael, thanks for that passage of dialogue between Dagny and Jim. But I have to go along with Dennis in wanting more of the original elegant dialogue rather than modern, over-terse colloquial condensations.

I read what Dagny said aloud and it took 30 seconds. You don't have that much time in a two minute trailer full of ten second montages, but you certainly do in a two-hour movie. Old-fashioned Hollywood in the thirties and forties used to do very 'talky' pictures with lots of rapid, witty patter. Not just drawing room comedies like Holiday or Private Lives, but pictures like His Girl Friday. You may not get every line, they talk really fast, but the ones you do get are sparkling and literate.

Her line about 'I'll drive the damn train myself" is okay though. That particular condensation worked, although I don't have the passage it was condensed from.

> Each time I read Atlas, I engage in some content analysis and I make a lot of notes in the margins. Last year I labeled all the clues to Galt's identity and the Strike as I re-read it and it is amazing how many there were, e.g., on the bottom of page 135, Francisco is speaking to some folks at a party...

Adam, that sounds like quite useful work. I hope you'll post more of it from time to time. Good find on the 'strike' hints and Dagny's age.

Edited February 20, 2011 by Philip Coates

[Dennis Hardin]

I'm sure Ayn Rand would be thrilled to hear her novel described as being all about the 'underdog,' and then hear her "empowered" female character, Dagny Taggart, say: "If you double-cross me, I will destroy you." Yeah, that really captures the essence of Dagny Taggart.

Dennis,

This tickled a memory, so I looked it up.

I believe that line is a typical cinematic dialogue shortening of the following passage. This passage is from when Dagny agreed to take a leave of absence to complete the John Galt Line--and take full responsibility for it--and James floated the idea to her that there might be problems with permits. Dagny and James are talking.

She whirled to face him. Something of the bright, violent look still remained in her face. But it was not gay and she was not smiling. The look now had an odd, primitive quality. When he saw it, he hoped he would never have to see it again.

"Listen, Jim," she said; he had never heard that tone in any human voice. "There is one thing you can do as your part of the deal and you'd better do it: keep your Washington boys off. See to it that they give me all the permissions, authorizations, charters and other waste paper that their laws require. Don't let them try to stop me. If they try ... Jim, people say that our ancestor, Nat Taggart, killed a politician who tried to refuse him a permission he should never have had to ask. I don't know whether Nat Taggart did it or not. But I'll tell you this: I know how he felt, if he did. If he didn't—I might do the job for him, to complete the family legend. I mean it, Jim."

"If you double-cross me, I will destroy you," sounds like a great way to shorten it to me. There's just not enough time on screen for all this other stuff.

Michael

It’s interesting that your post came right after ND’s, in which he quotes Ayn Rand as telling Silliphant: “You’ve destroyed Dagny’s character on this page!" One word--"perhaps"--made all the difference.

That’s what the word “destroy" does in place of the word "kill." "Kill" conveys the idea of pulling a trigger to eliminate an obstacle. "Destroy" conveys pursuing a course of action to hurt or damage someone else in retaliation for their misdeeds. Totally different meaning. Totally different implication for the character of the person speaking.

Of course, Rand threw in the words "might do the job" to make Dagny's threat less direct. This would be one way to shorten Rand's dialogue: "Remember the story about Nat Taggart killing a bureaucrat who got in his way? I always wondered if it was true. If your Washington boys try to stop me, I might just complete the family legend. I mean it, Jim."

On the other hand, it should not be surprising that a screenwriter who has absolutely no idea what the novel is about would miss that kind of subtlety.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis,

I don't agree with your characterization of the screenwriter, but I won't belabor the point. Gentlemen can disagree and that's fine.

I have something more interesting that occurred to me that might interest you, too. Maybe Dagny's outright threat to kill James (or anyone who got in her way) is Rand's foreshadowing of the scene where Dagny shot the guard dead at the end.

Michael

[jriggenbach]

Gentlemen can disagree and that's fine.

Yes, of course. But can a gentleman disagree with a pretentious ignoramus? And if he does, will that be fine?

Confusedly,

JR