Roger Bissell Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 This was just posted at the Atlas Society web site:Who is Dagny Taggart?January 23, 2009Ayn Rand’s masterpiece, Atlas Shrugged, is still reaching for the big-screen! For those of you who keep up with movie news, the most recent discussion of the movie project took place at a film panel consisting of producers Michael Burns, Vice-Chairman of Lionsgate Films, and Howard and Karen Baldwin of Baldwin Entertainment; along with then-engaged director Vadim Perlman. The panel was held at TAS’s 50th Anniversary Celebration of Atlas Shrugged, October 6, 2007.The Lionsgate project came to a halt on September 30, 2008, when the company chose not to renew its option with Atlas Society trustee John Aglialoro, owner of the movie rights and current script. Now, after a waiting period through the end of 2008, Aglialoro is pursuing other options. In addition to the possibility of producing an adaptation himself, he is in discussions with private investors and film producers.Burns of Lionsgate remains interested in the project, however, as do the Baldwins. Aglialoro is exploring with them the possibility of a new film deal—this time without Angelina Jolie, who was previously attached to the role of Dagny Taggart. “Jolie failed to seize the opportunity, and we’re moving on,” said Aglialoro.Actresses who have expressed interest in the role and are reading the script include Cate Blanchett, Keira Knightly, Julia Roberts, and Charlize Theron. Randall Wallace, who wrote the current version of the script, is a strong possibility as director.“There are no guarantees in Hollywood,” cautions Aglialoro. “The movie may never be made.” Nevertheless, he adds, interest in Rand’s great novel continues to grow worldwide. With a huge fan base and the continuing high level of interest from the film industry, “everything looks hopeful and promising.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 (edited) Oliver Stone is the only true cinematic genius working, but you can't trust him with Atlas. I've always felt that a movie should stress the great visuals possible, not the talking heads.--Brant Edited January 24, 2009 by Brant Gaede Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Grieb Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 (edited) Oliver Stone is the only true cinematic genius working, but you can't trust him with Atlas. I've always felt that a movie should stress the great visuals possible, not the talking heads.--BrantBrant; I agree about the visuals in Atlas. I noted when I watched the Fountainhead recently how great it is visually. The talking head parts are bad.I don't know if I think Oliver Stone is the only true cinematic genius but I know I don't want him doing Atlas. Edited January 24, 2009 by Chris Grieb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 This was just posted at the Atlas Society web site:Who is Dagny Taggart?January 23, 2009Ayn Rand’s masterpiece, Atlas Shrugged, is still reaching for the big-screen! For those of you who keep up with movie news, the most recent discussion of the movie project took place at a film panel consisting of producers Michael Burns, Vice-Chairman of Lionsgate Films, and Howard and Karen Baldwin of Baldwin Entertainment; along with then-engaged director Vadim Perlman. The panel was held at TAS’s 50th Anniversary Celebration of Atlas Shrugged, October 6, 2007.The Lionsgate project came to a halt on September 30, 2008, when the company chose not to renew its option with Atlas Society trustee John Aglialoro, owner of the movie rights and current script. Now, after a waiting period through the end of 2008, Aglialoro is pursuing other options. In addition to the possibility of producing an adaptation himself, he is in discussions with private investors and film producers.Burns of Lionsgate remains interested in the project, however, as do the Baldwins. Aglialoro is exploring with them the possibility of a new film deal—this time without Angelina Jolie, who was previously attached to the role of Dagny Taggart. “Jolie failed to seize the opportunity, and we’re moving on,” said Aglialoro.Actresses who have expressed interest in the role and are reading the script include Cate Blanchett, Keira Knightly, Julia Roberts, and Charlize Theron. Randall Wallace, who wrote the current version of the script, is a strong possibility as director.“There are no guarantees in Hollywood,” cautions Aglialoro. “The movie may never be made.” Nevertheless, he adds, interest in Rand’s great novel continues to grow worldwide. With a huge fan base and the continuing high level of interest from the film industry, “everything looks hopeful and promising.”I told you so.Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfly Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 I told you so.So did I. Is it a coincidence that this new message on the Atlas site comes so shortly after this new Randzapper article? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 I suppose we can prepare for a wave of mocking from all quarters.One fact I do find striking. The Democratic National Convention that nominated Barack Obama happened at the end of August. The Lehman Brothers crash happened in the middle of September. Lionsgate (I read that to mean Jolie) pulled out at the end of September.Maybe Atlas Shrugged was not seen as the best movie option to release during the beginning of a (then perceived) possible Obama administration. Especially if (to them) he started fixing the economy according to principles that Rand's work says destroys the world.For Jolie, Randzapper (at the link above) claimed that she has had a recent string of flops. I just looked it up. This is totally inaccurate. (Just look at the blockbusters and awards in the linked Wikipedia article since 2006.)A good speculation would be that she did not want to risk her popularity and success on what promised to be (in the perception I mentioned) a turkey.As the TAS article said, Lionsgate and the Baldwins are working on hammering out a new deal. Obviously the old one depended on an actress with the star power of Jolie.I wish John Aglioloro good luck. He is a true hero who puts his money where his mouth is and gives it his all. He deserves applause, not mockery. I have total faith in his capacity to finish this project on a grand scale.I also predict that with the coming arrival of the results of the present economic difficulties and (what I predict will be) a media crucifixion of President Obama, if a film can be made of AS in the next 2-3 years, whoever is involved will make a killing.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Grieb Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Michael; With all due respect I still Jesus will come back the same time the movie comes out.The very good news is that the book has been in Amazon top hundred all this week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfly Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Michael; With all due respect I still Jesus will come back the same time the movie comes out.You think he wouldn't want to miss it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backlighting Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 (edited) Some thoughts:Must be really tough getting the financing, too. The banks are now controlled even more with the new leftist administration. I'd like to see AS produced for t.v. as an 8 hr. series. One might also consider extending it as a continuing weekly drama series. Showing how the collapsed society in AS rebuilds, without interference, from the ground up. It would be joyous!Promote, direct and show it with the same excitement as the current "24" aired once a week in Prime Time.(I enjoy that show). Edited January 25, 2009 by Las Vegas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barbara Branden Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Michae: "One fact I do find striking. The Democratic National Convention that nominated Barack Obama happened at the end of August. The Lehman Brothers crash happened in the middle of September. Lionsgate (I read that to mean Jolie) pulled out at the end of September."Maybe Atlas Shrugged was not seen as the best movie option to release during the beginning of a (then perceived) possible Obama administration. Especially if (to them) he started fixing the economy according to principles that Rand's work says destroys the world."Interesting point, Michael. And very probably true.Barbara Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiaer.ts Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 I told you so.So did I. Is it a coincidence that this new message on the Atlas site comes so shortly after this new "Randzapper" article?Why would you link to this site and drive up its presence on google, or even bother to bring it to our attention? It has no content. I suggest you change the hot link into a url. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjohnson Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Hey on that site, http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/fl...00501050715.asp, there are several advertisements to objectivist sites. Doesn't that mean they are supporting the National Review site? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiaer.ts Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Such advertising is not bought or sold directly, but through agents who guarantee placement using key words and numbers of viewers. On that basis, Rand is mentioned, many read NRO, this is good placement, even though the bigwigs would not have sanctioned that specific instance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjohnson Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 So because the article is about Ayn Rand it automagically shows 3 adverts for Objectivist related sites? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiaer.ts Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 So because the article is about Ayn Rand it automagically shows 3 adverts for Objectivist related sites?An advertsing agency offers to sell an advertiser a set of ads with an audience of a certain size and composition. They guarantee that they will place so many ads on so many pages where Ayn Rand or Objectivism or whatever topics are mentioned, and they guarantee that these ads will be seen by so many people. This is why advertsing agencies pay attention first to ratings and second to content. They do not detail the exact specifics of every ad placement. Especially with the internet, computer programs are used to determine placement for almost all materials. The advertising agency sets the parameters based on the general guidlines worked out with the purchaser. ARI (or whovever buys the ads) will usually ask people, where did you hear of our product? This is how they judge success. But likely no one person pays attention to every placement. The ad agency can provide ARI with an after the fact list of placements. But no ad agency can specify exact editorial content (such as the fact that the article which is highly relevant to Rand also mentions Chambers) ahead of time. No ad agency is expected to do this, just as they are not necessarily expected to know who else might also be advertising on the same page. The buyer can certainly complain to the agent after the fact, try to demand a refund for that ad if he can, it is based on the contract, the ability of the agent, and his personal ambition to keep the comission. In most cases like this it will be very impersonal. The bottom line is that some content will be objectionable to the advertiser. The agent will say that there is no such thing as bad publicity. They may work out a compromise that addresses this in the future - assuming anyone is paying attention. Most likely the mid level agents never read the content, and are unaware of the specific (possibly neurotic) concerns of the higher ups in the purchasing institution. If the CEO of Randroids Inc complains to his advertising purchaser, then the purchaser will complain to the agent. I doubt in this casse that would happen - who at ARI would read NRO? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Ted,You are applying print standard advertising to the Internet. It works a little differently with Google.What I saw on the page was an ad for The Objective Standard using "Ads by Google." This means Adwords, and from what I saw it is nothing more than a targeted CPM campaign. This is a bit technical, but basically it means the following:1. The Objective Standard bids on keywords X, Y and Z (or however many it wishes) at Google. This means that when a user types in that keyword, or when that keyword is present in the displayed text (you can choose which you prefer), the ad will be triggered.2. The Objective Standard can specify which sites (URL's) it wants to display this ad on (and OS itself makes the ad in its account settings). The only condition is that the site must have an Adsense account at Google and have placed the code on the site for Google ads to show up (the site owner gets paid for this).3. When a user clicks on the ad, The Objective Standard pays Google; or, as another option, it will pay Google for the number of times the ad shows up (CPM).4. CPM means "Cost per Mille (Thousand Impressions)" instead of CPC "Cost per Click."There are more parameters like geo-targeting, language, matching (broad, phrase, exact), but this starts getting pretty technical. As I said above, I believe that The Objective Standard chose specific pages on which they wish their ad to show up (targeted) using content-triggered ads, and for a series of technical reasons, I believe they are using CPM.I could look up a lot about this ad campaign if I wanted to confirm this and find out some other stuff (say, with Spyfu just for starters), but I don't find my time productively used that way. That is, until I start competing with The Objective Standard, which I doubt I will ever do.To answer GS's question, Google ads are triggered by keywords, not by direct placement. A site does have the possibility of specifying which keywords to refuse and which advertisers he does not want to show up on his site. But this is a pain to do. If he does not do that (and people usually only do that when something is really obvious, like eliminating ads for something completely irrelevant when a keyword can mean two vastly different things), whatever keyword triggers an ad will determine it. So this means that if an ad for an Objectivist organization on National Review pops up, there is no "sanction" or anything like that going on. It's all about audience and the money and using an automated ad system.Frankly, if The Objective Standard is targeting National Review's audience for its ads, I say it's about time. It's time for real business to be done in the Objectivist world instead of the constant bullshit that we all know and love.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjohnson Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 It just seems strange, it's like going to Chrysler.com and seeing adds for Ford.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 GS,Outside of any other consideration, this is media, not industrial products. Haven't you ever seen an ad for a publication in a different one, even a competing one? I see it all the time, maybe not on the level of Time Magazine, but certainly on smaller periodicals.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiaer.ts Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Michael, I said that placement was determined by keywords. But feel free to correct me anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Michael, I said that placement was determined by keywords. But feel free to correct me anyway.Ted,Yes you said that, but you also said (as if this were a part of it):An advertsing agency offers to sell an advertiser a set of ads with an audience of a certain size and composition. They guarantee that they will place so many ads on so many pages where Ayn Rand or Objectivism or whatever topics are mentioned, and they guarantee that these ads will be seen by so many people.This is not how Google ads work. There is no advertising agency that "sells ads" and there is no guarantee of how many people see the ad. There are other problems, but I will not continue. I have no interest in "I am right and you are wrong" stuff.If you are interested in really learning about this instead of teaching it based on "principles," I suggest you go here: Adwords Learning Center. (Teaching by principle alone is a terrible habit many Objectivists get into and it gets them into all kinds of trouble and embarrassing situations. It's not all their fault, either. It started with Rand in her erroneous and non-referenced take on many famous authors and bodies of thought. I know about this because I used to do it all the time and had to wean myself from it. I even believe the chip-on-the-shoulder about being wrong comes from a person knowing that his principle-based knowledge is not complete and risks being inaccurate, even as he tries to teach it, and this bothers him. That's how it used to work with me.)I find Google's teaching, however, boring and unclear. You can get a much better idea of Adwords more quickly from experts like Perry Marshall or a host of get-rich-quick products on Clickbank (especially Day Job Killer for an older one, Google Snatch for a newer one, etc.) but they are expensive and most come with hype you can cut with a knife. The best bang for your buck I have seen if you are a beginner is Adwords for Dummies by Howie Jacobson. It even comes with an Adwords voucher so you can start without paying for the ads. I just reread the Wikipedia article: AdWords. After all the study I put in over this last year or so, I found it surprisingly clear. When I first read it at the start of my studies, I didn't understand a damn thing. But if you want to see a good description of what The Objective Standard did on the National Review site, read the section called "Placement targeted advertisements (formerly Site-Targeted Advertisements)."Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidMcK Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 Michael, Out of curiosity, to help me understand where google gets revenue, how much money would they get paid per 1000 impressions? Just a ballpark figure if there is such a thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfonso Jones Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 The algorithms used for this can be quite sophisticated.Bill P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Parille Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 I doubt this film will ever be made. I think it would have to be too long.-Neil Parille Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiaer.ts Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 I doubt this film will ever be made. I think it would have to be too long.-Neil Parille I have four words for you. I, Clau-Di-Us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Parille Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 (edited) Hi Ted,Funny you mentioned that, I'm watching the series. I'm up to part 10. It's excellent.I'm reading books on ancient history and then watching movies. It's a good way to learn, but obviously you have to be careful.-Neil Parille Edited January 26, 2009 by Neil Parille Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now