Atlas Shrugged is Stalled

[Chris Grieb]

Also the ambiance of the novel is 1940s to mid 1950s. This is way too dated for a contemporary audience. Our society is totally computer oriented. Computers were never once mentioned in -AS-. And trains!!??? That is so retro. There are very few cross country trains now. Almost all rail traffic is either freight or commuter rail.

Also the premise has become outmoded. Our society (in the short and medium run) does not depend on a few (or hundreds) of original and independent thinkers. There are millions of them out there and the chance of a general strike of brain-folk is infinitesimal. As long as our society remains semi-free it will run. It will run on only three cylinders, perhaps, but it will run.

Please don't go on. This is perhaps the lamest excuse for not making it into a movie.

How about all those people who went to see Russell Crowe in Gladiator? That movie was a lot more dated.

How about all these people who still watch movies like The Sound of Music and Gone with the Wind?

"Dated" movies come out all the time. People watch them.

I agree with Baker.

[Barbara Branden]

Baal: "AS may be episodic, but it is first and foremost a novel about -ideas-. It is the clash of -ideas- that is the real action of the novel. This is not the case with GWTW. GWTW is about people, their doings and (above all) their feelings shown in the context of the American Civil War."

Gone With the Wind, in the details of its story, is of course about people; but then so is Atlas Shrugged. They are both novels, after all. And like Atlas, GWTW has an intellectual plot-theme. It shows the conflict of the Old South and the New South -- neither of which can survive alone and unchanged -- and the South that will emerge from the two, against the background of the violence and destructiveness of the Civil War and its aftermath. The Old South (represented by characters such as Ashley Wilkes), a state of mind as much as a place, is too passive and inbred to cope with the onslaught against it; the brash New South, amoral, daring, willing to live in any manner and in any kind of world necessary (represented by Rhett Butler, the carpet baggers, and those few of the old aristocrats angry enough to join them) is doomed by its own immorality to be swept aside. It is the courageous, realistic South, the South of the new and determined survivors (represented by Scarlett O'Hara), a union of parts of the old and parts of the new, that will rise from the wreckage and triumph over it. This plot-theme is adhered to superbly in the movie-- just as the plot theme of Atlas could be adhered to superbly in its movie, with the plot-theme giving rise to and permeating every moment, character, and event.

Barbara

[BaalChatzaf]

Baal: "AS may be episodic, but it is first and foremost a novel about -ideas-. It is the clash of -ideas- that is the real action of the novel. This is not the case with GWTW. GWTW is about people, their doings and (above all) their feelings shown in the context of the American Civil War."

Gone With the Wind, in the details of its story, is of course about people; but then so is Atlas Shrugged. They are both novels, after all. And like Atlas, GWTW has an intellectual plot-theme. It shows the conflict of the Old South and the New South -- neither of which can survive alone and unchanged -- and the South that will emerge from the two, against the background of the violence and destructiveness of the Civil War and its aftermath. The Old South (represented by characters such as Ashley Wilkes), a state of mind as much as a place, is too passive and inbred to cope with the onslaught against it; the brash New South, amoral, daring, willing to live in any manner and in any kind of world necessary (represented by Rhett Butler, the carpet baggers, and those few of the old aristocrats angry enough to join them) is doomed by its own immorality to be swept aside. It is the courageous, realistic South, the South of the new and determined survivors (represented by Scarlett O'Hara), a union of parts of the old and parts of the new, that will rise from the wreckage and triumph over it. This plot-theme is adhered to superbly in the movie-- just as the plot theme of Atlas could be adhered to superbly in its movie, with the plot-theme giving rise to and permeating every moment, character, and event.

Barbara

You make a good points. Now tell me the last Big Budget movie that was about Ideas that made a profit for its makers and promoters.

Since -AS- was a novel that was a roman a clef for a philosophical system, I simply do not see how it can be made into a movie that remains true to the novel and still make a profit. An idea based movie will put the audience asleep. You have provided the best reason of all why the movie will either not be made, or if made will be an abomination.

There was a movie that was a very mini precis of the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes; -The Day the Earth Stood Still- Even so, it was sci fi action until the last three minutes of the film. That is when Klaatu gave his "John Galt" speech.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[sbeaulieu]

According to ARI, more than 25 million copies of Atlas Shrugged have sold, with 1 million sold each year. Given the popularity and influence of Ayn's book, a rapt audience should not be hard to find for this movie. If people can sit and read her 1096-page novel, a 3-hr or longer movie will be a non-issue. And really, what's more important? The message/idea, or the bottom line? I believe both will pay dividends in the long run.

~ Shane

[BaalChatzaf]

According to ARI, more than 25 million copies of Atlas Shrugged have sold, with 1 million sold each year. Given the popularity and influence of Ayn's book, a rapt audience should not be hard to find for this movie. If people can sit and read her 1096-page novel, a 3-hr or longer movie will be a non-issue. And really, what's more important? The message/idea, or the bottom line? I believe both will pay dividends in the long run.

~ Shane

There is no long run in the entertainment business. The aim is to recoup the costs of production as fast as possible. That means pandering to unwashedness of the masses. The definition of a mega-time-horizon in show biz is considerably less than a year.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[algernonsidney]

Well, then, you're changing the context, I'd say. From "making a film for mass release within the worldwide theater-distribution networks" to "making a film, period."

Nobody has applied that context until now. The networks you seem to love are collapsing. They are losing power every day. Nor did I say I wanted a film made, period. I have stated that I definitely want the film to be made by people who actually respect the novel. The system you write of generally doesn't respect novels. How many times have we heard the old line: "The book was better than the movie."? I don't want people saying that about an Atlas Shrugged movie.

Stars have become necessary to attract massive capital (except for some genre works, on rare occasion), huge audiences and video sales are required to provide it, and those audiences generally want to see established stars.

The stars that you love so much also make the "massive capital" necessary. It sounds like the film you want to see made is already going to pay out about $50,000,000 just in actors' salaries. This is completely unnecessary.

Such a film already has a nearly guaranteed audience. Most of the people who have read the book will want to see a film. This is not a small number. I believe the book has sold at least 25,000,000 copies. Well, if you translate that 25,000,000 tickets at $8 a ticket, you've got $200,000,000 gross. That's excellent, unless you've done something stupid like spend $300,000,000 to make it.

One way the filmmaker could screw this up would be to disrespect the novel. One person suggesting "collapsing Francisco and Galt" into one character. If that was in the film, I would refuse to see it on principle. Many others would as well.

I'll admit that I have a huge bias now toward the person who isn't a "star." I have taken quite a few acting classes here in Austin myself. I have met a lot of wonderful people who act as a sideline (but don't want it to be). I know quite a few people who have worked on Friday Night Lights. I know people who could play these roles.

If you're going to have a film within this system

The whole point is that there is never going to be a film within this system. The novel came out in 1957. We've already waited 51 years for "this system" to make the movie. Maybe we should give up on the system.

It's too late for that, though. The decision has been made. Peikoff has already been paid millions for the full film rights to Atlas. They've been traded to yet other parties by now, and currently are with Lions Gate, a major (if second-tier) producer.

He took the money and is basically guaranteeing that it doesn't get made. I really don't expect all the socialists in Hollywood to be particularly sympathetic to this novel. They could have done this just so they could pigeonhole the project. They've been keeping it down for 51 years already.

I would like to see Mark Cuban get his hands on it. I know he's a big fan of The Fountainhead. If he got his hands on the rights, I bet it would get done.

I don't know about international copyrights. I imagine that the film will come from someplace outside the USA. That's what happened with We The Living.

[Chris Grieb]

Baker; We The Living was stolen by the Italians who we fighting at the time. Something you may have heard of called World War II. The Italians did not observe any of Miss Rand's rights.

This was the reason the movie was not available for over forty years.

I hope this isn't what you want with Atlas.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Now tell me the last Big Budget movie that was about Ideas that made a profit for its makers and promoters.

Bob,

The Dark Knight.

All about volition and chance and their impact on good and evil. And it broke records.

People told Rand all her life that books about Ideas don't make profit. Heh.

Don't you worry your little heart about Atlas losing money or breaking even. The way the entertainment industry is cross purposed between theater, games, DVD, TV, world rights, boutique, licensing, etc., it can't not break even. That is not the worry of the producers.

Their concern is to make an insane amount of profit. Given the choice to make a humongous pile of money or a huge pile of money, they usually opt to make the humongous pile of money.

What do you think funds the kook lifestyle in this industry? They would never get away with that on such a massive scale (reality would not let them) if it were not for a trickle down of megabucks.

Michael

[algernonsidney]

Their concern is to make an insane amount of profit. Given the choice to make a humongous pile of money or a huge pile of money, they usually opt to make the humongous pile of money.

I never thought of it this way, but it sounds like a decent hypothesis.

Some of the most reputable businesses do try to make a profit. They do not try to make an insane profit. Southwest Airlines is a prime example. They have made a profit every year since 1973. As far as risk-taking is concerned, they operate quite conservatively.

Speaking of insane lifestyles, where did all of Ed McMahon's money go? How does someone like this end up with his house being foreclosed? Not only did he work beside Johnny Carson all those years, he also had numerous commercial endorsements like Alpo and Budweiser.

Oh, wait, Ed has two divorces. Now we all know where his money went. For a man, divorce is the surest route to the poorhouse.

I still stand by what I said. The only it will get done will be as a bootleg. I don't care as long as it's done right. Ayn Rand is dead.

Edited September 20, 2008 by Chris Baker

[Brant Gaede]

Ayn Rand is dead.

I saw Ayn Rand the other night

As alive as you or me.

Ayn Rand I said in my surprise

How can this be?

It's easy chump

She did reply. It's as easy as can be.

Your psycho-epistemology

Has gone and climbed a tree!

--Brant

[Greybird]

[...] The networks you seem to love are collapsing.

[...] The stars that you love so much also make the "massive capital" necessary. It sounds like the film you want to see made [...]

I have said absolutely nothing about my supposedly "loving" the networks, "loving" the use of stars in general, or — apart from being revulsed by Vadim Perelman — the kind of film I "want to see made." I am getting tired of your putting words into my mouth.

I was outlining realities of the existing system to which Peikoff, who owns the book, whether you like that or not (and here, I actually say, as I have elsewhere: I do not), has already committed it.

The film production rights have been sold outright, without any consultation or approval from Peikoff being legally required any longer. (Rand would not agree to this while she was alive.)

It will not be made as an independent film. It will be made within the mainstream apparatus of film production, either theatrical or cable-TV varieties, if it is ever made at all. Deal with it.

Unless, that is, you want to abrogate or abolish the entire international system of copyright law — as your last paragraph strongly appears to suggest — in regard to this, and other, books and their related media rights.

Strong arguments could be made against this system of statutory copyright, especially in its being arbitrary. I've made many of them. Yet you should be consistent about what you are proposing: to have no such production rights in other media for this, or any, book be respected.

I'm not going to get into that issue, though. Right now, I'm fed up with your misrepresenting me, you are not choosing to engage in honest discussion, and I'm putting you on my ignore list.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Actually there is the start of one bootleg copy, if you want to use that terminology. Someone (Xcowboy2, Richard) on YouTube did a mashup of Galt's speech, freely using copyrighted images and music in addition to the entire speech. I am not sure, but I think the audio narration was in the public domain, but only for the speaker's rights, not for the text.

Xcowboy2 didn't say, but I am also fairly sure he did not request permission from John Aglialoro (for Atlas Shrugged) or the other copyright owners (for the other materials) to do that and publish it.

Michael

[Selene]

Michael:

I just watched two or three and they are quite competent.

Adam

[BaalChatzaf]

Baker; We The Living was stolen by the Italians who we fighting at the time. Something you may have heard of called World War II. The Italians did not observe any of Miss Rand's rights.

This was the reason the movie was not available for over forty years.

I hope this isn't what you want with Atlas.

Oh Christ! Michael Moore or Oliver Stone making the -Atlas Shrugged- movie. Hast du in dein ganzen leib gesehen?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[algernonsidney]

I "want to see made." I am getting tired of your putting words into my mouth.

And you are doing the same. This seems to be a popular thing among Objectivists.

It will not be made as an independent film. It will be made within the mainstream apparatus of film production, either theatrical or cable-TV varieties, if it is ever made at all.

I don't think it will ever be made in that apparatus. Even you are admitting that you wonder "if it is ever made at all."

Unless, that is, you want to abrogate or abolish the entire international system of copyright law — as your last paragraph strongly appears to suggest — in regard to this, and other, books and their related media rights.

Strong arguments could be made against this system of statutory copyright, especially in its being arbitrary.

The purpose of copyright law is to protect creators. In this case, the creator is dead. How does the copyright of this novel protect Ayn Rand? It does not.

Even worse is that kind of garbage discredits the whole concept of copyright law. With intellectual property rights being abused so badly nowadays, some people are starting to think that the only cure to these abuses is to get rid of intellectual property altogether. Like all law, the first purpose of intellectual property should be justice. When its purpose is not justice, then it starts to cancel out any good that it does.

Atlas Shrugged will not go public until 2052. Ayn Rand died in 1982. This is absolutely ridiculous.

[algernonsidney]

I can just imagine Brad Pitt in Atlas Shrugged. It might sound something like this:

The first rule of Galt's Gulch is you do not talk about Galt's Gulch.

The second rule of Galt's Gulch is you do not talk about Galt's Gluch.

Third rule of Galt's Gulch, someone yells "Stop!", goes limp, taps out, the mind strike is over.

Fourth rule, only two guys to a mind strike.

Fifth rule, one mind strike at a time, fellas.

Sixth rule, no shirt, no shoes.

Seventh rule, mind strikes will go on as long as they have to.

And the eighth and final rule, if this is your first night at Galt's Gulch, you have to mind strike.

[BaalChatzaf]

I can just imagine Brad Pitt in Atlas Shrugged. It might sound something like this:

The first rule of Galt's Gulch is you do not talk about Galt's Gulch.

The second rule of Galt's Gulch is you do not talk about Galt's Gluch.

Third rule of Galt's Gulch, someone yells "Stop!", goes limp, taps out, the mind strike is over.

Fourth rule, only two guys to a mind strike.

Fifth rule, one mind strike at a time, fellas.

Sixth rule, no shirt, no shoes.

Seventh rule, mind strikes will go on as long as they have to.

And the eighth and final rule, if this is your first night at Galt's Gulch, you have to mind strike.

Is this a spoof on -The Fight Club-?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Reidy]

Concerning #86: Has Peikoff in fact sold the rights? My understanding was that he sold an option that expires, Cinderella-style, at the end of this year, after which they're all his again.

Concerning #81: You say the movie "already has a nearly guaranteed audience. Most of the people who have read the book will want to see a film" (italics added). Not so fast. If the book has been in print for 50+ years, a lot of the people who've read it are dead and a lot more are past their heavy moviegoing years (18 - 25). I doubt that I'd go. ARI loyalists won't go to it if it isn't under the control of the inner circle, and god knows nobody else will go to it if it is.

Movie history is littered with the bones of turkeys that were adapted from immensely popular novels. The Fountainhead is one. Bonfire of the Vanities, Dune, Rising Sun, Raintree County, The Shining and the first and last Turow and Paretsky adaptations are some of the others. I have a hunch that this was the thinking in all those cases.

Edited September 21, 2008 by Reidy

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I just watched two or three and they are quite competent.

Adam,

They are very good. I hope the makers of the movie use them for analysis.

My point was simply that, to my knowledge, they were made without permission from the copyright owners.

btw - I am not against this. But mashups and the extent of intellectual property belong to a whole other discussion.

Michael

[algernonsidney]

Actually, there is something else to consider about this movie. What is Michael Medved going to say? What is Roger Ebert going to say? What is Leonard Maltin going to say? What will others in Hollywood say?

Considering what happened with the novel, I expect that Atlas Shrugged: The Movie will suffer a similar fate.

[Selene]

I just watched two or three and they are quite competent.

Adam,

They are very good. I hope the makers of the movie use them for analysis.

My point was simply that, to my knowledge, they were made without permission from the copyright owners.

btw - I am not against this. But mashups and the extent of intellectual property belong to a whole other discussion.

Michael

A completely different discussion. Realizing how difficult it is to make the calls you make in so many different threads, I have no problems when you make those decisions. If anything, you are a hell of a lot more tolerant with folks than I probably would be which is why I would never attempt to manage a forum.

Adam

[Barbara Branden]

Baal: " Since -AS- was a novel that was a roman a clef for a philosophical system, I simply do not see how it can be made into a movie that remains true to the novel and still make a profit. An idea based movie will put the audience asleep."

Please note the folliowing statements: "The hero is too intellectual for a novel." "The story is improbable." "The hero is unsympathetic." "The book is too controversial to find an audience." "Too opposed to the present political climate."

These were among the reasons publishers gave for rejecting the manuscript of The Fountainhead. An idea-based novel will never find an audience, they believed. Yet even today, 65 years after publication, this novel of ideas outsells present day best-sellers. Apparently, its readers are awake.

Chris Baker: "How many times have we heard the old line: 'The book was better than the movie.'? I don't want people saying that about an Atlas Shrugged movie."

Of course the book is better than the movie can be. Had it been more appropriate for film, probably Rand would have written it as a screen play. But that doesn't mean that a superb movie can't be made from it, especially because it's an exciting, suspenseful action story -- much more so than The Fountainhead.

Chris Baker: "I really don't expect all the socialists in Hollywood to be particularly sympathetic to this novel. They could have done this just so they could pigeonhole the project. They've been keeping it down for 51 years already."

The socialists in Hollywood have had little to do with keeping the movie from being made. Ayn Rand, understandably, was terrified of selling the movie rights without insisting on controls that no producer could possibly give her. For example, in negotiating with Al Ruddy years ago, she demanded final cut approval -- which meant that Ruddy could have spent all the money, time, and effort needed to make the movie, only to have Rand veto it. I think it likely that in the years since, she may have, consciously or not, sabotaged some of the other negotiations with producers. After her death, Peikoff for many years blindly continued her policy of impossible demands until, apparently, he finally realized he was making a sale iindefinitely mpossible.

Chris Baker: "Actually, there is something else to consider about this movie. What is Michael Medved going to say? What is Roger Ebert going to say? What is Leonard Maltin going to say? What will others in Hollywood say? Considering what happened with the novel, I expect that Atlas Shrugged: The Movie will suffer a similar fate."

Yes, do consider what happened with the novel -- the novel about which some of the critics said: "Larger than life and twice as preposterous" -- "A cumbersome, lumbering vehicle" -- "A hymn to the survival of the fiittest" -- "Almost perfect in its immorality." And you see how they led to the commercial failure of the book! Assuming a reasonably good movie, I predict movie goers will have the same reaction to it as readers had to the book.

Barbara

[Chris Grieb]

Barbara as always makes great points. That is only one of the reasons I love her.

Edited September 22, 2008 by Chris Grieb

[Selene]

Barbara:

One of the first facts that caused me to become a "Randian" was what I read about her life. The consistent commitment to her values and the refusal to compromise those values.

I have become quite concerned that my junior generations have lost that courage. The constant teaching of grey and the constant message that if you think for yourself and it runs against the "established" critics, philosophers, literature/music/art "professors" there is something wrong with you as it is better to be part of the group.

Chris B., why are you at all concerned about "them", are you stating that you will not go to the movie? If possible, I will be in the first showing of the first day.

Chris G., yes she was incitefull and clear when I listened to her speak at NBI when I was 17. I haven't noticed any difference today.

[Barbara Branden]

Barbara as always makes great points. That is only one of the reasons I love her.

Thank you, Chris.

Barbara