Atlas Shrugged: The Movie or T.V. Miniseries

[BaalChatzaf]

How will -Atlas Shrugged- be rendered in the current era when very few Americans have ever taken a long distance train ride. Once we get away from subways and commuter railroads and "light rail" transit, railroads are not that generally experienced or used.

Now the railroad and metal-works were the key industries of the written version of -Atlas Shrugged-. What shall we substitute for them in a modern update version of the novel?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[kiaer.ts]

There are more hours shot of TV and movie westerns than there were actual hours of the historical period of the Wild West.

So the question arises, if we accept your premise, Bob, how could Westerns ever be commercially successful in a century during which most Americans never rode on a horse?

Bob, have you ever heard of the anti-conceptual mindset?

[Michelle]

ATLAS SHRUGGED is set during some indefinite future date, and presumably the United States has deteriorated for quite a while before the story begins. In this context, the centrality of the railroad to the story shouldn't be seen as odd.

There are three major issues I see for this film:

1) Much of the story alternates between long trains of internal dialogue, extended flashbacks, and length philosophical dialogues. Translating this to film in an acceptable and satisfying manner is going to be difficult.

2) John Galt is such an impossibly perfect physical specimen in the novel that I do not know how people are going to find a satisfactory actor to portray him. They're going to have to just find some handsome and sturdy fellow because I doubt they'll find one who has never known pain, fear, or guilt.

3) The radio broadcast. They'll need to make it long enough to be satisfying, but short enough to not bore and eventually empty the theater of viewers.

Edited July 1, 2009 by Michelle R

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob, have you ever heard of the anti-conceptual mindset?

Actually not. What you call "mind" is (in part) the brain conceptualizing. Brains conceptualize. That is how they are built and that is what they do.

But this does not answer my question. What if anything, will replace railroads as a plot element in an updated version of -Atlas Shrugged-.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[kiaer.ts]

Bob, have you ever heard of the anti-conceptual mindset?

Actually not. What you call "mind" is (in part) the brain conceptualizing. Brains conceptualize. That is how they are built and that is what they do.

But this does not answer my question. What if anything, will replace railroads as a plot element in an updated version of -Atlas Shrugged-.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I don't know, Bob. This really is a serious issue, isn't it? I suppose you should ask Mel Gibson what principles he followed when he replaced crucifixion with lethal injection in Passion of the Christ and when he had the Romans speak Ebonics rather than Latin so that a modern audience could identify.

[algernonsidney]

Now the railroad and metal-works were the key industries of the written version of -Atlas Shrugged-. What shall we substitute for them in a modern update version of the novel?

Ba'al Chatzaf

What is to be accomplished by butchering the story?

[Selene]

Chris:

Nothing. It's 12:00 PM Central Mountain Time does not work as well as High Noon.

Leave the novel alone,

Michele sees how difficult getting the f_ _ _ing film into contract let alone production will be.

Adam

Edited July 2, 2009 by Selene

[Brant Gaede]

How will -Atlas Shrugged- be rendered in the current era when very few Americans have ever taken a long distance train ride. Once we get away from subways and commuter railroads and "light rail" transit, railroads are not that generally experienced or used.

Now the railroad and metal-works were the key industries of the written version of -Atlas Shrugged-. What shall we substitute for them in a modern update version of the novel?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Nothing. The novel is basically VERY up to date re current events.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

> John Galt is such an impossibly perfect physical specimen in the novel that I do not know how people are going to find a satisfactory actor to portray him.

I'm available.

[ginny]

But, Philip, John Galt really wouldn't have that much screen time. His would be more of a supporting role. I see you as the leading man type.

Ginny

[Brant Gaede]

I said it once, I've said it twice--and now thrice: I want to play James Taggart. I'm too old, but I've got the psychology down pat.

"Don't bother me, don't bother me, don't bother me."

--Brant

looking forward to the torture chamber: "You will be dictator! You will! G'damn you!" "More power!" "Ramp it up!" "My sister is coming! I read the book! Ramp it up!"

[Alfonso Jones]

How will -Atlas Shrugged- be rendered in the current era when very few Americans have ever taken a long distance train ride. Once we get away from subways and commuter railroads and "light rail" transit, railroads are not that generally experienced or used.

Now the railroad and metal-works were the key industries of the written version of -Atlas Shrugged-. What shall we substitute for them in a modern update version of the novel?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Nothing. The novel is basically VERY up to date re current events.

--Brant

Exactly. Spot on, Brant. If Atlas were to show up today in the movie theater, it would have the air (for many) of being some sort of allegory aimed at Mr. Thompson/Obama. (That is, in fact, the major danger - that it might be regarded as only a political tract.) I can imagine having to pull out my early copy of Atlas (early enough that it is dedicated to Frank O'Connor and Nathaniel Branden!) and show . . "SEE. IT WASN'T WRITTEN IN 2008! IT WAS PUBLISHED IN THE 1950S!!!"

I see no problem with railroads, prominence of the steel industry, etc...

Bill P

[Barbara Branden]

3) The radio broadcast. They'll need to make it long enough to be satisfying, but short enough to not bore and eventually empty the theater of viewers.

Rand said Galt's radio speech could be shortened to three or four minutes.

Barbara

[Michelle]

3) The radio broadcast. They'll need to make it long enough to be satisfying, but short enough to not bore and eventually empty the theater of viewers.

Rand said Galt's radio speech could be shortened to three or four minutes.

Barbara

I suppose it would need to be. Since the massive story is going to be severely compressed anyhow, they can turn Galt's laundry list of the society's philosophic failings into a somewhat general statement of fundamental principles.

I just hope they are rational about this. They could stuff the movie as full as possible with stuff from the book, and make it into one of those crappy movies that you can only make odds-or-ends of if you already know the book's story from the source material in detail. Or... they could realize that a movie is more like a short story or a novelette than a novel and that it is meant to be digested in one setting, and make something slimmer but far superior by only focusing on the essential aspects of the story.

Still, I hope they'll give the movie a good 2.5 - 3 hours of running time. Even slimming down the story that much, there is still quite a bit to depict on the screen.

I really hope they release it this time. The film, if well-made and well-marketed, will really make an impact on people who are baffled by the current political situation, and get more people to pick up the novel.

Edited July 5, 2009 by Michelle R

[galtgulch]

3) The radio broadcast. They'll need to make it long enough to be satisfying, but short enough to not bore and eventually empty the theater of viewers.

Rand said Galt's radio speech could be shortened to three or four minutes.

Barbara

I suppose it would need to be. Since the massive story is going to be severely compressed anyhow, they can turn Galt's laundry list of the society's philosophic failings into a somewhat general statement of fundamental principles.

I just hope they are rational about this. They could stuff the movie as full as possible with stuff from the book, and make it into one of those crappy movies that you can only make odds-or-ends of if you already know the book's story from the source material in detail. Or... they could realize that a movie is more like a short story or a novelette than a novel and that it is meant to be digested in one setting, and make something slimmer but far superior by only focusing on the essential aspects of the story.

Still, I hope they'll give the movie a good 2.5 - 3 hours of running time. Even slimming down the story that much, there is still quite a bit to depict on the screen.

I really hope they release it this time. The film, if well-made and well-marketed, will really make an impact on people who are baffled by the current political situation, and get more people to pick up the novel.

I wonder if Ayn Rand is turning over in her grave at the prospect that John Galt's Speech will be cut to three or four minutes! After all her response to Bennett Cerf, who told her that Random House wanted her to shorten the speech was to ask, "Would you cut the Bible?"

I read Atlas about once a year for several years after it was recommended to me in 1968, and a few times since but I think it is time I read it again. This time I might wonder as I read it how it might appear on the large screen with actors of my own choice in the roles, or indeed whether particular scenes could be cut altogether. Might be fun.

gulch

[Brant Gaede]

3) The radio broadcast. They'll need to make it long enough to be satisfying, but short enough to not bore and eventually empty the theater of viewers.

Rand said Galt's radio speech could be shortened to three or four minutes.

Barbara

But I believe she also was looking forward to a mini-series in which almost a quarter of an hour would be given over to it. Unfortunately, I cannot reference this. It might be in Passion, but a quick look failed to confirm that and I don't think it is. More likely it came from The Objectivist Forum or a similar publication. There was The Objectivist Callender, but I never saw a single issue. It was not straight from AR.

--Brant

[Reidy]

2.5 - 3-hour movies are as obsolete as go-go boots. Both were last in fashion in the mid-60s. Lawrence of Arabia and The Sound of Music, for example, were "road shows" in the parlance of the day. They played a single theater in a large city, and people bought advance tickets as they might to a play or concert.

Contemporary audiences, raised on TV, You Tube and music videos, won't sit still for such movies, and theater owners won't book a movie that commits them to one less showing a day.

[Barbara Branden]

Gulch: "I wonder if Ayn Rand is turning over in her grave at the prospect that John Galt's Speech will be cut to three or four minutes! After all her response to Bennett Cerf, who told her that Random House wanted her to shorten the speech was to ask, 'Would you cut the Bible?'"

Why would she be upset when it was she who said it could be shortened to three or four minutes for a movie. Also, I've never been convinced she made the remark about cutting the Bible; it isn't her literary style. However, she certainly did refuse to cut the speech for the book -- but, to repeat this once more, she knew that a movie is not a book.

Barbara

[Philip Coates]

> But, Philip, John Galt really wouldn't have that much screen time. His would be more of a supporting role. I see you as the leading man type. [Ginny]

Very true. But I've been working on my humility.

[ginny]

Keep working, Philip. Keep working.

Ginny

[Kat]

I think Michael should play John Galt.