Announcing Atlas Shrugged Part 2 on Ayn Rand’s Birthday!

The Atlas Society's picture
Submitted by The Atlas Society on Fri, 2012-02-03 04:14

Announcing Atlas Shrugged Part 2 on Ayn Rand’s Birthday!

John Aglialoro, the producer of Atlas Shrugged Part 1, has announced that the cameras will soon roll on Part 2 of the planned movie trilogy of Ayn Rand’s great novel. The film will be in theaters this fall!

And, as with the first movie, The Atlas Society will be heavily involved both in promoting the movie and spreading the Objectivist philosophy developed by Rand.

The announcement came on February 2, 2012, which would have been Rand’s 107th birthday! Harmon Kaslow, who produced Part 1 with Aglialoro, tells us the timing was no coincidence: “We have high aspirations for Part 2. We’ve looked carefully at Part 1 and taken time to analyze and reexamine everything from the script to the casting. John and I are committed to making a great Part 2 and excited about what lies ahead.”

Aglialoro made public that:

• The film is now fully financed;
• Principal photography will begin April 2012 in Los Angeles, Colorado, and New York;
• Emmy Award winner Duncan Scott, who worked with Rand to produce the English-subtitled version of the Italian film of her novel We the Living, will act as a screenplay consultant, joining The Atlas Society’s David Kelley in that task;
• Veteran TV producer Jeff Freilich will be coming on with Aglialoro and Kaslow to produce the picture;
• The theatrical release of the film will be October 2012;
AtlasShruggedMovie.com website has been launched with “portals” to the Part 1 and Part 2 websites.

Part 2 will cover the second section of Rand’s still-bestselling 1957 novel, entitled “Either-Or.” Part 2 dramatizes the collapse of industrial America; its chilling parallels with the state of America today account in part for the novel’s continuing popularity.

Atlas Society Capital Movie Campaign

The Atlas Society actively promoted Part 1 by setting up preview screenings and premieres, dedicating a special section of its Web site
to the film and book, offering video commentaries and webinars on the film and text commentaries on Rand’s prescience, running a “Myths About Ayn Rand” series, providing educational materials on Objectivism, and producing a special edition DVD that contains Atlas Society materials.

For Part 2 The Atlas Society intends to take promotion to a new level by raising $1 million to make certain that the impact of Atlas Shrugged cannot be missed in our culture and politics today.

Atlas Shrugged Themed Summer Seminar

As part of The Atlas Society’s promotion efforts, the theme of its annual Summer Seminar conference will be “Either-Or: Atlas Shrugged and the Future of Individualism.” It will focus on the philosophy and insights of the novel. This celebration of open Objectivism over three full days June 29-July 1, 2012 will take place in the elegant setting of the Renaissance Hotel, Washington, D.C.

The Summer Seminar brings together the community of scholars, students, professionals, entrepreneurs, and artists who have made open Objectivism a central part of their life and thought.

This year producers John Aglialoro and Harmon Kaslow will offer a special update on Part 2. “We are eager to provide Seminar participants a battlefield report on the film,” says Aglialoro, a trustee of the Society.


The anticipation is unbearable! (Yawn . . zzzzz . . .zzz)

darren's picture

A little over five weeks to go until lensing begins for Atlas Shrugged, Part II. So far, no word on who (if anyone) has been cast.

What about playstation3?

Jules Troy's picture

Is a ps3 in NZ different than a US one?   If not it is a relatively affordable blu ray player as well.

I just found a multi-zone Blu-Ray (that's what they call 'em)...

Marcus's picture

...player on amazon.uk for £159 (=$300 NZ). That was just the first page of the first search I did.

So Mark, either think about how much it would be to ship to NZ from the UK or US, or do a proper internet search.

I'm sure you can get cheaper.

Last option out. The cheapest

Mark Hubbard's picture

Last option out.

The cheapest multi-region blu-ray player I can buy is for $1,050. Not a good look to play a single $36 disc. I was hoping to find a sub-$100 machine and it would've been worth it.

Guess I'll stick it on Trade Me, with full disclosure, then use the money to buy a correct region disc. Seems to be the best way to negotiate around my Internet buy ban and at least retrieve some dignity from the whole sorry episode Eye

Bro Hubbard

Lindsay Perigo's picture

So you're saying you're completely one-eyed now?

Yeah, yeah, I know, confirming what everyone's known for years. Eye

It occurs to me one person we haven't heard from on the subject of this movie is Maestro Newberry. I hope he sees this and lets us know his thoughts.

Been looking into this over

Mark Hubbard's picture

Been looking into this over lunch. My stuff up. When I purchased our blu-ray I assumed no zoning for blu-ray, thinking that was one of the advantages of it, thus simply purchased online without reading specifications, etc.

My mix up has been it was the old, now ditched, HD-DVD format, that was going to be region free. Talk about stuffing around with your customers though ...

So you're saying you're

Mark Hubbard's picture

So you're saying you're completely one-eyed now?

Bro Hubbard

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Like you I am a moron when it comes to such matters. But as best as I can tell mine is a straight DVD (unlike its owner). And it helps that my DVD *player* is multi-sexual. Doesn't seem to mind *what* you put in it—though the insertion process is a challenge these days. I have lately acquired a condition called epiretinal membrane, the upshot of which is that everything is a blur unless I close one eye.

Marcus

Mark Hubbard's picture

So you might be excused all round.

Don't think that helps Smiling

There are people on the forum, though, Kiwis, including Linz and Gregster, who have discs: they must be just straight DVD's, perhaps, not blu-rays?

Someone?

Does your computer have a Blu-Ray player?

Marcus's picture

That might be able to play it.

Is NZ in the same Blu-Ray zone as the UK? Handy to know.

You can't be blamed for this because I'm not sure you can get a UK Blu-Ray disc for the film. Even if you bought it on amazon.uk it would still be of US origin.

According to my local shop that sells multi-region DVD players, there is no such thing as a multi-region Blu-Ray player. If it's called multi-region, it refers to the DVD player part of it. (OK they do exist, but they are still very expensive).

So you might be excused all round.

A litany of zones.

Mark Hubbard's picture

I purchased AS I - Blu-ray - some weeks ago from Amazon (US) and this Sunday Mrs Hubbard and I got cozy with a bottle of red and plans to watch it finally. I placed the Blu-ray in the machine, it whirred and whirred, and, unfortunately, just whirred before coming up with the error message 'this Zone A disc will not play on this Zone B machine'.

Oh.

Mrs Hubbard said surely you purchased this disk from Amazon UK? I said no, I thought our Blu-ray was multi-zoned.

I am now under the stricture of not being allowed to buy anything on the Internet without prior consent as, apparently, I'm a moron. Plus I have the frustration of still not seeing this, and will now wait until I can rent at Alices.

To further the grief, I forgot to renew my regular four line powerball ticket on Saturday online - I never forget that - and noticed on Sunday that one of my lines would've won division 5: $55.

So $36 (or thereabouts) for the Blu-ray, and this, I've done $91 this weekend.

The only thing that slightly retrieved it was after the zone fiasco we put on Mrs Hubbard's six box-set narrow boat tours of England, Wales and Ireland, purchased Amazon UK, to find it was out of focus and pretty dull: so some mana back. Unfortunately we also saw some of our narrow boat dreams sinking in the polluted channels of industrial England and a lot of people without many teeth.

Marcus good!

Ed Hudgins's picture

Sorry for the misunderstanding Marcus. Your posts are all fine. I just thought I'd throw another Wallace into the mix, though I was the one off-topic.

The remarks I mentioned did come from Darren and are no longer on the thread.

Cheers!
Ed

What censorious insults?

Marcus's picture

And how was that off topic?

I thought Wallace was in the discussion here for who would make a good director for the next Atlas films.

Ed, are you mixing me up with Darren or Seymourblogger?

Rev. William A. Wallace, OP.

Ed Hudgins's picture

To close the circle on “Wallace,” my professor at Catholic University for a class in “Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics” and one in “Causality and Scientific Explanation” was Rev. William A. Wallace, a Dominican priest and a Thomist. Unfortunately, his outstanding two-volume work by the latter title is out of print. But here are Amazon links:

Volume 1: Medieval and Early Classical Science

Volume 2: Classical and Contemporary Science

He argued that Aristotle’s rich understanding of causality was undermined by Hume’s and other’s notions of causation, usually reducing reality to narrow mechanical cause of causes at all.

Wallace also was a principal editor of Galileo’s notebooks. He argued that while Galileo paid lip service to Plato, he was in practice an Aristotelian, seeking the “vera causa” of true cause of phenomena.

Here’s the beginning of one of his lectures on the “Philosophy of Nature.”

He was born in 1918 and I believe is still alive. During World War II he specialized in ordinances and mines, and he had some connection with the Atomic bomb. He has a degree in physics.

See, Marcus, how I hijacked my own thread to enlighten others in the spirit of benevolence rather than to carp out of ignorance and offer censorious insults?

Cheers!

Randall Wallace and William Wallace...

Marcus's picture

...are supposedly related. (I just googled it).

Randall discovered the history of William while in Scotland finding out about his family history.

I know everyone loves the film, but it is in historical terms a "perversion" of the facts.

As a romance/ action film it is quite good, but how much of that is down to Gibson and how much is done to Wallace - I don't know.

darren we already know

seymourblogger's picture

he is a fool. I have been through this with Twilight so I am stopping here. Either the screenwriters are fools, the directors are fools or the producers are fools. Here, there, everywhere fools fools fools.

Why Hollywood is imploding itself.

But the new independents. A different story.

My copy of AS I arrived via

Mark Hubbard's picture

My copy of AS I arrived via Amazon this morning. Now I've just got to clear time to watch it. (Burnsy, you can borrow it if you like, after I've viewed it. You could pop around one day after dropping off the little old ladies from Church, and all the other selfless deeds you do, no doubt? If you can fit it in between posting here, that is.)

darren what's ironic

seymourblogger's picture

is that freedom loving Rand couldn't mirror Stalin any more so close to him in practices she was. Is it true that what you hate, you love.

The inverse has been said many times by many.

BTW I liked your reply. What is going on?

I just thought no one would notice.

darren's picture

Have you read the review of Wallace's adaptation of Atlas? It sounds fantastic! Aglialoro was a fool not to have used it.

You are right.,,

Marcus's picture

...It is not ironic.

I just thought no one would notice.

That's ironic. Any

darren's picture

That's ironic. Any relation?

You're saying it's ironic that a contemporary guy named Wallace wrote a screenplay about a historical guy named Wallace.

I see coincidence, not irony.

Perhaps you can explain your statement?

What is a bit ironic, however, is the fact that Rand was a dogmatic atheist, while Randall Wallace is a practicing Christian.

Maybe that's why Aglialoro didn't use Wallace's screenplay.

O Lindsay boo hoo

seymourblogger's picture

You just burst my bubble. Do you always rain on peoples' parades?

Janet

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I wish I could have controlled the way this film was made. A pity.

Oh no! Galt's Speech in Dr Diabolical Dialectical's Polish?! Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I thought you and Darren were on your PomoGoblian honeymoon? Have you come up for air?

You know he loves you only because he thinks you look like Ayn Rand, I trust. It's she whom he really loves. Facing up to that now might save you a lot of heart-break in the future.

Lindsay I know it is going to be shitty

seymourblogger's picture

and you are not going to agree with me. I will support darren on this because he made me the most beautiful avi anyone ever had.

I wish I could have controlled the way this film was made. A pity.

I just posted this on the movie thread ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... re Guess Who's Coming to Dinner on TCM:

I timed Tracy's final wonderful rave in light of debate about how much "meat" can go into the Atlas movie—seven minutes! No headbanging underneath, no frenetic gesticulations, no gimmicks, just a talking head and cutaways of silent heads. And of course, there are a number of warm-up monologues and dialogues from the other characters leading up to Tracy's finale. I know attention spans are much shorter in contemporary Airhead America, but Atlas shouldn't be aimed at airheads. It has to be timeless.

Wallace wrote a film script about...

Marcus's picture

...William Wallace.

That's ironic.

Any relation?

Ed!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Spoke to the producers of Atlas Shrugged Part 2 and their next movie will be Darren and Seymourblogger: A Romantic Comedy, but only if Perigo does the screenplay. So get crackin' Linz!

I'll pass on Darren and Seymourblogger if you don't mind, though you have permission to use my suggested sub-title: PomoGoblians in Love. But may I put my hand up for the screenplay of Atlas Part 2?! And coaching the actors through their lines?! And the lighting?! Eye

Review of the Randall Wallace screenplay of Atlas Shrugged

darren's picture

http://www.libertasfilmmagazin...

Very interesting.

Underscores the complete cluelessness of Aglialoro and TAS regarding their current choice of material.

Thanks Ed

Michael Moeller's picture

I read some of the history of the scripts, as well as a review of the Wallace script, and I was curious if Aglialoro (or anybody else involved in the film) had any of the scripts and used them at all. I knew Wallace had condensed the entire story into one film, which seems amazingly difficult.

Anyway, thanks for the answer.

Michael

Scripts of decades past

Ed Hudgins's picture

Michael - John Aglialoro has all of the past scripts. The one that came closest to being filmed before the one actually used was by Randall Wallace, who scripted Braveheart. Lionsgate was scheduled to produce it as stand-alone epic with a large budget. But when the bottom fell out of the economy and there were issues about directors and stars, the project fell through.

michael if they did

seymourblogger's picture

they couldn't read well enough to understand them.

I once thought of a Mad Men type series on Rand's life, girlhood in Russia flashbacks, early Hollywood flashbacks with the bulk of it after she met Branden, writing Atlas, the Collective, etc with the early stuff in flashback. Judy Dench?

A tough script. One would have to know Objectivism pretty well yet not be of it.

The way Cronenberg just did with psychoanalysis (he said he didn't know much except what he read to do the film and general knowledge) in Dangerous Method. OMG because of his non professional knowledge of it, and the performances interpreting it, it both reveals and conceals the tragedy of the 20th century.

I agree darren Strangelove was wonderful

seymourblogger's picture

A bf at that time looked like Peter Sellers and it was just about his favorite movie. He went on to invent the first dialysis machine for extra corporeal, bought out by Johnson and Johnson and his stock options allowed him to spend the rest of his life making beautiful bicycles and banjos, as he played bluegrass.

Fond memories.

I am about to do Dangerous Method today I think the sublest film I have ever seen.

I guess from the criticism about us peaceful discussion is not wanted?

Thanks for the beautiful avi. I wish I could live up to it. Alas my ravaged body couldn't even do it with plastic surgery.

Ed

Michael Moeller's picture

I was always curious as to whether the producers took a look at any of the AS scripts from Rand, Siliphant, or Wallace? Just wondering if you might know.

Michael

Spoke to the producers...

Ed Hudgins's picture

Spoke to the producers of Atlas Shrugged Part 2 and their next movie will be Darren and Seymourblogger: A Romantic Comedy, but only if Perigo does the screenplay. So get crackin' Linz!

seymourblogger

darren's picture

Terry Southern was on that film

Southern was a brilliant satirist. His screenplay of Dr. Strangelove for Stanley Kubrick was partly responsible for the film's success, as well as its enduring reputation as the great American "black humor" film.

If you haven't seen it in a while, I recommend giving it a look-see. It's very funny, brilliantly directed, and although the Cold War is long over, still relevant in many ways.

seymourblogger

darren's picture

I missed them at the time because I was seeing all foreign films: Pasolini; Triffaut; Chabrol; Antonioni

Those are all good choices.

Don't forget Eric Rohmer ("Claire's Knee"), Max Ophuls ("La Ronde", "The Earrings of Madame de___"), Roman Polanski ("Knife in the Water", "Repulsion"), Chris Marker ("La Jetee", "Sans Soleil") . . .

Many more!

Oh darren great clip

seymourblogger's picture

BUT that was her Vadim time. She was well loved and well fucked and it shows.

Terry Southern was on that film, Vadim was her director, her lover, and the other actors. Perfect. I will see it. Just think I have avoided it all these years because I had a closed mind about it and didn't know shit about it because my parachute wasn't open.

My deepest appreciation for your time in replying like this.

darren since I trust your film judgement

seymourblogger's picture

I will see them. I missed them at the time because I was seeing all foreign films: Pasolini; Triffaut; Chabrol; Antonioni;

Just saying their names thrills me again.

On my netflix list.

Fountainhead too as I haven't seen it since 49 and I was so young then. Amazing how much I remember of it and how it impressed my mind. Uncanny. Atlas - the film - will never do that to anyone.

seymourblogger (re: Jane Fonda)

darren's picture

I had difficulty watching her in anything.

Yeah, but you've got to admit Fonda was perfect in the opening credit sequence of Barbarella:

Now that's acting!

By the way, Jane was also very good in an excellent little noir thriller with Donald Sutherland called Klute.

darren of the superb avi

seymourblogger's picture

Thank you. I will add it to my netflix. I am leary as I know I will be critical but Spader is an actor of integrity. did you see him in Cronenberg's Crash. Wow. Jane Fonda and Ted Turner watched it and thought it was disgusting. She would. She is so neurotic I had difficulty watching her in anything.

@ seymourblogger - "The Music of Chance"

darren's picture

And if anyone wants to do a screenply on POKER, then do a screenply on Paul Auster's The Music of Chance.


"The Music of Chance" was made into a film in 1993. Starred James Spader, Mandy Patinkin, M. Emmet Walsh, Charles Durning, and Joel Grey. Directed by Philip Haas.


http://www.amazon.com/Music-Chance-James-Spader/dp/B00005JM8L


I remember seeing it when it opened. I liked it; a bit weird, but good. Great cast, too.

darren at last a peer in the movie biz info

seymourblogger's picture

I hang at a Pattinson site of fangirls who BTW often know quite a bit about this stuff. They have been moaning about Bel Ami's release date and someone with insider info set them straight about SONY's acquisition of it (2 1/2 months ago) and their strategy for releasing it. Quite complicated and some of it I intuited. Release it around Breaking Dawn II and get all that free promo from Scummit. Yep I said to meself. You wouldn't take my word for it tho. They need an authority figure to tell them anything - anything at all. Thank you Ayn Rand for curing me of that. Sort of.

Sorry off subject here, but Atlas was and is going to be a disaster. And trickle in money is not enticing when inflation keeps destroying the dollar even tho they say it is low. If you have been going to the gas pump, the grocery store, you know they speak with forked tongues.

The problem with Atlas is all the Rand acolytes who thought it was wonderful. What do they normally watch that they think it is wonderful. But after being at OL for a little over a week, (god how many day and minutes and seconds - I must be exact or they will call me a liar again) I see how really stupid most of them are. So stupid in, stupid out I guess. They loved it over there.

Just a lousy movie. And if anyone wants to do a screenply on POKER, then do a screenply on Paul Auster's The Music of Chance.

Coincidences everywhere, not just in Hollywood.

20 mil is a low budget film. Although Another Earth was done for 3 mil plus and it is wonderful, truly wonderful. Actors, director, producers same people.

@ seymourblogger

darren's picture

MPAA Rating: PG-13 Production Budget: $20 million

SB, that's been a kind of running joke for a while now. Those involved in the film's production can't seem to get their story straight regarding the size of their own budget; it's either $10M or $20M. Both numbers have been circulated.

Also, what many people are forgetting, is that Aglialoro despaired, at first, when it became apparent soon after opening that the film would flop. Whether he leveraged $10M or $20M of his own money, he surely lost a fortune. He claims that he'll make his money back (i.e., break even) going forward when enough people have bought the DVD, or when the film appears on other venues and can create additional "revenue streams." Today, with different technologies representing different venues, there are many more ways for a movie to make money than at any time in history. That's a good thing! So Aglialoro might, indeed, make his money back, and perhaps (maybe) turn a small profit. The question is: after how long? I.e., how many years will he have to wait for these ancillary revenue streams to trickle in? One of the unique features of the motion picture business that distinguishes it from something like television, is the possibility it provides for making a huge "windfall" profit for the film's creators and investors IF the film opens big and continues to do well. 

But if a producer/investor has to wait years and years just to break even, it understandably dampens his enthusiasm for producing/investing a sequel.

In a recent interview in one of the trades, Aglialoro said that in spite of AS The Movie, he "wasn't done with Hollywood yet"; i.e., he has another screenplay about a personal passion of his: poker. Now, I can see a movie about poker being pretty successful. Studios might be thinking the same thing. So here's my own question: why did he just happen to mention that screenplay about poker in a trade-journal interview regarding Atlas Shrugged (especially given the fact that there is no such thing as coincidence in the film business, and certainly not in Hollywood)? Did he, perhaps, sell off the rights to that screenplay in return for some financing of AS Part II? Was it a not-too-subtle shout-out to other investors, agents, studios, etc. ("Hey, don't summarily dismiss me because of AS The Movie! I have other properties I know you'll be interested in!").

Who knows?

Darren

Mark Hubbard's picture

Well, I guess that's an answer I can almost stomach Smiling And good to see you've done your research.

Say wha?

darren's picture

And we would fight thru eternity about which circle we wee in.

". . . we WEE in"?

Now, wait a second, there, SB. I'm as adventurous as the next guy, but there are certain behavioral lines I won't cross.

I've got my pride, you know.

You've made your Mark.

darren's picture

And Seymourblogger, quote, 'loves you today'. Worse, 'believes everything you've said is perfect'. Worried?

I know what you mean. My underground bomb shelter's well stocked with about six months of supplies. I can run there in case of emergency. (And I was hoping I could purchase a few of those smoked sausages you mentioned earlier.)

Regarding my "investment" in Objectivism: fun, of course. Isn't that a part of the very purpose of life?

Enjoy!

lindsay are you talking about Sartre's No Exit?

seymourblogger's picture

I am sure both darren and I would agree with you tha t it would be hell. And we would fight thru eternity about which circle we wee in.

Defending darren

seymourblogger's picture

Just because darren is not an objectivist doesn't mean he can't be invested in the atlas film. They are not mutually exclusive categories. Don't you know your Rand? Darren is very knowledgeable about film and art. More so than an orthodox Randian for sure. I took Maryann Rekavenov's (sp?) course on art in the summer of 1961 so I would know after having studied with McCoubrey and Steinberg afterwards to correct her garbage.

Darren is correct. Atlas was and is going to be another train wreck. No surprise there tho.

Darren and Janet ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... are unlikely to post again for some time.

They've found a room.

For pomogoblian writhings. "Oh Gobby!" "Oh Michel!"

I hope for the sake of any innocent third parties the elevator going up to it is not prone to getting stuck. Shades of Baade's hell thread. It might not be eternal torment, literally, but it sure as hell would seem like it, to get stuck in it with them. Eye

But Darren

Mark Hubbard's picture

For someone who seemingly has nothing invested in Objectivism, why are you investing so much in Objectivism here?

And Seymourblogger, quote, 'loves you today'. Worse, 'believes everything you've said is perfect'. Worried?

O darren how I love you today

seymourblogger's picture

The idots didn't spend 10 mil here are the figures:

Distributor: Rocky Mountain Pictures Release Date: April 15, 2011
Genre: Drama Runtime: 1 hrs. 42 min.
MPAA Rating: PG-13 Production Budget: $20 million

Makes it much much worse, eh.

Everything you said is perfect. Didn't expect to hear that from me did you?

but is there going to be

darren's picture

but is there going to be different casting for Part II? Surely not ...

My understanding is that the producers have not been able to keep any of the original cast from Part I. Whether they were released, or jumped ship, I don't know. Had the original cast been retained, we'd have read in the trades that "Taylor Schilling will again thrill audiences and Fred Seddon with her electrifying performance as Dagny Taggart"; but, alas, we read nothing. The video "teaser" for the movie from TAS also mentions no casting decisions; just old video clips of Rand.

TAS brought in Freilich, a television producer of several successful series. They might be relying on him to bring in good television talent.

The notion that it was the

darren's picture

The notion that it was the critics who killed AS the Movie is nonsense. Critics panned AS the Novel in 1957 (just as most continue to do so today), but that didn't stop sales from skyrocketing. Why? Because of word-of-mouth advertising. Conversely, had word-of-mouth regarding the novel been negative in 1957, book sales would have stalled even if critics had praised it.

What killed box-office for AS the Movie was negative word-of-mouth.

Darren, I'm curious?

Mark Hubbard's picture

For someone who seemingly has nothing invested in Objectivism, why are you investing so much in Objectivism here?

On topic: I've not had time to read this whole thread, and I've not seen AS Part I (ordered it from Amazon over weekend), but is there going to be different casting for Part II? Surely not ...

Now we know there's trouble.

darren's picture

the role of TAS and me personally in the project . . .

Your role? You have a role in this project? Good grief, Hudgins. We can kiss goodbye any chance of success — aesthetic or financial.

Regarding Kelley: If I remember correctly, the end-crawl mentioned his having been "consulted." In my review of the film for SOLO, I asked why an academic philosopher had to be "consulted" at all. Ideological compliance seems the likeliest answer.

I’m planning to provide insider updates on the film as they become available . . . 

"Insider updates", eh? Like a casting decision? We can all read about it in The Hollywood Reporter. Who needs a self-professed "insider"?

the names of Aglialoro’s investors and amounts of their investments; audience survey info and marketing plans; receipts from various movie-related products and formats,

Box-office, Ed. Box-office. Part I grossed a bit over $4M on a $10M budget. Aglialoro will have to sell lots of DVDs and "Who Is John Galt?" t-shirts just to break even. Other investors, with Other People's Money, will pay attention to those box-office numbers, not "audience survey info and marketing plans."

I understand there's been a complete overhaul of cast and director with no replacements yet, and less than 16 weeks to go until principal photography. TAS has brought in Duncan Scott (who might even direct the film; who knows?) who worked with the Holzers on the US release of the Italian "Noi Vivi" ("We The Living"). He's an Objectivist, so he'll work for free or for very little money, agreeing to something like a Net Points deal. TAS has also brought in a producer of television episodics, so television actors (and a TV director) might, again, end up on the film. 

Rather than trying to make the best film possible, TAS is mainly interested in the release date: just before the 2012 elections in November. This is consistent with TAS's previous strategy for Part I of being very concerned about releasing the film just prior to April 15 Tax Day, rather than being concerned with producing the very best possible film.

The key to making the very best possible film is: lots and lots and lots of pre-production. Generally, in making a feature film, you want to spend as much time as possible in the pre-production PLANNING stage, which includes, of course, writing and re-writing and re-re-writing the screenplay, since the script is literally the blueprint for the rest of the movie. The production stage of making a movie — "principal photography" — is a bit like going to war, so no one likes spending lots of time at it. Most features in the US take about 2 months to shoot. Consider: an average screenplay is about 100 pages. Normally, you will shoot no more than 2 pages per day -- usually just one scene, or just part of a more complex scene — because most scenes require multiple takes (and because the lighting usually takes the longest). So that's 50 days to shoot 100 pages. Low-budget film and television films will shoot at least twice that: 4 or 5 pages per day. The more pages you shoot per day, the less careful the results (that's one reason that television shooting concentrates so often on close-ups and "talking heads"; there's just no time and no money to rehearse and do multiple takes of the wider shots that require more actor-blocking and camera movements).

I believe I remember reading that AS Part I was shot in 20 or 25 days.

Darren you are so good at this

seymourblogger's picture

I don't have to bother saying anything. Thank you and thank you for my avi once again. I love it and it has brought me more hits since I've had it. (no pun intended.)

Your analysis is perfect. Just not enough of it. Please keep going. I saw the trailer and refused to see it. I knew I would be furious thru the entire move for its ineptness, poor direction, lots of CGI, lousy actors. I could barely survive Passion of Ayn Rand written by the name I am not allowed to utter over at OL so I won't go there.

If you can spot trends then you know II will be another disaster train wreck. Oh, more puns, I can't help it. Must be my memory loss in old age that wellen Suddle told me I have.

Insider updates on Galt, etc.

Ed Hudgins's picture

Linz, et al. -- I’m planning to provide insider updates on the film as they become available, for example, concerning your point 7 on the casting of Galt.

(Of course, Darren apparently has far more detailed and reliable insider info than me on the exact nature of David Kelley’s contributions to the first film and his current and future tasks concerning the second film; the role of TAS and me personally in the project; the names of Aglialoro’s investors and amounts of their investments; audience survey info and marketing plans; receipts from various movie-related products and formats, etc. So you might just go straight to him to find out, “Who is John Galt?”)

Great movie posters help sell bad movies to the public.

darren's picture

The movie might be a dog, but at least the poster for Part II is cool. Take a look:

Atlas Shredded

Richard Goode's picture

Then again . . . maybe the press release from TAS was full of shit, and Part II is not fully funded.

Ronnie James Dio is dead. Maybe some of the guys from Slayer would like to chip in this time?

Gullible Gruntster

darren's picture

Darren conveniently omitted this:
. . . I doubt that Aglialoro, or future producers, will make sequels . . .

Well, obviously gruntster, I made the mistake of assuming rationality on the part of Aglialoro and others. My bad.

Then again . . . maybe the press release from TAS was full of shit, and Part II is not fully funded. Maybe producers — even Objectivist producers — tell big fat lies in the film business.

Even with Other People's Money, however, with no continuity in casting between Part II and Part I, this will die in movie theaters just as quickly as Part I. You, Perigo, and Seddon will be the only ones willing to pay money to see it (Seddon will see it 5 times and will drool over any actress playing Dagny, even if it isn't Taylor Schilling).

I understand that no director has been announced yet. It's a bad sign. It means they have no one, and that no one with any experience and track record has been impressed enough with the material to sign onto it.

Magister Perigo

darren's picture

but they do not stop me assessing this movie on its merits

Um, and what, precisely are its merits?

"Oasis in a desert of excrement" is precisely what many of its attackers hate it for, of course. Their professed reasons are camouflage for their congenital malice toward anything that promotes and embodies the love of life, man and achievement.

Ah, I see. So if an average movie-goer -- who is, after all, the life-blood of the industry, since it is ultimately his dollars that finance it all -- says "I saw the movie and I thought it was boring" then you believe that statement is camouflage for the movie-goer's congenital malice toward anything that promotes and embodies the love of life, man and achievement. Furthermore, if our average movie-goer tells a friend that the movie was boring, and the friend decides not to see the movie on account of that word-of-mouth review, you will again arbitrarily assert that the real reason the friend won't spend money to see the movie is that the friend, too, suffers from congenital malice toward anything that promotes and embodies the love of life, man and achievement.

Wouldn't it be more intellectually honest simply to admit that you lack objectivity about this movie?

@seymourblogger

darren's picture

THANKS AGAIN FOR MY BEAUTIFUL AVI DARREN. LOTS OF COMPLIMENTS ON IT.

Aw, shucks . . . it was nothing.
(But you're welcome!)

But Ed . . .

darren's picture

. . . there is no one of any import at TAS.

By the way, how does your boss, David Kelley, feel about having ruined Part I of Atlas Shrugged The Movie? Perhaps he feels, "Who cares if the public yawned and the movie did no box office? The important point is that I ensured that the script philosophically complied with Objectivism." As opposed to ensuring that the story was compelling and simply letting the philosophy come through implicitly.

Next time you and Kelley are taking a pee together in the men's room at TAS, ask him how he feels about having performed the same role in the making of AS The Movie Part I as the fascist censorship department performed in the making of "Noi Vivi" (We The Living) in Italy in 1942, i.e., Cadre Officer in charge of Ideological Compliance.

We The Curious would love to know.

Doubting Dazzler

gregster's picture

Darren conveniently omitted this:

So, as I wrote above, I doubt that Aglialoro, or future producers, will make sequels, and I fully expect part 1 to die on the vine.

Rendering this;

And by the way, when I wrote "I will be very surprised if Aglialoro sinks money into producing future parts of this film," I meant, of course, his sinking his own money into it, not sinking OPM (Other People's Money) into it. If the press release can be believed when it says that the film is now "fully financed", it appears that Aglialoro is no longer the financier of the film (or, at any rate, no longer its sole financier).

.. a red herring.

What does it mean, to "doubt"? It means "to consider unlikely," "to hesitate to believe." Archaically, it also means "to fear, or be apprehensive about." That is certainly true for him.

Philosophy starts at my

Mark Hubbard's picture

Philosophy starts at my stomach quite a lot.

I've been re-reading AS before watching the DVD, but getting too impatient now as not enough read time. I shall pick up a copy. I can actually see the screen from standing at my Komodo Smiling

Bro Hubbard

Lindsay Perigo's picture

If you can order that gigantic phallic crematorium into the country to feed your body, you can surely order in a DVD to feed the soul?! Eye

I'm still waiting for it to

Mark Hubbard's picture

I'm still waiting for it to be sold on Fishpond so I can pick up a copy. Doesn't seem to be happening though. Getting impatient to see it now. (Just read your post again ... Jeez, I never thought of Amazon.)

If the aesthetic taste of Kelley

seymourblogger's picture

is going to permeate this film, we know what we can expect. Even Scummit didn't want it, eh.

I always thought it would make a great animation film. No I mean it. There are great animators around who could do it in a superb way. If Kelley were not involved, that is. These people are stupid.

THANKS AGAIN FOR MY BEAUTIFUL AVI DARREN. LOTS OF COMPLIMENTS ON IT.

Just watched Pt 1 again ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... for the umpteenth time, in the company of a bright young thing (not the one I posted about previously). I believe he's going to post, so I'll let him speak for himself, other than to say his opinion was highly favourable. As mine remains, though I do find the lighting seriously annoying. I repeat what I said on the other thread:

Having now watched it many more times since I last posted on this thread, I still enjoy it at each viewing. Most recently it was in the company of a bright young thing sympathetic to free market economics but ignorant of Rand. I was very curious to know what he'd make of it since he strives hard to be "cool" and is beholden to modern nonsense in most respects worth mentioning. Well, he was riveted, and wanted me to play Pt 2 immediately—he didn't realise it hasn't yet been made!

I just went to amazon.com to see how it's fared there and was agreeably astonished to find hundreds of glowing reviews. Stuff the critics! As I said in my Perigo! Special before I'd seen the thing myself, anything universally panned by the critics is almost certain to be very good. And just as we should take conventional wisdom about movies with a pinch of salt, so too we ought to disdain the orthodox "party line" on this movie that says, in effect, because David Kelley's name is associated with it it should be damned, sight unseen. The hell with that. My own disagreements with David are well enough documented, but they do not stop me assessing this movie on its merits. It is an oasis in a desert of excrement. That it doesn't sparkle quite as much as we might wish is no reason not to celebrate it for what it is. To those who disagree I say—go watch some trendy Tarantino or James Cameron or Peter Jackson garbage and enjoy!

"Oasis in a desert of excrement" is precisely what many of its attackers hate it for, of course. Their professed reasons are camouflage for their congenital malice toward anything that promotes and embodies the love of life, man and achievement.

Darren need not fear...

Ed Hudgins's picture

...that anyone of import will take his opinions seriously.

since Barney Frank is

darren's picture

since Barney Frank is retiring from Congress, maybe we can cast him as Wesley Mouch!

Of course, that was meant in jest. The actor originally cast as Wesley Mouch was the great character actor, Michael Lerner. Along with Jon Polito, he was one of the few good casting decisions.

But even in jest, TAS's thinking regarding the film is clear: they will sacrifice cinematic values (such as good casting in the choice of Michael Lerner) for propagandistic ones (such as casting a real collectivist bureaucrat like Barney Frank).

As I wrote earlier, TAS is not interested primarily in making a commercially successful movie. Their goal is to make a movie that carefully complies with Objectivism.

Part of what makes this so funny is the schism between Kelley and Peikoff. Though Kelley's "Atlas Shrugged the Movie" may flop commercially, it might help spur additional sales of the novel . . . royalties of which would accrue to Peikoff.

The word "Randsday" is cult-speak

darren's picture

a hefty taste of humble pie for his SOLO certitude that Atlas Shrugged Part Two wouldn't get started

Seddon's reading comprehension problem must be contagious, grunty, because you're showing symptoms. I didn't write that Part Two wouldn't get started. I wrote the following on 4 April 2011:

I will be very surprised if Aglialoro sinks money into producing future parts of this film; or, if he does, his future choices will require a major shakeup in his production team, especially in screenwriting and directing, though it's too late to do anything about the casting, since the latter -- with only a minor exceptions -- was weak. The leads for Dagny and Rearden were (a) too young for the viewer to accept as people of achievement in heavy industries like railroads and steel production; (b) too smiley (Rearden is supposed to be a tortured soul -- but he's smiling all the time! What the hell is that all about!?; (c) extremely non-descript-looking -- "forgettable" is the word. Yes: they're both cute but forgettable.

And by the way, when I wrote "I will be very surprised if Aglialoro sinks money into producing future parts of this film," I meant, of course, his sinking his own money into it, not sinking OPM (Other People's Money) into it. If the press release can be believed when it says that the film is now "fully financed", it appears that Aglialoro is no longer the financier of the film (or, at any rate, no longer its sole financier).

For the film to be successful commercially, it needs to be taken away from The Atlas Society, whose interest in the film seems not to be commercial at all, but ideological; i.e., they are interested in making a propaganda film for their own activities, rather than making a commercially successful adaptation of a commercially successful novel.

It's fine to re-write, re-crew, and re-cast the movie for the sequel; but what really needs to be done to make this a serious commercial venture is to remove any influence of David Kelley. The public wants to be entertained by a good story, not lectured to by an academic. Kelley's role in all this is essentially that of "philosophical cadre officer", just as the former Soviet Union used to have "political cadre officers" to ensure correct compliance with officially sanctioned doctrine.

This is great! An Objectivist movie, about Objectivists, made by Objectivists, for Objectivists! Who needs the general public? The guaranteed rave reviews will be provided by Perigo ("A great movie! Brightly lit and full of philosophical meat!"), and the box office will be provided by Fred Seddon ("I saw it five times! Couldn't have been happier! Couldn't take my eyes off of Dagny!").

"Fully financed", eh? I would love to know what the budget is.

Video teaser

Ed Hudgins's picture

Updates to come...

Ed Hudgins's picture

Needless to say, we'll be providing updates on casting and other movie-related matters. And it's also no coincidence that the film will be coming out in the heat of the 2012 presidential election!

Hmmm, since Barney Frank is retiring from Congress, maybe we can cast him as Wesley Mouch! And Rahm Emanuel as Dr. Ferris! Lots of possibilities!

Sheer Good News

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Galtspeed on this! Beer

Great Randsday News !

gregster's picture

Movies with lots of dialogue are much easier to make than movies with lots of action. Easier — and far less expensive. What the producer meant by "difficult to make" was really "difficult to sell to the public", especially given the boredom most audiences showed in response to Part I.

Darren-louder-I-shout-further-I-fall-Wrede should admit to a hefty taste of humble pie for his SOLO certitude that Atlas Shrugged Part Two wouldn't get started, instead of offering us similarly insightful tidbits into the movie business. I bet it was sour to fit his bitterness.

That doesn't mean to say the lad is always wrong. Impressively he is often proven correct - just as infinite blindfolded monkeys firing at a 200m target will score a number of bull's-eyes.

I feared the project might

darren's picture

I feared the project might get buried by the unending trail of negative slime emanating from cretinous "critics,"

Critics? I think what you mean is audiences. Critics don't determine the success of a movie; audiences do. It makes no difference if AS was a flop with critics; the point is that it was a flop with movie-goers.

1) Don't TRY to be trendy.

There will be nothing trendy, or even commercial, about Part II. It will flop as pathetically as did Part I. Then you can blame its failure on "cretinous critics." Always a good fall-back position.

2) Don't film the bloody thing in the dark (meaning don't under-light just because it's fashionable).

Nothing in Part I was "underlit"; it all looked rather like TV news lighting: bright and flat. (Usually known in the industry as "high-key" lighting.)

3) Don't have incidental sound like footsteps and traffic noise louder than the dialogue.

"Incidental sound" that creates a certain realistic ambience for the audience (traffic noise, footsteps, crowds milling about and chattering [called a "walla track"]) is called "Foley sound." If the Foley track is louder than the dialogue track, it's because of poor sound editing, perhaps because of a rush to finish the picture and get it into theaters as per licensing agreements.

7) Change the Galt! THIS IS IMPERATIVE! That last one, in his mercifully brief cameos, was derisorily wooden. He delivered his lines very pedestrianly and amateurishly, as though he didn't understand them (we don't need a repeat of Gary Cooper's Howard Roark).

Right, but the important point you've missed is that the actor who played Galt was also the director of the picture. His directing was as wooden as his acting. But who knows what sort of deals he has with the producers regarding his input into the film.

8 ) More philosophical meat!

Buy the audio-book version of the novel if that's what you want. The majority of people who pay for a ticket to attend a movie want entertainment.

I hope our own people will show a bit more effing solidarity this time round!

I say, what about the virtues of honesty and integrity to one's values?

You say, to hell with all that. If you have to lie about the film, then do so. The important thing is sacrifice one's own values and show effing solidarity.

The first part was quite a

Leonid's picture

The first part was quite a mess. See if producer and director could improve on it. The essential problem, I afraid, is here to stay-namely very weak acting and script. Most of the actors are completely out of characters they suppose to play and in the script is only an homeopathic dose of Objectivist philosophy- the line of Rearden " I work for my profit" which he pronounces as an apology. Dagny Taggart of the book is burning with passion, in the movie she doesn't have enough passion to build a card house, let alone a railroad.

Well, let's hope the new the

darren's picture

Well, let's hope the new the new one continues the momentum that the first one had near the end.

What momentum? Weak writing, weak directing, weak casting, adding up to a weak movie-going experience that inevitably resulted in weak word-of-mouth advertising, weak audience enthusiasm, and worse-than-weak box office.

Although the producer said on the commentary that part two would be difficult to make because it would mostly be dialogue and less action.

LOL! Movies with lots of dialogue are much easier to make than movies with lots of action. Easier — and far less expensive. What the producer meant by "difficult to make" was really "difficult to sell to the public", especially given the boredom most audiences showed in response to Part I.

Well, let's hope the...

Marcus's picture

...the new one continues the momentum that the first one had near the end.

Although the producer said on the commentary that part two would be difficult to make because it would mostly be dialogue and less action.

Hurrah!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

As one of the few Objectivists to applaud the movie, albeit with qualifications, I'm ecstatic to hear this news. I feared the project might get buried by the unending trail of negative slime emanating from cretinous "critics," Hollywood poseurs and other trendy pomowankers (I specifically exempt the trenchant critique of Michael Moeller and Mr Moeller himself from any of these categories!).

Helpful as always, and in line with aforementioned qualifications, might I offer the following advice to the producers:

1) Don't TRY to be trendy. That means:

2) Don't film the bloody thing in the dark (meaning don't under-light just because it's fashionable).

3) Don't have incidental sound like footsteps and traffic noise louder than the dialogue.

4) Don't change shots every nano-second (even the magic John Galt inaugural ride changed shots too much. We should have had *much* more of the thrilling footage shot from the driver's perspective and fewer gratuitous landscapes).

5) Do not "cross the line" with camera angles just because pomowankers do.

6) Do not allow the actors to mumble just because it's hip, or say "would of" instead of "would have" (Francisco).

7) Change the Galt! THIS IS IMPERATIVE! That last one, in his mercifully brief cameos, was derisorily wooden. He delivered his lines very pedestrianly and amateurishly, as though he didn't understand them (we don't need a repeat of Gary Cooper's Howard Roark).

8 ) More philosophical meat! I assume this is intended for Pt 2 anyway.

I'm sure I'll think of more helpful advice at my next regular viewing. Eye In any event, this is great news. I hope our own people will show a bit more effing solidarity this time round!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.