Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie to Star in Atlas Shrugged

Casey's picture
Submitted by Casey on Thu, 2006-04-27 23:56

Apparently, the couple are both fans of Rand and will star as Dagny Taggart and John Galt. No kidding. It's true.

http://linktrim.com/5g7

 


( categories: )

Here's my all star and

aukade's picture

Here's my all star and perhaps economically impossible cast for Atlas:

Francisco D'Anconia: Adrien Brody
Dagny Taggart: Nicole Kidman/Cate Blanchett
Hank Rearden: Viggo Mortensen
John Galt: Johnny Depp (don't throw rotten things at me, I really think he fits the bill.)
Cheryl Taggart: Scarlett Johanssen
Ellis Wyatt: Colin Firth
Ragnar Danneskjold: Jude Law

I told you it was impossible..but what it would be to see these people as my heroes...LOVELY!

I can't think of people for any of the other characters, perhaps Hugh Grant as Phillip Rearden (I find the bast*** quite sloppy.)

Tell me what you make of it.

Shreya

When in doubt, think.

Well, She's Right

James S. Valliant's picture

It looks indeed to have stalled, as you can read here. I have to say that I agree with her attitude about the project, and I may have been a bit rough on her in speculating about the reasons for the delays. But, oh Lord, how long will this go on?

> She and Brad need some

PhilipC's picture

> She and Brad need some "quality time"?

Jim, the National Ledger article you linked to says that she may take time off in 2008. But if the other rumor, that the movie might be released in 2008, is true, the movie might already be "in the can" by then. So no conflict.

Good job!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Let the airheads have their "quality time," chew gum and listen to headbanging caterwauling. They're morons who should be drowned. A movie version of Atlas needs dolts like them as much as it needs KASSless limp-dicks writing the script.

Linz

Depends on Her Mood?

James S. Valliant's picture

The prospects have just turned grim.

She and Brad need some "quality time"?

Film's fate flags with femme fatale's flighty family's foibles?

Atlas shrugged screenplay

Leonid's picture

Leonid

You can search lulu.com website, or I can e-mail it to you

The producers of the movie

michael fasher's picture

The producers of the movie will have to make sure the name of the movie is 100% porno proof otherwise Ron Jerimy will be Hank Rearden in the straight to adult DVD sequel

Thumbs down

Sandi's picture

Whilst not a great movie fan, Jolie does not reach on the bottom rung of my concept of Dagny.

Wow, Charles it really is true then

mvardoulis's picture

Angelina and company really are going to do 'Atlas' ... this actually will be a good thing, methinks! Sorry you didn't have the cash to appear in the movie representing SOLO, that would have been even better!

I heard about the Aerosmith show, and was even thinking about heading over to Vegas (as if one needs an excuse to go to Vegas) to check it out - now I wish I had. Though beware those who may take issue with 'caterwauling and headbanging' of artists like Aerosmith... Smiling

Lili Claire Benefit Auction

Charles Henrikson's picture

I was at a Lili Claire Benefit Auction/Concert this last weekend in Las Vegas to see Aerosmith; and I was quite startled when one of the items auctioned off was some chat time with Angelina Jolie and a small walk on part in her new movie "Atlas Shrugged." I think it was sold for somewhere in the $30,000-$38,000 range... Wish I had had that kind of money! : )

Ugh...say it aint so...

atlascott's picture

Angelina Jolie is a walking philosophical contradiction, and mentally imbalanced to boot.  While lovely, she is not much of an actress.  Rachel Weisz or better yet, Cate Blanchett are INFINITELY better choices.

Bradd Pitt fell in love with Ms. Jolie because he finally found someone prettier and more fucked up than himself. 

This makes me sad.

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

Cate Blanchett

Shandra's picture

I am thoroughly convinced that Cate Blanchett should be dagny. She has elegance, quirkiness, intensity, beauty and the perfect Dagny body!! She is fantastic in "Notes on a Scandel" by the way. I think she should have the role!!

Leonid

Olivia's picture

I would be very interested in downloading it. Which category have you placed it in?

Atlas shrugged screenplay

Leonid's picture

Leonid

I've recently published my version of AS screenplay on lulu.com. Anyone interested can download it for just $2.59

Angelina, not Evelyn

rebissell's picture

In the pattern of recasting the male hero Starbuck as a female in the new version of "Battlestar Gallactica," I suggest that Angelina Jolie play the part of Ragnar. Who better to play this swashbuckling hero?

Also, To Whom It May Concern, I am NOT the person posting here and elsewhere as "Evelyn Z. Pickering." I gave up pseudonyms for Lent and haven't resumed them, though I'm glad to see that the appropriate people are amused and irritated by EZP's antics.

Roger Bissell, musician-writer

Don't worry about it. But

Wes's picture

Don't worry about it. But remember, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. Eye

Blanchett as Dagny

Kenny's picture

For me too!

Russell Crowe as Galt or Danneskjold.

Danny de Vito as a looter.

Race/Ethnicness NOT a proper factor in AS (movie)--agreed

Rowlf's picture

Wes:

~~ Moi's bihg mistahk. Sorry. I'm really blowing 'interpreting' varied posts lately. I think I'm acquiring an AdultADHD variant of Alhzeimers. --- I'm even 'psychologizing' the motives of those (on another noteworthy thread or two) who give an analysis of the motives of those who disagree with the analyzers' obviously rational arguments about who morally betrayed whom, and forgetting who actually said what about which point...if there was one. Maybe I'm doing so much...benefit-of-the-doubt rationalizing there that now I'm overcompensating?

~~ Anyhoo, sorry I misconstrued. Glad to see we're on the same page re the subject. --- (I STILL don't know how 'Mid-Easterners' are going to fare in the movie...and you KNOW that, H'wood being what it is, there'll be a bit of subtle placing of 'ethnic'-appearing...personages.)

LLAP

J:D

P.S: You might be interested in Bidinotto's wish-list-cast for it given on his blog. I'd be hard put to disagree with any of his choices...including Roseanne Barr and Johnny Depp.

JD, I did respond to your

Wes's picture

JD,

I did respond to your PS. I don’t think race or gender stereotypes should be tackled if they do make the film. I don’t want it to be obvious or representative. Whether its incidental or not I’d leave to the screenwriters in order to have everything wash out in the end.

Importance of private property rights, the importance of creators/builders/managers, and the “Sanction of the Victim” are what I would consider the primary Objectivist messages. I wouldn’t want people to miss out on these because they wouldn’t go see the movie because Jesse Jackson protested because there weren’t enough black actors in it.

Race (and, maybe, Ethnicity) is IMPORTANT in AS

Rowlf's picture

Wes:

~~ With your ongoing concern, I do wish you had commented on the P.S. in my previous post responding to you on this subject. I notice that you didn't comment, though you repost on the subject. What are your thoughts about my P.S. question?

~~ "Don't want race to obscure the Objectivist messages." --- Really?

LLAP
J-D

Just distractions

Wes's picture

Lets just explode all the landmines and have the looters be Black, the academics and scientists Womyn, the laborers Latino, the "college boys" Asian, and the pilots and train drivers (engineers?) Arabic.

But I hope they completely avoid this and people the roles in such a way to make it a non-issue. Don't want race to obscure the Objectivist messages.

> The virtues of a book,

PhilipC's picture

> The virtues of a book, it's exhaustive scope, are not the virtues of a movie. [Casey]

Very good point.

> Send me the 50 million, and I'll give you a treatment.

Check's in the mail. I sent 80 million, 'cuz I didn't have change.

> Now the fact that they

PhilipC's picture

> Now the fact that they make money on ads(around 10 min.)studios demand 6 ads(previews: at least 15min.) and all the profit comes from getting people to stop at the food stand, it would be kind of dumb to rush everybody.

Glenn, you think that requires a gap between the 4 PM and the 7 PM showing to do all this for a ninety minute movie?

> During the 80's to the mid 90's the theater industry took your advice. They raised billions of dollars and built more buildings with more screens and ran more shows a day. And that's why almost every theather chain in the country has been through bankruptcy.

You're mixing two different things: 1. Too many shows a day. 2. The -time- at which they are shown.

> Phil if this is really the case then maybe you ought to go into the movie theater business

Jason, you little smartass Smiling, I have some business experience and there are a lot of areas where the businesses are incredibly dumb. Being a capitalist and wanting to make money doesn't compensate for an abyssmal educational system and poor training in logic.

....If I could only remember where I left my spare several million dollars after sending a big check (see below) to Casey Fahy for the Atlas movie and a luxury trailer for Brangelina...

Casey at the Bat

Casey's picture

Send me the 50 million, and I'll give you a treatment. Eye

The two things are necessarily different, though. The most a movie adaptation of a book can hope to do is seem like the book in the most essential respects. The virtues of a book, it's exhaustive scope, are not the virtues of a movie.

Phil, theaters did take you advice

Glenn I Heppard's picture

During the 80's to the mid 90's the theater industry took your advice. They raised billions of dollars and built more buildings with more screens and ran more shows a day. And that's why almost every theather chain in the country has been through bankruptcy.

Empty a theather, clean it

Glenn I Heppard's picture

Empty a theather, clean it and fill it with people in 5 minutes? Sounds like your strawman lives in fantasy land.

Phil you don't run a business do you. More work requires more pay or more workers. You seem to imply people are standing around doing nothing. Using a machine, utilities, etc. also costs money.

Now the fact that they make money on ads(around 10 min.)studios demand 6 ads(previews: at least 15min.) and all the profit comes from getting people to stop at the food stand, it would be kind of dumb to rush everybody.

Phil if this is really the

Jason Quintana's picture

Phil if this is really the case then maybe you ought to go into the movie theater business Smiling

- Jason

movie theater shortsightedness?

PhilipC's picture

> Is this like lose money on each unit but you make it up in volume?

No. If you are already paying for the projectionist and the film, it costs you nothing to show it more times and get more ticket sales. You -lose less- by increasing the volume.

> People choose theaters for location and to a far lesser degree crowds and how clean it is.

And for whether the movie is playing at a -time- at which they can (or will) go to see it.

> Don't clean the theaters, don't wait for the people leaving to get out before the new people go in, don't use your staff efficiently, etc.?

Don't set up a strawman or a nit to pick: adjust the theater times by five or so minutes. I've watched them clean the aisles and people exit the theater. Takes very few minutes.

(Does anyone else besides Glenn not get my point that the movie theaters seem to be being dumb?)

"4 is a very odd time" talk

Glenn I Heppard's picture

"4 is a very odd time" talk to retired couples or watch Seinfeld.

"Having more shows weekdays..."Is this like lose money on each unit but you make it up in volume?

"3:30,5,6:30...for shorter movies..." Don't clean the theaters, don't wait for the people leaving to get out before the new people go in, don't use your staff efficiently, etc.?

An actual niche is needed for "niche marketing" to work. People choose theaters for location and to a far lesser degree crowds and how clean it is.

movie theater shortsightedness?

PhilipC's picture

> food sales? when everyone wants to eat?

That doesn't really address all my points.

Different people want to eat at different times (and 4 is a very odd time). Having more showings weekdays would then allow *less* money losing on those days. They can use my suggestions for Friday and Saturday as well (3:30, 5, 6:30, 8, 9:30 for a shorter movie on those two nights means more showings as well as the slightly different showtimes than 4 and 7). Moreover: If -some- movie theaters had staggered or non lockstep times, they would be "niche marketing". Surely there are hundreds of people in a major city who would go to the, say, five out of twenty theaters that chose to show films at the intervening times.

(I don't want to waste too much time on this side topic, but often I find something silly being done in the culture or by businesses...here's another example-Chinese restaurants stop serving dim sum at 3:30..why "it's traditional"...and whenever I do this there are always people who jump up and assume there are good reasons. Often there simply aren't--they've simply Always Done It That Way.)

Theater times based on food

Glenn I Heppard's picture

Theaters make their money on food sales. Times are based on when different demographics want something to eat. Friday and Saturday nights are really the only times showing movies makes money.

Casey at the Bat

PhilipC's picture

> the most you can hope for is a distillation of the book that will advertise the original article

Casey, are you suggesting the movie (of Atlas) should be essentially independent of the book, should not attempt to convey as broad a theme, should have its own largely different story...or what exactly?

What exactly would you do if I gave you the 50 million I have in my spare wallet and asked you to make the movie?

Be careful now, because I can send that money elsewhere.

Are the Theaters Dumb or am I Missing Something?

PhilipC's picture

> they can't make the movie too long because that effects the number of times it can be played a day. [Glenn]

Well it would if they actually took advantage of this fact. Every city I've been in or lived in nearly every movie theater in the city in lockstep has an afternoon showing around 1 then the second after 4 but before 5 and another slighly after 7 (Check your newspaper right now and see if its the same nationwide). This provides a huge gap in which both 90 minute and two and a half hour movies can fit. They don't adjust this schedule to squeeze in more movies for some incomprehensible reason. This raises a side issue which I will call PPP320 (Phil's Pet Peeves Number 320):

Why the #@$%^& do they all do that? Not only could they show more movies, but more important, some of them could catch the crowd that gets out of work around 4 and doesn't want to wait till 7:30 to see a movie. Or whose commute or life schedules (or traffic jams) are such that the want to see a movie at 5 or 6 or 8. The 4:30 showing is exactly the wrong time for the overwhelming majority of Americans who work till 4 or 5 (and too long a wait for students who get out of school at 2 or 3.)

Look,

Casey's picture

A movie is not a book. Period.

After Phillip Dick and Frank Herbet both died of heart attacks while their books were made into movies ("Blade Runner" and "Dune" respectively), one should tread lightly on an author's work when it comes to film. I seem to remember Tom Wolfe confounded critics by claiming he did not care how the movie version of "Bonfire of the Vanitites" would turn out -- and good for him. The LOTR movies were fun, but they were NOT The Lord of the Rings as an experience, no way. Gone With the Wind and The Name of the Rose are the best examples of film adaptations I can think of, but still, the most you can hope for is a distillation of the book that will advertise the original article, as I also believe Wolfe said, but I might be wrong.

In any event, that's the most anyone should hope for from a movie. If you get more, then hallelujah! Otherwise, a lot more people will read the book.

Atlas screenplay

nevin's picture

There is a guy I met in the Houston Objectivism Club some years back who wrote a screenplay for Atlas. We read it during one club meeting. It was not bad at all, especially considering it was by a screenwriter whose day job was engineering work for a NASA contractor. I'm trying to recall his name, but can't quite right now.

This was back before I went to the 2002 TOC summer seminar and thereby got kicked out of the Houston club.

Anyway, an Atlas screenplay is doable and potentially enjoyable. You just have to cut out lots of stuff.

-Bill

Only 8 to 20 months to do it

Glenn I Heppard's picture

Phil, the 1 to 1 statement includes the discriptions. A Town Like Alice was made into a TV movie following the book almost exactly, its 300 minutes(5 hours)and the paperback is 271 pages.

They don't have time to make more than one movie. They only have the rights till some time in 2007. So they have only 8 to 20 months to get started.

With Lion's Gate, their budget will be no more then 35 million and they can't make the movie too long because that effects the number of times it can be played a day.

Sorry Rowlf

Olivia's picture

Hmmm expensively cheap - are you one of these objectivists that still entertain the notion of a contradiction being permitted? Sounds like a Madonna/Whore split to me.

Jolie is cheap in a Hello I've had *** **** my brother and I'm so proud of it I want it said on my television interview kind of a way.

User Photo delivered at last.. where's yours Rowlf?

Appearing cheap enough makes one expensive.

Rowlf's picture

~~ Jolie is NOT 'cheap'.

~~ Ask Brad (or, her agent).

LLAP

J:D

P.S: Phil: Just what's your prob with Lara? (ok, other than that 2nd falsely named "Tombraider" movie which was a TombBomber?) --- Re Jodie Foster, contraire, I do like her, but think she'd be best as Lillian...or maybe (who was J. Taggart's innocent 'girl-toy'?) --- and as for 'bed-kicking-out-of' of re either...well, I'd think it more practical (and least energy-wasting) to let them decide things on this 'tween them,  that way.

I still just want to see

Landon Erp's picture

I still just want to see Christian Bale as Fransisco.

---Landon

It all basically comes back to fight or flight.

I think Cate Blanchett could

Prima Donna's picture

I think Cate Blanchett could actually do justice to the role. Wasn't Rand originally thinking of Katherine Hepburn for Dagny? Cate has that sort of aura about her (and actually played an excellent Hepburn in the Aviator). There is a toughness to her that I like very much.


-- "The discovery of a new dish does more for human happiness than the discovery of a new star." Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin, The Physiology of Taste

Radha and Cate vs. Jodylina

PhilipC's picture

> Rada Mitchell has a much cooler intensity, a lot of class and she's damn sexy too!
What about Cate Blanchett?

I agree, Claudia. Good choices. They both have class (something hard to define but you know it when you see it), and project a certain cool or thoughtful intelligence...and I probably wouldn't kick either one out of bed, provided they came separately.

[Jody Foster or Angelina Jolie I *would* kick out of bed, just so they have been warned - I don't find either one interesting or even physically attractive.]

Stumbling From Novel to Movie

PhilipC's picture

> When making a movie from a novel the conversion rate is about 1 page to 1 minute...which 150 pages of Atlas would [you] like to see on the screen. [Glenn]

Even with a two part movie, that only ups it to 1/3 of the book (300 pages) if these statistics are correct. Out of a thousand pages, it seems you could first of all get rid of most of the physical description because you are going to show that on the screen. And you can't have a speech as long as Galt's for many reasons (fatigue, time to integrate, much of the material he is referring requires the whole book not a movie to be understood...).

The book tries to do many things: have a mystery, show the psychology of a wide range of characters, show a wide range of aspects of a culture and a society. Because of the crow epistemology those can't all be retained in the mind as you watch a movie (with a book, you can and do put it down, go to sleep, pick it up a day later, let it sink in, etc..), even if it were possible to convey them all.

So you have to eliminate huge chunks, but eliminate seamlessly: Time after time, when I have seen a book made into a movie, it seems choppy. The compression is hard to do well. The movie shows one event happening which is somewhat mysterious on the screen or you don't fully understand its significance or integration into the full novel. The another event is jerkily transitioned to with the same problem...

For example, there is a whole lot of explanation in the book of how the tunnel disaster was led up to in many ways, as well as plays a role in the action. It is hard to try to present an "action event" like that with its full philosophical, psychological, emotional context. There are dozens of action events - wyatt's torch, ride on the john galt line, searching for the motor. You can't present all of them just as you can't present every minor character. It's just too "busy". You would have to ruthlessly select.

"Fountainhead" was easier in a sense - fewer characters, less sprawl, less action, not a whole society on every level. But even there, the great problem was psychologicial depth. Even if you had a different actor than Mr. Stoicism, there is so much to Howard Roark and who he is that just was not shown in that movie.

My greatest fear is that the moviemakers will try to cover too much ground and so both the psychology and the philosophy will be murky or unclear by virtue of trying to prevent -all- of the key aspects of both.

The most important way to avoid this is to make the movie an "old fashioned talky". Seventy years ago, movies like "The Front Page" were jam-packed with revealing, clever, insightful dialogue. "Casablanca" had fewer words per minue, but every sentence was telling and had worlds of import. The amount of words (or telling words) used in movies from the thirties is much greater than in today's movies.

The key to making Atlas work is to make it heavily reliant on Rand's words rather than on dramatic physical action which can be interpreted in many ways, words largely in the mouths of the characters. And to make it an old-fashioned movie in that sense.

Whether anyone would have the brains and sticktoitiveness to actually do that and see that through and not let any of the "advisors" hack it to pieces is extremely doubtful. In a way, I'd like to have seen some of the better TV series makers who do great dialogue work (West Wind, Gilmore Girls, etc.) on it..except that they might have tried to substitute -their- words and sense of life for Rand's.

Which would be *even worse* than making a mindless action-and-explosions movie which can't corrupt the philosophy and sense of life if it doesn't attempt to state or convey them.

Not Jolie and Pitt

Olivia's picture

I just can't see the hit factor of Atlas having much punch in a two and a half hour film.

As for Jolie, she's all wrong for Dagny, she's too... kinda cheap.

I think Rada Mitchell has a much cooler intensity, a lot of class and she's damn sexy too!

What about Cate Blanchett?

Brad Pitt as Galt? Forgettaboutit. Too self conscious.

A dame to kill for

Landon Erp's picture

I think Heath Ledger would make a good either Reardon or Ellis Wyatt.

Just my thoughts. But to be honest I think Pitt is one of the few guys I could see as Galt so I'm happy. I could also see Jolie as Dagny... Just now I'm getting depressed that this means she probably won't play Ava in Sin City 2 (A dame to kill for)

---Landon

It all basically comes back to fight or flight.

> Phil's alcoholic musings

PhilipC's picture

> Phil's alcoholic musings ... make much more sense than his sober ones.

Hah! Okay, this means war, Perigo. Pistols at twenty paces. Right in the middle of Jim Valliant's book signing.

> Lots of people on the left and right are deeply affected by Rand....So you've got Tom Selleck and Clint Eastwood as big fans of Ayn Rand on the one hand and Oliver Stone, Alec Baldwin, and Robert Redford, on the other. It's not surprising to me at all. [Casey]

Me neither. The -least- likely converts to Objectivism are often moderate nebbishes. People who have strong views even if horrendously wrong are at least not subjectivists or completely unconcerned with discovering wider and deeper principles. If honestly misguided, they can swing around completely. That's why so many Oists were people desperately hungry for values and principles and idealism...they just chose the wrong ones among the attractively packaged ones that were available - catholicism, socialism, etc.

'Contemporary Resonances' relevent?

Rowlf's picture

Wes:

~~ Ah, yes: the racial or ethnic concerns.

~~ Then there's the Latinos, the Orientals (or is it 'Asians'? I can't keep up there) and the Native-Americans (or is it 'Amerinds'? I get so lost in these thickets.)

~~ An interesting related place for wondering is: will there be any 'religious' representatives there? Not that there were any in the book, really, but I mean as a kind of incidental 'side' characteristic of, say, some commenters during/after Galt's speech. Food for thought (maybe Ma Chalmers being a priestess cum neo-Feminist?)

~~ Then, there's our elephant-in-the-room: 'Mid-Easterners' Laughing out loud

~~ Really, Wes: thought-provoking question what Hollywood might/could/should do here on several fronts not specifically covered in the book, but, could have contemporary...shall we say...'resonances.'

LLAP
J:D

P.S: An added question for concerns on this aspect: should any 'obvious' ones of such listed be seen as 'incidentally' so, or, as 'representative' of such? Oh, my...The book on it's own was deep; these concerns may make the cinema-story even more so.

I prefer a DVD mini-series

Rowlf's picture

~~ Jolie would be adequate as Dagny. Fair alternatives would be Carrie Moss and, maybe, Geena Davis. Then, um, Gina Gershon anyone? --- I can't see Pitt as anyone but Hank (hey, I liked Troy...and he was a good Achilles.)

~~ Fiennes certainly could handle believably any of the male leads, but, methinks that 'Galt', even with star-power soaking up the other parts, really should be an unknown (or, like Bale in Batman Begins, or Reeve in the '78 Superman, an up-and-coming one). Of course, actor-wise this sure would be a high-pressure part on it's own, and even more so if 'stars' are in other parts. Ntl, a known star as Galt I think might be a bit too...too.

~~ Re Lillian, the only actresses that appeal to me (or seem fitting, anyway) probably wouldn't come near the part (or script) with 10-ft left-handed bat.

~~ Re melding characters (and losing established character names), Galt's name can't be dropped. I mean, the starting of the movie is to be the question "Who is Francisco D'Anconia?" Nope; never work.

~~ Re the movie itself AS a 'movie'...definitely not good expectations here. Yes, to transfer a novel to the screen absolutely requires SOME changes from text to cinematics, but, so much would have to be cut out for a mere, single 2 1/2->3 hr movie (and add in the new King Kong remake 'sitting-time')...that I don't think it'd be recognizeable. Galt's speech takes up how much time? As for a possible 2-parter movie (like Kill Bill), again, how much cut from 'Frisco's and Galt's speech? Are we talking paraphrased condensation here? Abridged (as in cinematic Cliff's Notes) is more like it; and the title should be properly spelled out as "Atlas Shrugged -- based on the novel by Ayn Rand"...and we know what 'based on' usually means.

~~ In these days of multiple-movie story-lines (Star Wars/Matrix/LOTR), to keep any cutting of characters or scenes from seeming like a ginsu-happy editor got hold of it, the 'movie'd really have to still be a minimum 4->5 parter. Unfortunately even THAT idea won't hold because the story's style doesn't have the right places/occurrences for an acceptable-ending on each necessary sequel (but for the last, of course.)

~~ It should be made for DVD as a special mini-series. I have little doubt that fans and non-fans alike would get the finances back to the producers/etc...eventually. Of course, that last word does make the whole buisness concept for it more iffy, unfortunately.

~~ Well, ntl, we'll see what happens I guess. Hope I'm wrong on whatever gets made (except for Jolie, of course.)

LLAP
J:D

1 page equal 1 minute

Glenn I Heppard's picture

When making a movie from a novel the conversion rate is about 1 page to 1 minute.

An average movie is 90 minutes. The longest they will make it is about 3 hours (the longer it is the less times it can be played in a day).

So instead of talking about actors, you should post on which 150 pages of Atlas you would like to see on the screen.

Carrie-Anne Moss has the

Wes's picture

Carrie-Anne Moss has the look but not the fire for Dagny.

Guy Pearce would be a good looter, maybe James T.

I think a tougher guess would be which character in the movie will be black.

Doctor Zhivago

Joe Idoni's picture

Is it really so unbelievable that someone could make another movie with the scope and depth of Doctor Zhivago? Clearly a movie that was never cut down.

Personally, I'd be all for the full-blown 10-hour version of Atlas Shrugged; undeveloped characters and all.

Idoni

Lillian Rearden for Jolie,

Ross Elliot's picture

Lillian Rearden for Jolie, Dan?

My God, no. I've always imagined Mrs Rearden as this venal, sharp-looking Glenn Close type.

Nes pas?

Jolie's looks are far too sultry for wife of Hank.

Pittalent

Dan Edge's picture

I am a big fan of Brad Pitt qua actor. The range of his performance ability is amazing. He was great in 12 Monkeys, 7, Interview with the Vampire, Snatch, Fight Club and the Mexican, and was a completely different character-type in each of these movies. I believe he could represent Galt well, given good direction.

Angelina Jolie is another story altogether. She has very little acting talent, is one-dimensional, and does not physically fit the part of Dagny. Lillian Rearden would suit her better.

--Dan Edge

Phil's alcoholic musings ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... make much more sense than his sober ones. Keep drinking, Phil. Just don't tell Barbara. Smiling

Not bad, Phil.

Casey's picture

Don't shortchange yourself on casting sense, Phil. Except for Eddie Willers.

Interesting that Robert Redford was attached to Atlas Shrugged for a while. Pitt became friends with him after doing a couple of films with him, then Pitt wanted to be in The Fountainhead, and now this. Maybe Redford turned Pitt on to Rand. It wouldn't surprise me. Lots of people on the left and right are deeply affected by Rand because she goes way deeper than politics without becoming the passionless porridge of modern college philosophy. Especially successful, innovating, enterprising, accomplished, artistic people. So you've got Tom Selleck and Clint Eastwood as big fans of Ayn Rand on the one hand and Oliver Stone, Alec Baldwin, and Robert Redford, on the other. It's not surprising to me at all.

...Alcoholic Musings....

PhilipC's picture

> the director and the screenwriter and the cinematographer are much more important than the actors.

Very true, Adam. On the one hand I am encouraged that Lions Gate, which apparently is quirky and independent and somewhat unconventional, is doing the film. On the other I am discouraged that James V. Hart is doing the screenplay, since he usually does action films of the quality of Hook or ones in which dialogue (which a little bird told me is what screewriters are responsible for) is either cartoonish or notable for its absence:

John Galt / Brad Pitt in a car chase. Dagny / Angelina wins the wet t-shirt contest for AK-47 toting female CEOs. Francisco / Antonio Banderas grunts and scratches his....

James Taggart / Gandolfini takes out a carving knife and slices Cherryl / Molly Ringwald's....

Eddie Willers / Robin Williams does standup in the Taggart building cafeteria...

Oh just shoot me.

Lions' Gate Films

AdamReed's picture

Hate to break it to everyone here, but when it comes to conveying ideas, the director and the screenwriter and the cinematographer are much more important than the actors. Jolie could be a total Dagny under a competent director, and a total failure under a bad one.

What gives me hope is that Lions Gate is the biggest film distributor in Canada, so they are independent of today's Hollywood, and can afford to take the level of risk implicit in a film of ideas. If they can get Terry George, the director/co-writer of their earlier film Hotel Rwanda, to direct Atlas, then it will be the kind of film Ayn Rand deserves.

casting

PhilipC's picture

> For Hank Rearden -- Harrison Ford

Yes!!

> But Ragnar stays.

First I was cast as Galt. Then his part was cut. Then I was cast as Ragnar. Then his part was cut. Then I was cast as Francisco. But they changed their mind and said I was too handsome. Now they are casting Cherryl....

TOC links?!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Oh Gawd. OK, here's the next competition: Galt's Speech in touchy-feely TOCese, with KASS removed. Just a couple of paras will do. Smiling

Phil's thinking with a

Ross Elliot's picture

Phil's thinking with a cinematic mind and I likes it Smiling

Anathema it may be but it makes perfect sense to lose Galt. You may piss off a few thousand Objectivists but it would make for a tighter, possibly more satisfying story. A book ain't a movie, and Atlas Shrugged is one hell of a book.

I did however just see an auto email from TOC that mentioned the movie being "multi-part".

But Ragnar stays!!

Laure, Molly Ringwald would

Ross Elliot's picture

Laure, Molly Ringwald would be *perfect* as Cheryl. I've been in love with her since Pretty in Pink & The Breakfast Club Smiling

I don't know about Jodie for Dagny. She's too sharp-featured and petite, I think. Ford would be a great Hank if he was less well-known. I agree with Marnee that you need good but unknown actors for this deal.

Jolie? Blech.

Laure Chipman's picture

I don't know if I could watch it if Angelina Jolie was in it.

For Dagny -- Jodie Foster.  For Hank Rearden -- Harrison Ford, but they'd better do it quick before he gets too old!  For Cherryl Taggart -- Molly Ringwald.  Other characters, I don't care.

HAHAHA

Jason Quintana's picture

"No one as Galt...there is no room for him in the movie version. Too many characters and he is not fully characterized in the novel. Francisco becomes Galt...he's the mystery figure and the leader of the strike...and he Gets The Girl...which is the way the novel should have been written. (Rand's mistake.)"

HAHAHAHA.. I hope they don't hire you to write the script.

Ross is Right

Marnee's picture

Ross we are totally on the same page.

Jolie is TOO MUCH for Dagny -- overkill.

Dagny was subtle and a little quirky and intense at times and softer at other times, similar to Rachel Weiz (she's closer but I wouldnt choose her). I refer you to The Shape of Things and The Mummy. Although she cant totally pull off a American accent like Fiennes can.

Ralph Fiennes is also excellent handling the subtle depth of a character. I see him more as a Hank Rearden. I refer you to Quiz Show, Schindler's List, and Strange Days.

For Dagny I have in mind Jorja Fox from CSI. Jolie might be okay as Lillian Rearden. Like Jason said: "She has that cold, seductive, logical intensity."

Ideally Id like to see all unknown or little-known actors. Famous Hollywood types bring way too much "persona" and baggage to the film.

Tangent

Ed's picture

On a small tangent, I found it interesting that the producers were surnamed Baldwin. I wonder -- considering his anti-Objectivist altruism -- if Alec Baldwin is closely related to them ...

Ed 

casting

PhilipC's picture

> who would you cast in the roles? [Casey]

It's hard to think of any modern actors who have the stature, the class, the dignity, the simple intelligence of the film greats of the past -- I'm stipulating at their prime when they were young enough:

1. Katharine Hepburn as Dagny [I asked Rand at FHF and that was her choice from all time, she said she would settle for "nothing less" than a young Katharine Hepburn]
2. Spencer Tracy as Hank
3. Vincent Price or Guy Williams as Francisco (you had to see the first as the Baron of Arizona, or the second as Zorro)
4. No one as Galt...there is no room for him in the movie version. Too many characters and he is not fully characterized in the novel. Francisco becomes Galt...he's the mystery figure and the leader of the strike...and he Gets The Girl...which is the way the novel should have been written. (Rand's mistake.)
5. No one as Ragnar...same reason
6. Only one major villain...either Taggart or Mouch or Stadler....same reason

A movie is not a novel. A novel this huge can't be captured unless it is 1/10 the size and complexity. Sorry. Just the way it is...don't argue with it.

There are a few great British actors when they were younger could have been one of the heroes...but that's another long list....

Okay. We're done here. I want my consulting fee.

HMMMM....

JoeM's picture

"John Aglialoro, who owns the screen rights, is a co-executive producer on the project, and also serves on the Board of The Objectivist Center."

Ugh, does this mean we'll be seeing the tolerant version?

A concern.

Prima Donna's picture

Here is a contradiction: Jolie is an "admirer of Rand," but she also believes, as has been illustrated via her role with the U.N., that every child has a natural right to an education (and that wealthy countries like America should pay for it). Methinks her understanding of Rand philosophically is somewhat surface-level, and I wonder how these muddled premises are going to translate on screen.

If I've misinterpreted her activism, please feel free to correct me.

Though she can fly her own plane. Eye


-- "The discovery of a new dish does more for human happiness than the discovery of a new star." Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin, The Physiology of Taste

Much better suggestions

Jody Gomez's picture

Much better suggestions Ross. I may be the only man in Thrust history, past or present, to say so, but--Jolie is not the woman.

David Kelley is the script consultant

William E. Perry's picture

I had to double check to make sure that this had been said by TOC, and it has. David Kelley is the script consultant on the novel and the philosophy.

Ok, Casey, looks like you're

Ross Elliot's picture

Ok, Casey, looks like you're going to be responsible for *another* lengthy discussion filled with acrimony & disaffection, but I'm prepared to stick my dick in the mincer...

Ralph Fiennes as Ragnar [I'd rate him as a good Galt as well]

Now, this may not be John & Dagny but it's sure as hell a lot closer than Brad & Angie. Oh, it's the lovely Rachel Weisz.

Ayn Rand was a huge fan

Casey's picture

of "Charlie's Angels" and thought very highly of Jaclyn Smith and Raquel Welch, both of whom wanted to play Dagny. Food for thought. But this is always a fun one: who would you cast in the roles?

I love Angelina Jolie. I

dvo's picture

I love Angelina Jolie. I think she'd be perfect for Dagny. I couldn't think of anyone better. Brad Pitt is great too.

I would love it if this actually happened.

Good point that they should get a copy of PARC.

Oh, dear, oh, dear...

Ross Elliot's picture

Oh, dear, oh, dear...

Marnee is 100% correct. Pitt as Galt? Holy snappin' duckshit! Jolie as Dagny? Phor phucks sake! This is *not* the sort of project you want Brad & Angie-Botox anywhere near. It would be turned into another bullshit star vehicle just like the mindless Mr & Mrs Smith. Hey, I know! Maybe John & Dagny could fall out of love and shoot up Manhattan while Thetan-free Tom Cruise as Eddie Willers reloads their automatics! Better yet: Katie & the newborn reincarnation of L. Ron Hubbard could do cameos! Tim Robbins could give a sympathetic portrayal of James Taggart! Get Matt Stone & Trey Parker to direct! They can give Burt Reynolds as Orren Boyle a whole lot of tasty fart jokes! It'll be a blast!! I mean, if ya gonna fuck it up, you may as well fuck it up good!

Not Dagny. Not Galt.

Peter Cresswell's picture

"I refer you to Achilles in Troy and, ugh, Tomb Raider! Oh and the junk about the married spies. Jolie is not a Dagny."

My thoughts exactly, Marnee. And I doubt whether Pitt is a Galt. Far better not to make it than to make a straight-to-videe piece of trash that impugns 'Atlas' forever.

"They said the same thing to Gibson, though, and he made a bloody fortune."

May we take that epithet as intentional, Casey?

I think they could be great.

Casey's picture

They're some of the very few movie stars that have the looks of movie stars from Rand's era. While I hated the concept of Troy, and Pitt, he wasn't bad in Troy after all. And Jolie has been terrific in some films. I don't blame them for the junkiness of stuff like Tomb Raider. It says something that now that they have the power to do their own thing, it's not just another nod to Hollywood establishment leftism. While I'm an atheist, I thought it was a good thing that Mel Gibson was able to make "The Passion of the Christ." It's even a good thing for Hollywood leftists that people are emerging with the power to buck their Hollywood leftism -- any viewpoint that it utterly and totally unopposed becomes flabby and ridiculous after a while. But they should get themselves a copy of PARC -- because everyone in Hollywood will start hurling all the Branden crap and every other smear they can to persuade them that this is the greatest mistake of their careers. They said the same thing to Gibson, though, and he made a bloody fortune. I suspect the same thing will happen with "Atlas Shrugged."

My thoughts exactly,

Prima Donna's picture

My thoughts exactly, Jason.


-- "The discovery of a new dish does more for human happiness than the discovery of a new star." Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin, The Physiology of Taste

"Jolie is not a

Jason Quintana's picture

"Jolie is not a Dagny."

Hmmm, I think she is.. she has that cold, seductive, logical intensity. I think she is an excellent pick. Right age and everything.

- Jason

Ha! Yes... I would hope so

Jason Quintana's picture

Ha! Yes... I would hope so Smiling

- Jason

No no, God no!

Marnee's picture

It could only be worse if Tom Cruise was going to play Francisco....

I refer you to Achilles in Troy and, ugh, Tomb Raider! Oh and the junk about the married spies.

Jolie is not a Dagny.

Maybe, But...

James S. Valliant's picture

"Jolie would make a perfect Rand female character and so would Pitt." But I think he's cast as a male character...

Jolie would make a perfect

Jason Quintana's picture

Jolie would make a perfect Rand female character and so would Pitt. This would be an excellent duo for such a film. I am, however skeptical that Atlas will be convertable into a good film. A movie like this would need four hours and the director, screen writer and those who have a say over the final cut will need to remain true to Rand's philosophical intentions. All of this will be extremely hard to pull off.

- Jason

Interesting.

Prima Donna's picture

You know what? I think they could actually pull it off.

(LOVE Angelina Jolie)


-- "The discovery of a new dish does more for human happiness than the discovery of a new star." Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin, The Physiology of Taste

James, We should prepare for

Pete L's picture

James,

We should prepare for either alternative. My gut tells me to prepare for the worst, that way you can't be let down.

Excited or Scared?

James S. Valliant's picture

Should we be excited or scared to death?

Something in the air these days...

Casey's picture

I was thumbing through Esquire magazine a few days ago and noticed an interview with Michael Caine, one of my favorite actors. Turns out his favorite name is "Dominique" and he named one of his daughters Dominique after, you guessed it, the character in Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead," of which he is a big fan.

Comment viewing options

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