Megan As Cautionary Tale: Is Shia Heeding? 
EMMY ANALYSIS: '30 Rock' Again? Or 2009 … 
For almost two decades, Hollywood has tried unsuccessfully to turn Ayn Rand’s 1100 page classic Atlas Shrugged into a feature film with actresses ranging from Angelina Jolie to Charlize Theron to Faye Dunaway. John Aglialoro, the entrepreneur who 17 years ago paid $1 million to option the book rights, is tired of the futility and is taking matters into his own hands. He’s announced that he is financing a June 11 production start in Los Angeles for the first of what he said will be four films made from the book.
Aglialoro, who had a hand in writing the script by Brian O’Tool, is taking on this ambitious plan with an unproven director, and is weeks away from production without stars to play Dagny Taggart, Hank Rearden, John Galt and the other roles. He's moving forward despite the conventional wisdom that without stars, it could ultimately be the audience that shrugged.
Aglialoro, CEO of exercise equipment manufacturer Cybex International and UM Holdings, would hardly be the only entrepreneur who uses his resources to make a picture happen, one in which he took on a creative role. David Ellison, son of Oracle's Larry Ellison, made a co-financing deal with Paramount, and one of the first projects from his Skydance slate is the aviation thriller Northern Lights, which casts him as co-star. Dan Pritzker, the billionaire son of Hyatt Hotels chain magnate Jay Pritzker, financed and directed a pair of jazz films: Bolden stars The Hurt Locker's Anthony Mackie as pioneering horn player Buddy Bolden; Louis is an honest to goodness silent film--with dialogue title cards and musical accompaniment--about the childhood of Louis Armstrong. Pritzker is working on a plan to show the latter in venues with a live orchestra. I saw the silent film and thought it was well made, but I have doubts Pritzker will sway the business from its 80 year infatuation with "talkies."
Atlas Shrugged will be directed by Stephen Polk, an actor/producer whose father, Louis Polk, was once MGM chairman. He considers Atlas Shrugged to be his feature directing debut, though Polk acknowledges he stepped in and helmed the 2008 indie Baggage. Aglialoro was unavailable to speak directly, but sent a missive indicating that he’s courting actresses like Theron and Maggie Gyllenhaal to play Taggart. Sources in the camps of both actresses were aware of the project, but neither is planning to go to work on Atlas Shrugged next month.
Normally, when there is such a rush to begin production, it's to keep an option on material from expiring.
Polk said they are not intimidated to film a storied book even if stars don't align. “For more than 15 years, this has been at studios and there has been a whole dance around who’ll play the iconic roles,” Polk said. “Making it an independent film was the game-changer. Everybody is saying, how can you shoot this movie without a star? We’re shooting it because it’s a good movie with great characters. We've been in pre-production for months, but kept it a mystery. Part of the reason is because there’s so much crap about how you need a great big budget and stars. We aren’t looking for big names to trigger press or financing.”
Polk said that the idea of cutting through the bureaucracy and just getting started is consistent with the book's themes of capitalism and taking entrepreneurial risk. The story centers around Taggart, a railroad executive who watches society crumble around her as government takes control over industry and innovators begin to disappear.
Loading ...
Sounds like another rich kid financing his own movie, but this time RUINING a classic novel in the process…THANKS TRUST-A -FARIANS!
you cant ruin a novel with an addition. If you think its going to bother you then ignore it. pretend it doesnt exist. if it doesnt do justice to the movie then realize that it isnt the same thing.
Bakshi didn’t ruin The Lord of Rings. DeMille didn’t ruin the Bible. Aglialoro can’t destroy Atlas Shrugged.
This can only go two ways….either it will end up as great as “Star Wars” or as bad as “The Room” by Tommy Wiseau.
You know what? Bravo to them. Seriously. After having dealt with studio bullshit enough over the years and had my projects sit on shelves because of brain dead execs, I applaud anyone in this business who has the guts and the money to go out and do it themselves.
If this is told well and the acting is very good, this will find it’s audience.
You don’t need stars anymore. You need passion and it sounds like this group has that in spades.
It may turn out to be colossal failure, but at least they didn’t sit waiting like I just did for 4 months to get some spoiled star to read the script because the studio who bought my script decided they would only make the movie with a certain star who was hot for a nanosecond. Then when the star finally gets around to reading it, their value to the studio has sunk so far that the studio decided they didn’t want said “star” and shifted to a bunch of different stars who will all inevitably take 4-6 months to read the script.
It takes 2 months to get past the agent and manager and another 2-4 to get the actor to actually read it.
I’m not shocked this guy has been waiting 17 years to make this movie with the studios.
Dear writer, I understand and empathize with your frustration.
Film production is a high-risk business operating in a weakened economy. Producers, studios, and independent houses are constantly seeking to mitigate risk for their shareholders and financiers, and because of this, stars matter.
Generally speaking – stars are what open movies and generate sales unless you have a high concept vehicle or a project with built-in audiences like the “Twilight” series (which could have starred sock puppets, and still made a fortune).
I applaud this entrepreneur for taking this risk, and he can do it because it’s his money.
Oh, please, Dabbitt! The myth that stars “open movies” is on its last legs, perpetuated only by idiotic agents and managers. Add to that a new Hollywood that has given us so-called “stars” without any real star power (Katherine Heigel, Shia LaBoeuf, Megan Fox, Robert Pattinson, just to name a few) and the aforementioned “brain dead” executives that only green light remakes and pre-branded projects and you’re spelling the end of movies as an art form. Goodbye Hollywood, it was nice to know ya. Now…on to the internet!
Polk is EXACTLY right — John Galt would not wait for stars, nor would he compromise in getting out a message he wants spread! I hope I can be first in line for a ticket!
Steve, Baltimore
It will be shot in 3D with Taylor Lautner starring and be retitled “anhonestanswer.com SHRUGGED”. The script does not end with “FADE OUT” but with “THANK YOU”.
Thank you
Interesting way to tie in the plot line with the independent angle…. wonder how this will turn out for them. Great article Mike.
The book is terrible. Almost unreadable. Right up there with Dianetics. The movie will be terrible as well. Keep this in mind, we had Alan Greenspan, an Ayn Rand disciple, as the head of the Fed for almost 19 years. Greenspan almost sent our economy down the toilet with his efforts to completely dismantle financial regulation, very much in line with the concepts of Objectivism. He admitted “I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms.” Rand’s ideas are bunk. Maybe if they leave in all the sex scenes and cut out all the philosophical babble they might actually have something. Otherwise this film will be about as interesting as Battlefield Earth, which was actually kind of amusing in its own way.
Your point on Greenspan hardly debunks Rand’s ideas. Rand’s ideas were based on businessmen trading value for value freely (as in…not coerced) in their rational long-term self interest. As we all know now, many banks/mortgage underwriters et al chose to abandon this fundamental tenet and started trading garbage dressed up as value for irrational short-term gain. They got what they deserved when the house of cards collapsed, but many weren’t allowed to fail, sadly, because the problem was so widespread and the camouflage was so complex.
If you act badly as a business you should fail, thereby driving business to those who are acting rationally in their own long-term self interest on behalf of themselves and customers. The banks and others that acted properly, BB&T comes to mind, were fine.
Greenspan certainly wasn’t blameless in his abundance of misplaced trust, but his biggest fault was believing that those charged with paying closer attention (ie shareholders, board members, etc) were monitoring how these toxic profits were being made. Profits are great, but not when they come from garbage. It was altruistic regulations, not a free market (which we don’t actually have anyway but would be nice), that forced banks to create a subprime portfolio of toxic assets in the first place. No bank operating freely in their right mind would make loans to people with no jobs, no money down, no credit, etc.
In sum, Rand’s ideas still stand. You could argue we failed ourselves by acting irrationally, but this doesn’t tarnish her ideas at all.
Rand’s “ideas’ were a pile of greed is good bullshit,which explains every facet of conservative fiscal policy-step on the working class and the poor,enrich yourself with their sweat,blood and tears,and leave them to starve in the streets.
Her shitty opus will make a shitty movie,and I mean movie,because this moron is about to go broke with this BS.
Hey WHOISJOHNGALT, read your post again, methinks you contradicted yourself.
You assert that Greenspan’s mistake was trusting corporations to police themselves (”his biggest fault was believing that those charged with paying closer attention – ie shareholders, board members, etc – were monitoring how these toxic profits were being made”) and then in the same paragraph say that it was government regulations, not free markets, that are to blame.
You can’t have it both ways. Personally I think you were right the first time, only an idiot would expect somebody to make a decision against their financial interest. Corporate self-policing is a disastrously naive concept. Just take a look out in the Gulf of Mexico this morning.
But you take it even further. You go so far as to blame government regulations for “forcing” banks to create subprime portfolios of toxic assets. Really? Have you ever worked in a bank? Did government regulations “force” BP to skirt all sorts of safety regulations? Numbskull.
I can’t remember who first said this quote, but it’s pretty hard to refute: “You can’t convince a man of anything when his salary depends on him believing the opposite.” That’s the whole problem with you guys who think Ayn Rand is your goddess of greed and self-interest. You got half of it right, people do behave out of self-interest. But the rest of society gets f**cked when greed is not balanced by some mechanism, and that mechanism, however flawed, is called community/government.
And just in case you think I’m some liberal creative type working the NF blog, I work as a bond trader for one of those banks you think were forced to write subprime loans. No one forced us to do anything, we did it because there were short term profits to be made. That’s how we get paid, no matter what our PR department says. And guess what, it all paid off. We got tarped, we paid our tarp, and now we are borrowing money from the Fed at 0.25% and loaning it back (by buying Treasuries) at 3%. Ha! We didn’t lose money one day in the first quarter.
Honesty, I don’t like your free market idiocy, but I’m laughing all the way to the bank. Not mine. I have my account at BB&T.
I finished AS on an Amtrak Train from Miami to D.C. on 2 hits of L.S.D. in 1981.
Serious shit…I liked it..
Dianetics on the other hand was just funny.
Yonderman: You begin with “The book is terrible,” but do not say why. No reasons are given. You make an unsupported assertion.
Then you bring up Alan Greenspan. You note: “We had Alan Greenspan, an Ayn Rand disciple, as the head of the Fed for almost 19 years. Greenspan almost sent our economy down the toilet with his efforts to completely dismantle financial regulation, very much in line with the concepts of Objectivism.” Greenspan was never a “disciple” of Rand. When he accepted the post of Fed chairman as “economic dictator,” he effectively repudiated her philosophy. It was his statist policies that brought the country to the brink, together with other government policies, and not any alleged attempt at deregulation. Your inference that Rand equals Greenspan equals disaster just doesn’t wash. Greenspan was not an icon of capitalism. Quite the opposite; he is an icon of its betrayal.
Then you assert: “Rand’s ideas are bunk.” Well, prove it. And if they are bunk, what have you to offer in their place? Someone who calls another’s ideas “bunk” must have better ideas. What are they? You sound very much like a modern college professor.
What are you afraid of? That John Aglialoro might actually succeed when so many others have failed? More power to him if he gets it right.
Yonderman… you are completely clueless as to what Objectivism is and is not. While I will agree that the book is not well written, it was not written to be enjoyed for it’s artistic style. It was written as a tool to display a philosophy. However, the story is prophetic in a startling manner. There could not be a better time for the movie to be filmed. Also… you should reread the book because then you might realize that Greenspan was a character in the book… and not one of the heroes. The “toxic assets” were created by government force. The government forced financial institutions to take on bad debt and no rational man or woman would/should be suprised that the banks found a way to unload that bad debt. Central planning is impossible because no man and currently no computer is capable of calculating all the variables of our economy, which leads directly to unintended consequences… ie: the Waxman called hearings for companies who filed SEC profit write downs as a result of the HC bill becoming law. BTW… do you know why the hearings were canceled? Because when the companies sent their internal emails to Waxman he found that they were comparing the gov. penalty vs cost of health insurance for employees… and the penalty was cheaper so they are planning on dropping the insurance on hundreds of thousands of employees… just like everyone with their head not in their rear warned congress about. Waxman doesn’t want this stuff “on the record”.
Greenspan abandoned Rand’s ideas the moment he went against his principles to head the FED, You cannot tie Greenspan to Rand. They live by separate philosophies. Case closed.
As for Atlas being a bad book, that is your opinion, based on your collectivist mindset. Anti-profit = anti-life
In taking the helm at the Fed — an institution that imposes government control over the money supply — Greenspan showed himself to have abandoned Objectivism. As much as anything else, it was his maintenance of interest rates at artificially low levels for years that caused the housing bubble and resulting subprime crisis. (Other government interventions such as the Community Reinvestment Act contributed as well.)
Greenspan was wrong in his admission about being wrong. His appraoch was correct but it was undermined by the governments involvement in forcing the banking industry to issue what became known as “Liar” and then “toxic” loans. Prior to the government pressure to provide these Liar Loans, the banking industry was very responsible when it came to making loans. Anyone who tried to buy a house before this period knows how much conservative they were when it came to lending money.
Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Janet Reno, Robert Reisch and Jimmy Carter are straight out of Atlas Shrugged.
“Right up there with Dianetics”?? boy, is that an off-the-wall non sequitur. What kind of an agenda do you have? Besides, while you may not have liked that book, it happens to be most popular book on the human mind in history.
“Atlas Shrugged” as a directorial debut? That’s almost as ridiculous as casting Kristen Stewart in “On the Road”. Why can’t we respect the greatness of these masterpieces and let them be? Or, at the very least, attempt to do them justice in our film adaptations. Travesty.
Paul Campbell-no one understands your comment. What’s wrong with Kristen Stewart? She’s using her star power to get good stories made.
Would you rather her put her energy into making a movie about the life of Paul Campbell? Or better yet…Clash of the Titans 3D REdux Digital Imax?
Paul Campbell is running for tool of the year. Congrats Paul, you just won.
Perhaps he will do a good job. I’m hoping so. I respect that he is going for it. Have you heard of Orson Wells?
I can think of only one suitable actor for John Galt – Jon Hamm, aka Don Draper on Mad Men.
Jon Hamm would be perfect. Good call!!
One thing I think they may run into with getting big stars frankly is the idealogical barrier. Atlas Shrugged has been interchangably referred to as the Libertarian or Conservative Bible and if we’re being honest those ideaologies run counter to the majority of the hive minded stars in Hollywood. This is why Jolie has so frequently been mentioned, she is a known Libertarian and has enough box office clout to not have to worry about being blacklisted.
You are confusing her with her father, Jon Voight. She is typical liberal (U.N., Obama supporter).
Jon Hamm would make a good John Galt except he’s not in the book until the very end so we wouldn’t see him until the 4th movie (if the first 3 make enough to warrant a 4th that is); I’d rather see him as Hank Rearden…he’d be a perfect Rearden
Hank Rearden: Jon Hamm
Dagny Taggert: Katherine Heigl (she could pull it off for sure)
Ragnar Danneskjöld: Shia LeBoufe
Francisco d’Anconia: Diego Luna
Dr. Robert Stadler: Anthony Hopkins
John Galt: Bradley Cooper
I think I just vomited in my mouth.
You’re right, Jon Hamm would be perfect for Hank Rearden. What do you think of Hugh Jackman as Galt? May not be enough of a part for him, but I believe he could do the job.
I’d say Ewen McGregor for Galt, personally.
Four Films? O Brother Where Art Thou! One awaits these celluloid turds with gleeful snark-filled anticipation of low rent low camp.
This is truly hilarious. A study in hubris or as the kids these days call it – EPIC FAIL. So we’ve got no stars, a director who is actually an unknown actor, a producer by virtue of wealth and two weeks of prep for a June 11th start date? And then, underlying material that is ridiculously hard to crack. Don’t get me wrong, like many of you I fell in love with Rand’s objectivism in my angry young 20s, but look at the material and consider the economic climate, even if they get this movie made and released, think about movie going demographics – there are not enough teabaggers to support an opening. Perhaps like in the book, this film will open on one screen in a hidden valley in the rockies, where industrialists will pay their admittance in gold. Good luck John Galt.
I think you’re wrong there. This book is listed as the second most influential behind only the Bible. Do I need to remind you what The Passion of the Christ did at the box office? Sure narrow minded “progressive”/ regressive nimrods will stay away from it and make snarky remarks on their blog that receives 5 hits a month but I think the market for this is beyond ripe. The economic climate is perfect as the book has turned more into a premonition than a work of warning fiction about Communism.
Also Teabagger? Really? What are you 12? Since the idea of the Tea Parties is based on the Boston Tea Party they would really be more “Tea Leafers” than “Tea Baggers” since leaves were how tea was traded at the time. However if this is more about some bizarre fantasy of yours to have someone’s sweaty fellows placed on your head than who am I to judge.
Second most influential book of all time?!?!?!? Oh wait, that’s sarcasm, right? Just to humor you I’ve spent the last ten minutes googling “most influential books” and sadly, Atlas isn’t at the top of any lists other than yours. In fact, I can’t think of many other authors who hooked readers so adeptly only to lose them so entirely as Rand did with The Fountainhead then Atlas Shrugged. And let me say this, I liked the book, as I said above, I really fell for Rand and all of her novels when I read them years ago and my current liberal leanings don’t diminish the enjoyment I derived from those reads. However, please consider actual audience demographics, in fact step way back and consider what The Passion Of The Christ had going for it that Atlas Shrugged might not – Christianity has a membership conservatively estimated at over a billion. Think about that number for a second and try to tell me again that Atlas Shrugged is the second most influential book of all time.
Now, I’m sure you’ve got a rebuttal to set me on my head and good for you, but stepping away from readership and subject matter, the true folly of this endeavor is the lack of real filmmakers, the lack of stars and a financier trying to shotgun a movie into production with a press release announcing a start date.
Oh but wait, maybe the genius of this project is the inevitable ad campaign; billboards everywhere bearing a simple four word interrogative – “Who is John Galt?” I’m guessing audiences will may lose some interest after sitting through the first three films and not getting the answer to that question.
I will not deny that the odds would be long against them however I do recall rookie filmmakers with no stars, no budget, and a story very little of the nation was familiar with becoming, per capita, one of the most profitable films ever made and with handheld cameras no less. That would be of course the Blair Witch Project. So long odds yes, impossible hardly.
As for the study on it’s influence that was not mine. If you google “Atlas Shrugged Library of Congress” you should have no difficulty finding the study. This study was done in 1991 and I dare say it’s influence has greatly expanded since then given it’s sales have increased dramatically in the past 4 or 5 years.
The book was flawed from a writing perspective but I loved it nonetheless because of it’s clarity of ideals and morality. Combine this with the nearly immeasurable resentment toward ever expanding government that has been growing rapidly over the last decade and I don’t think finding an audience would be difficult. Also since most of the audience would be familiar with the book they would know it moves slowly and probably not give up after the first two or three films.
Double0seven,
you’re regressing you’re supposed to be naive wide-eyed socialist in your 20’s, then as you get older you’re supposed to realize that you need to do for yourself.
Also, you’re crazy if you think the majority of people in this country wouldn’t support a film about throwing off the shackles of government.
Ever hear of Star Wars? It can happen =)
But there are certainly enough to play the parts of the lazy and mindless. They don’t even have to be union actors because they are naturals.
The only thing I say about doing this project is if you can’t do it right, than please do not do it at all
Why so snarky? Why mock and riducule? Does it make you feel better about who you are to trash the dreams of others?
Try reading The Fountainhead to learn why you don’t need to show off to be popular… you just need to do what you do well and actually DO it. Anyone can be a critic, but please don’t stoop to being a PRE-critic… That’s too low.
This town doesn’t have enough pre-critics. There are too many idiots with money and no sense of filmmaking fundamentals clogging the pipeline with crap material. Just look at what the hedge funders did to the indie business the last ten years. They killed it. With mediocre and a business model based on “diversification” rather than good films.
Filmmaking is hard. Really hard. Dilettantes with money are amusing, but they are also a problem. I know they will always see the business with big greedy eyes, but they don’t really take the craft seriously, and have no idea what it takes to make something good. They come and they go, inevitably, and there is always another one to take their place, but in their wake they create a lot of problems for those of us who spend our lives trying to get the craft right on projects big and small.
And don’t go citing Sly Stallone or Orsen Welles in your defense of dilettantes. Both those guys were maniacal about their craft.
What you have to say about the film is interesting I would have to remind about a freshman screenwriter and actor who created Rocky Balboa plus lets not forget Citizen Kane.
As for your political comments; you are too immature to comment upon, it would be child abuse surely (and don’t call me Shirley).
DOUBLEOSEVEN sounds like he knows something about the fundamentals of filmmaking. He knows a neophyte filmmaker + dilettante producer + no stars + difficult material + 2 weeks prep = disaster.
Mike Nichols takes a year of prep on every film (and even then he blows it sometimes). The Coen brothers dedicate a month of prep to nothing but storyboarding. The 3 P’s of filmmaking: Preparation, preparation, preparation. If you snicker when I say that, you aren’t a filmmaker.
I’ve been through this hell of no prep, which is almost always dictated by a inexperienced and arrogant producer who thinks he can save money and change the way films have been made for 100 years. It ALWAYS ends the same… not good.
I also have to tip my hat to DOUBLEOSEVEN for knowing how excited the producer is that he came up with the WHO IS JOHN GALT? stark billboard marketing campaign. I remember that bumper sticker from the eighties. It wasn’t intriguing when I was in college then and it isn’t now. Of course, I’m not so in touch with the flyover states as I was in college. Maybe they’ll love it. Not.
Is there really even an audience for this film (let alone a series of four)?
Everybody I know who read the book connected with it in college but has since grown out of it.
As for the tea-baggers, they just repeat whatever Glenn Beck says, and it’s doubtful that even he’s read the book. So I’m not sure they’re going to be lining up to see a film adaptation of a book they’ve only pretended to read.
That being said, kudos to Aglialoro for taking matters into his own hands.
The term tea-bagger is offensive. Why must you express yourself in such a divisive manner. I was under the impression that true liberals believed in ‘diversity’, including that of opinions or beliefs different than their own.
The term tea-bagger is offensive. Why must you express yourself in such a divisive manner. I was under the impression that true liberals believed in ‘diversity’, including tolerance for opinions and beliefs different than their own.
Hey HARMONICA….
No tolerance for the intolerant!
It may seem like nice defense for you tea-baggers to bash liberals for bashing tea-baggers as intolerant, thus suggesting that liberals are hypocritical for not being tolerant of the intolerant (my head is dizzy). Baloney. Fascism doesn’t deserve tolerance from anyone.
And don’t think you are fooling anyone with that “I was under the impression that true liberals believed in ‘diversity’, including tolerance for opinions and beliefs different than their own”. You don’t even realize how obviously you betray your own disdain for “diversity” and “tolerance”.
Layne… the people you know grew out of self reliance, dedication, the right to own property, the right to free association and the right to freedom from government intervention in your lawfull life? GREW? More like “regressed.” Ever hear the saying: “IF YOU ARE NOT A LIBERAL BY THE TIME YOU ARE 20, YOU HAVE NO HEART. IF YOU ARE NOT CONSERVATIVE BY THE TIME YOU ARE 30, YOU HAVE NO BRAINS.”
Just last week this was a SAG Modified Low budget.
Heard Megan Fox is out a job and looking to rebuild her “reputation” with a serious role…
Sorry Ayn Rand.
he should’ve done it bbc style. and held out for a solid director and an experienced screenwriting team. then found a bunch of thespians. this just sounds like a disaster. which is too bad.
Hamm as Galt? No way. Hamm ad Rearden. Olivia Wilde as Dagny.
Maggie Gyllenhaal’s not pretty enough for me. A Dagny Taggart should be really beautiful.
Atlas Shrugged and unfortunately so will audiences unless Iron Man takes on Atlas in the action-packed third act…
BRAVO! I suspect this will be a blockbuster. I’m already waiting to but my ticket.
I’m bored already.
Rand is awful, the book is awful, this movie sounds like it’s going to be awful. Just what we need: More awful.
It’s best to read something before discrediting it. Just like critics at the time of it’s debut, those who are trying to trash it have not read it.
classic?
really?
You can laugh or read the New York Times list of 100 most important books of the century (2000) and there you will find Atlas Shrugged.
If this group of unknowns can actually begin filming this, it would be an impressive achievement in it’s own right. Several attempts have gotten close, but no dice. If they manage to stay true to the themes and ideas in the book (which MANY have their doubts about), this could be a fascinating journey.
BTW, a great choice to play Hugh Akston would be… (I wish it were my idea)… Morgan Freeman!
Thanks for the article!
There is an audience out there for this that is intellectually hungry for it. I agree about the steep degree of difficulty on adapting the source material with a new director and no talent. We’ll find out soon whether the key elements working on it are men of ability. Too bad Ayn Rand isn’t around to help. This could fail, but the bigger tragedy is that this hasn’t been made.
Sounds like these guys get the book. I applaud them for making something happen. A successful adaptation would be a welcome blow to collectivism.
Too bad Ayn Rand isn’t around to see how Alan Greenspan almost caused the second Great Depression and now is a broken man after pretending he was the Wizard of Oz for so many years.
Again… Alan Greenspan left his Randian principles the moment he accepted the position of head of the FED. Rand’s ideas attack the kinds of actions that the likes of Greenspan represent.He was a statist.
Are you kidding? No way can they cast Maggie or Charlize for the role of Dagny, that is what is wrong with movies today. They cast these people who have the opposite belief (and are very vocal about said belief) of the character they are playing (Matt Damon as a soldier as an example) then expect you to view them objectively in the role? No, that would be like putting Rosie O’Donnell in a pro-gun movie. I like my stars to keep me guessing. This movie will be difficult to cast if you want to have box office draw. You have to have someone who is charasmatic, as well as someone who hasn’t ticked off many middle Americans.
“They cast these people who have the opposite belief”
It’s called “acting”, dear. Their job involves them pretending to be something they’re not for the purposes of entertaining us.
I realise this may be a difficult concept for you to grasp in the abstract, so here are some examples: Sir Anthony Hopkins is not really a cannibal, Sir Ian McKellen isn’t a wizard and Harrison Ford has never flown a spaceship nor raided the lost ark.
I agree that the deck seems stacked against them, but it’s an inspiring project, and I wish I were involved…
i’ll be first in line to buy a ticket. I don’t care if it’s great, horrible or somewhere in between. It’s not from Big Hollywood (no pun intended) I’m buying.
Very excited this film will be shot with unknowns. If the screenplay is at all loyal to the book the gravity of the story will benefit from unknown actors.
Atlas Shrugged can stand on its own and does not need the smugness of a Clooney type to detract from the exigency of the story.
Most of the names being bandied about are too young in my opinion. How about Willem Dafoe as Galt? Reardon should have a touch of grey; Mark Harmon is too old unfortunately, but he is the archtype they should be aiming at instead of Ashton Kutchner. Thinking…
I will go see the movie as long as it is true to the novel.
I never go to the movies anymore. Nothing worth seeing.
“Masterpiece?” “Classic novel?” Ayn Rand was a terrible writer whose adherents are a big part of the reason the economy tanked (I’m looking at you, Alan Greenspan).
Know what this project reminds me of? Battlefield Earth. ‘Nuff said.
You are indeed a writer of comedy!
Harmonica, blow it out your…nah, too easy.
Greenspan was indeed a factor by over capitalization but let us keep in mind that he completely betrayed his principles when he did these things. It wasn’t the principles that failed, it was Greenspan becoming another broken cog in a sputtering machine.
Please… Enough with the Greenspan = Rand… It is BS. Greenspan dropped her principles when he took the FED job.
If you knew the philosophy of Objectivism, that would be apparent. This is the 3rd time someone has used the lame attempt at bringing Rand down by Greenspan’s actions. It is BS
Comedy Writer must love arguing with trolls on lefty websites, so he reciprocates here. Personally, I find it tedious.
Perfect, a film about the totally self-absorbed society, purified through ‘objectivism’. When the aliens finally arrive here and find our bony remains, our ghost cities, they will take back with them our religious texts and this megabook and laugh about our endless folly. Oh those humans, they fought over resources and egomania and fantasized about perfect inventions and phantom deities.
Egomania? Is it not progressives that believe mankind can be perfected via his institutions? Now that’s what I call hubris.
Egomania? Is it not progressives that believe mankind can be perfected via his institutions? Now that’s what I call hubris.
jon hamm? um.. no. John Galt is (according to the book) a young handsome blond god.
John Hamm is NONE of those things.
I’m not sure what actor out there brings to the table the likable arrogance that John Galt needs.. and has the looks to bring it off..
but.. for starters.. perhaps hmmm.. i’m not sure.
Who knows what the climate will be 10 months from now. If they keep the budget reasonable it could do well. They did say it’s been in pre-pro for months and they’re talking to some names.
But I WANNA BE DAGNY!!!
Seriously, if they cast a stupid socialist like Charlize Theron, there goes the film.
I can’t help but associate the public life of an actor and the role. Any movie with Jane Fonda will still make me think of her on the anti-aircraft guns in North Vietnam.
The Coen brothers are re-making TRUE GRIT with Jeff Bridges and *Matt Damon the Idiot” playing La Beouf, an honest Texas Ranger. John Wayne is spinning in his grave.
given how long it took watchman to get made. not surprised the rights holder to atlas shrug is finaly saying enough time to try it myself wish the guy luck. if holly wood has not been able to crack the thing for film. then let Aligero try maybe he will succeed.
Pro capitalism movies do well and not just with “teabaggers”. Guess no one saw Iron Man 2. Or saw and missed the point. Should be an interesting movie and I’ll be happy to see it. We’ll always have the book if that doesn’t work out.
They should be shooting this in New York and Connecticut, where many of the major scenes in the novel take place.
Over the past few years, I have been also frustrated by the lack of action on the production side of this project and seriously considering offering to shoot the film myself. And my offer STILL stands, if it’s an east coast shoot. Too bad it’s an LA-based company.
I’m going to hazard a guess here and say that the script is probably a piece of junk. If Aglialoro really wanted to make a sound investment, why didn’t he spend $500k on a great writer (and by association their representation) and then go directly to stars to package the film to bring to the studio. The last 15 years has seen so many Hollywood boom years that the only reason they wouldn’t want to play on a property like this is if the “producer” here didn’t know what he was doing, had too many demands and himself wrote a terrible script.
Don’t blame this on the studios or stars, hire somebody who knows what they are doing and it could have all unfolded in a much different manner… and Aglialoro would have only been in the hole for $1.5m because the studio would have financed the film. Now, not so much.
Between DoubleOSeven and Todd, the producer could learn all he needs to know about filmmaking. Which is to take his money and invest it in other people who have some experience making difficult projects. If he want to learn, he should waste his dough it on a $3 indie and find out what reality is.
Please. Do not ruin this novel. Keep “Atlas Shrugged” the way it is, NOT in movie form.
If a book is popular enough (Twilight, Harry Potter, etc.) fans don’t care if the actors are names or not.
What makes these characters in the novel effective is how they behave. I’d actually prefer the story to be the main character and not have some Hollywood drips with their names all over this movie out there pretending it’s a “big star” movie, when it in fact it is supposed to be an intelligence workout. It requires capable acting, not famous acting, and if you ask me, Hollywood SUCKS in general. Hollywood can’t think, it’s out of ideas, the acting and directing are lame, the standards are very low. Atlas Shrugged needs immense amounts of composure in the storytelling. Give it the Hollywood treatment and it will be just another trash production. Go for it and leave the “big stars” out of it.
The fact that these people understand that it will take four films to tell this great story on screen bodes very well for the project. And the understanding that Hollywood would never be able to ‘get it’ bodes well too. Great book, great authoress, great story. Could be great movies. I would not cast judgement until there is something to judge.
It will sort the creators/producers out from the moochers and looters anyway.
Ayn Rand is usually misquoted by the far-right. Her non-fiction is the best way to find out what her philosophy was. Her ideas need to be carefully thought through, as any short-cut for convenience has shown to produce destructive extremes of selfishness and not a balanced, healthy respect for individual rights. I’ve read most of Ayn Rand’s non-fiction and find her to be much less of an extreme thinker than many of her critics insinuate. She is however, not perfect and she had quite a chip on her shoulder, an anger from eastern Europe and the Soviet experience. Fine, but she got that a little confused with the American experience sometimes, creating an over-reaction. I’d recommend letting Ayn Rand talk through her points on Capitalism, Selfishness, democracy, ingenuity, freedom, liberty, government, etc, as she has good points. She’s just incomplete. She’s not an entire world-view. Economic policy is not an entire world-view. Milton Friedman and Keynes could not present holistic world-views in their economic policy. Philosophy based on one economic philosophy is not an entire world-view. Ayn Rand wrong? I don’t think so. I think she was incomplete and dealing with very complex issues.
Ayn Rand is incomplete? True, she didn’t know the importance of English history and political thought and how it’s a major source for the Founding Fathers, (among other things) but please name me a more complete thinker. She emphasizes reason and self-interest and individualism and the free market. What other political thinker does this? Please tell me, because I would like to read him/her. Thanks!
Well if Jolie is out for the role of Dagny, John Voight would make a good Rearden even if he is a little old.
The quality of the film doesn’t matter. Given our lousy polarized condition, the finished product will be nothing more than a political Rorscach test in which everyone can see whatever they want to see.
America’s obsession with politicizing everything is getting so unbelievably boring and dreary.
I object… to this ever being made into a movie.
It may be okay to wax philosophically for 1100 pages in a novel — in a film, not so much.
Actual plotlines with direct (and relatable!) stakes for the characters involved are necessary elements in film.
Should have left this on the book shelf where it belongs. A fact that all of the actual film-makers know, which is why this guy is running off on his own to make it without any help from anybody who actually knows what they are doing!
Hmmm. Considering that the book is filled with great dialogue why is it so hard to write a script, if you have the time to develop the plot? Ayn Rand was a screen-writer for cryingoutloud. She worked in the movies for three decades, and wrote screenplays or adaptions for successful movies. She knew more about writing than anybody in Hollywood today. Bye
I’ve never read this book. Who are these characters you keep mentioning? Who is John Galt?
I’ve been casting Atlas in my head for 30 years and here is who I would have loved to see:
John Galt:-Gary Cooper
Dagney Taggart-Lauren Bacall(Think To Have and Have Not)
James Taggart-Charles Laughton
Hank Rearden-Henry Fonda
Francisco D’Anconia-Tyrone Power
Lillian Rearden-Bette Davis/or Joan Crawford
Wesley Mouch-Peter Lorre.
Of course I’m talking about real movie stars with real talent. Not the wannabes with nothing but bad manners and less talent that we have today.
The time is right for the movie to be made, if it’s made correctly. It must stay true to the book.
I think it would be done better with unknowns at this point.
I wish someone would make State Of Fear
I think Kevin McKidd of HBO’s Rome would be an ideal John Galt.
That said, I doubt this movie will ever get made, or will be any good if it does get made. Rand’s fiction doesn’t translate well to the screen.
I don’t care what they say, this is going to be a disaster. So much of the novel will be lost. This is one of those books, like Catcher in the Rye, that should NOT be adapted into a movie.
How are they going to film the John Galt speech, and how much of it will be ’sanitized’ for ‘regular’ audiences, losing so much.
A film adaptation will be a massive undertaking, not only to set all moving parts into place, but to make them move as well, and to do it justice depicting the apocalyptic feel of a crumbling world, the mystery of the pirate no newspaper dares to talk about, the dread people feel every time an industrialist disappears, the awesome revelation of that worldwide broadcast interruption… there is so much in there, I would hate to see this level of literary complexity become a shallow excuse.
For those of us who retain the context of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged- the withdrawn sanction of the victims (persons of ability) from their tormentors (the moochers)- let us hope they get it right; how ever many films it takes!
I’m keeping my fingers crossed… um, rationally speaking.
It’s interesting to read the rebuttals of those who either oppose production of Atlas Shrugged, or snicker at the idea.
RML: “Rand is awful, the book is awful….”
E — : “I’m bored already.”
Layne: “Is there really even an audience for this film (let alone a series of four)? Everybody I know who read the book connected with it in college but has since grown out of it.”
Double0seven: “Second most influential book of all time?!?!?!?”
Yonderman: “I think I just vomited in my mouth.”
Mark: “Classic? Really?”
Comedy Writer: “Classic novel?” Ayn Rand was a terrible writer whose adherents are a big part of the reason the economy tanked (I’m looking at you, Alan Greenspan).
Mojo: “I object… to this ever being made into a movie….Actual plotlines with direct (and relatable!) stakes for the characters involved are necessary elements in film.”
Jay: “I’ve never read this book. Who are these characters you keep mentioning? Who is John Galt?”
Rebuttals:
RML: Another summary conclusion with no supporting evidence.
E — : Bored? Would watching a movie about how to save your life from parasites be boring? Or would you prefer the fantasy of “Matrix“?
Layne: The audience for such a film is every American who ever entertained doubts about why the government wants to do so much for Americans. And anyone who’s ever “grown out” of his youthful idealism and enchantment with life, has committed spiritual suicide. College can do that to you.
DoubleOseven: It was a Library of Congress survey. Ideas matter. It’s appropriate that Atlas came in second after the Bible. Two opposing philosophies in a contest for your life.
Yonderman: You are irredeemable.
Mark: Yes, really a classic. A “classic” is a work of literature that introduces a new story. No novel before Atlas presented a story about the mind on strike.
Comedy Writer: Yes, a classic. Rand was a master writer. Alan Greenspan repudiated Rand when he took the Fed chairman job. His loss.
Mojo: You won’t find a more tightly plotted novel than Atlas.
Jay: Who are those characters? They’re the characters in the novel. John Galt is the man who stopped the motor of the world. Read the novel and find out who the others are.
In short, Atlas Shrugged is a movie whose time has come.
They will be much better off without the big stars, the actors should be unknown to make the story plausible in a movie, otherwise it just looks fake, no Hollywood stars could be Dagny or Hank or John Gault, they are way too vain for that.
I would suggest Joss Whedon for director. He is VERY creative and is experienced in all facets of the entertainment industry. He wrote and directed the 2005 movie “Serenity”, based on his television series “Firefly”. Serenity won the 2006 Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Long Form. I can’t think of a better choice to bring this project to the screen succesfully.
Cate Blanchett as Dagny, perhaps.
I am always fascinated by how divisive our culture is becoming.
If one has actually read the book, that is one theme that was surprisingly prophetic. Those that have, and do, desperately trying to keep a portion of the fruits of their labor from government redistribution, while those with self-styled “superior morality” object to the accumulation of wealth.
Is there a market for this as a film? I believe so. There are enough individuals who have read it to want to see it. There are enough people who despise it who will go solely to try to rip the film apart.
Is the book perfect? Not by a long shot. It gets bogged down, and clunky at times. But I think it would make for a decent film if well edited, trimmed down, and written with a bit more flair.
Is it too much to ask for people to be polite on discussion boards? Definitely.
This will be just the first of many–for hundreds of years in the future. Fortunately, we let this immigrant in from Russia and she told us what our future will be with the ideas we have accepted. Will we change our ideas? Maybe this film will help–or the next–or the next.
Has anyone ever heard the rumors about this book? I have heard that it is actually an illuminati book writtin in code. This is a rumor that dates back to the 70’s. Wonder why there has been such a fight over the years to get this book published. First you had Watchmen and now this….
This movie could be great, but this process has all the earmarks of epic failure.
As the enduring popularity of Rand’s writings shows, it has a ready made fan cult on the order of what propelled the Lord of the Rings movie trilogy to it’s huge success. Too bad there’s no one of Peter Jackson’s directorial caliber to wrest success from the jaws of defeat.
IMO, Jolie is perfect for the movie, and the movie perfect for her. Has she been asked or has she asked for it yet? Maybe her hubby would join her as well.
As an HBO series done right, Atlas Shrugged could have been huge.
The role of Dagney should go to a relatively unknown fresh actress that hasn’t been corrupted by the influence of Hollywood. Most well known actresses simply wouldn’t work because most of them have opened their pie holes and divulged the sewage; that is, their questionable activities and futile thoughts to the public at large. Having a well known actress simply would destroy the believability of the critical role that Dagney holds in this story. Lets be honest, most people have a severe lack of respect for our current day entertainers. A fresh face, a lady who hasn’t bought into the communist pap that is alive and well within the entertainment industry and one who understands and lives the entrepreneurial lifestyle, can pull off such a critical role off. The idea of having the likes of Jolie and Charlize play the role makes me ill. It would be a complete mockery to place them in such a story. Take it from a woman who lives the entrepreneurial lifestyle in a male dominated industry…me.
Dagny Taggert: Angelina Jolie (She would be beyond perfect for this role)
Hank Rearden: Gary Sinise
John Galt: Brad Pitt (I know…I know… but he is just such a good actor)
Ragnar Danneskjöld: Josh Holloway
Francisco d’Anconia: Nestor Carbonell
Wesley Mouch: Brent Spiner
Hugh Akston: Robert Duvall
James Taggart: Paul Giamatti
Liliian Rearden: Ashley Judd
Dr. Robert Stadler: Ian Mckellan
Hollywood Sucks! If Jolie or Theron were Dagny I would never see the moive(s). Ever! Either one would be an afront to what Atlas Shrugged and/or Dagny Taggart stands for.
I think that this is brilliant!! My agent is talking with the Casting Director currently about getting me in for Ms Dagny. I’ve been passionate about this story since I read it and it quickly became my dream role!! If they cast this correctly it will be the perfect film!! And dreams come true everyday!
Like most who’ve read the book, I wondered if it would ever be made into a movie, and worried about how it would be destroyed by a 150 minute limit. Four movies? Interesting. Perhaps the filmmakers would have better luck with a four part series on television.
I fell out of love with the book 40 years ago, but if it actually gets made, I’m there.
“John Galt:-Gary Cooper
Dagney Taggart-Lauren Bacall(Think To Have and Have Not)
James Taggart-Charles Laughton
Hank Rearden-Henry Fonda
Francisco D’Anconia-Tyrone Power
Lillian Rearden-Bette Davis/or Joan Crawford
Wesley Mouch-Peter Lorre.”
I think this WAS the original cast – it’s just taken this long to get the movie made : )
I really want this to be good and wish these folks the best.
Looks more like a project better suited to Masterpiece Theater or as a HBO cable series.
Just get on with it already–maybe it will get done within my lifetime.