Yeah, it seems to me the main reason this isn’t going straight to DVD is that there’s a big built-in audience right now in the form of the Tea Party.
Interestingly enough he’s also in Kevin Smith’s upcoming “Red State.”
Great!
40 years since I attended West Georgia College, got the Cliff Notes, Still couldn’t pass the mother frigger and now…
Now here they come with the movie!
I did better with Homer, fer chrissakes!
Quasi
Huh? 
There’s really nothing Canadian about ‘One Tree Hill.’ It shoots in North Carolina, was created by an American writer, produced by two American companies including Warner Brothers, and is most prominently shown on American networks. Paul Johannson is Canadian by birth, but as far as I can tell he’s the only actor from the show who is.
Not that it’s awful enough that I particularly want to set the record straight as a point of national pride - it’s better than a lot of Canadian content. But no, not one of ours.
Well, I didn’t know that. I thought it was a Canadian show.
Is it any good? Is the actor any good?
Bring out two versions, one with orcs and the other with ewoks and storm troopers and have John Galt and Daphne on the death star with the other grand moffs.
They will be camping at the theaters in two days for an April release and make billions world wide.
Declan
The show is good but not great, kinduv falling into the guilty pleasure zone for me. Paul Johannson, also, is good, with a particular specialty at portraying ‘the jerk that you love to hate’ - I first noticed him playing a rival/foil on the old Beverly Hills 90210, and his role on OTH was basically that of an overbearing and scheming father.
I can’t really speak to his directing skills, as I didn’t realize that One Tree Hill actually let him direct any episode. Just a sec.
checks IMDB
Okay, none of these episodes are truly standout for direction as far as I can tell, but directing 12 episodes sort of indicates that he didn’t suck too badly. It also looks as if about half of them were episodes in which he didn’t have an acting role.
He’s referencing this joke:
I’ve heard it attributed to various people, I’m not sure where it actually orginated.
That is exactly what I thought after the bit about “losing the option” was mentioned.
I do expect then an awful movie.
You can’t really understand Ayn Rand unless you read it in the original Klingon.
Seriously, though; I’m a big fan of Rand, and will be very impressed if they pull off a good movie version. The trailer looks like a good start (except for Dagney being a blonde; what’s up with that?). Twelve years ago, I would have said that *Lord of the Rings *could not possibly be realized as a film. I never say that anymore.
I also note that the director also plays John Galt. That makes me think the production crew is made up of “true believers,” which can only be a good thing.
I take it that you never saw Battlefield Earth huh? 
(Not the same belief of course, but when you surround yourself with yes men, it is hard to notice if you are on the wrong track.)
Wow, that looks really, really lame.
Hmmm. A good point. I sit corrected.
I’m still confused about the number of parts. It really makes sense to do three parts, just like the book . . . but the trailer contains events that shouldn’t happen until Part 2.
I’m not a fan of the book, but I think it could be a good movie.
Set in a timeless / steampunk world. Shot in a way a little similar to Dark City or Gataca. The masses are poor and the world doesn’t generally look nice. But the trains, skyscrapers and cranes stand out and look really good. I’m not exactly sure how to convey it, but the trains should be the embodiment of prosperity. Maybe the area around them looks more modern, shiny and clean. We should get the feeling that it’s a struggle for the main characters to bring progress to this world, and they need to overcome not just the problems of actually building the railroads, but also people who are actively working against them. The uphill battle of the protagonists who have built their own train empire, against the world who wants to take it from them by law, cut it up and let it crumble.
“For centuries, the battle of morality was fought between those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of ghosts in heaven and those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of incompetents on earth. And no one came to say that your life belongs to you and that the good is to live it.”
"You seek escape from pain. We seek the achievement of happiness. "
“It stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting sacrificial offerings. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master.”
Fan of the book, cautiously hopeful about the movie, the trailer didn’t make me weep with joy like the LOTR & Narnia ones did but it did make me happy. I admire the gutsyness of the attempt.
I’ve heard the explanation given for the prominence of railroads is a near-future movie is that a series of crashes & technical failures have caused much air traffic to be regulated out of existence, thus the railroads have re-emerged as the prime mode of cross-country shipping & personal transportation.
I mean, yeah, on the one hand, the film looks utterly awful. But, on the other hand, when it comes out, America’s white, middle-class, bookish teenagers are going to get roughly 60% more tedious. So it’s not all bad.
It could have been made in the manner of the 1985 (yeah…) remake of 1984, with the projected future of a past era–1948 telephone dials on the computers, and that sort of thing. Trouble with that is, the gimmick would likely have overshadowed the basic ideas, which are the whole point of the story.
Yeah, well, who are you?
That sounds great.
IMDB gives a budget of only $15 million. With inflation taken into account, that’s less than Army of Darkness.