Atlas Shrugged: Part 2 starts production in April and is scheduled to be released in October, just in time for the presidential election.* Atlas Shrugged: Part 1* only recouped about one quarter of its production costs. I can’t imagine that DVD sales have made up for the box office losses, and I’m kind of wondering just how much money the producer, John Aglialoro, is willing to lose finishing this trilogy.
The first part was like a slow motion train wreck. Morbid fascination compelled me to watch.
I still think the key to not having the rest of the movies flop is to let Armin Shimerman wear his make-up from DS9 and add a few more ferengi characters.
Dunno how well they sold, but entertainingly: "More than 100,000 DVD inserts were recalled within days due to the jacket’s philosophically incorrect description of “Ayn Rand’s timeless novel of courage and self-sacrifice.”.
I honestly didn’t know they made Atlas Shrugged Part 1. I remember hearing vague talk about it a while back, but I thought it was still in pre-production.
checks IMDB
Wait, I thought this was going be a big budget type thing. Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie type of deal. Am I crazy or was that the plan?
That may have been the plan at one point. But from what I understand, the producers had only so much time to make a movie before losing out on the rights, so they rushed this into production.
It would seem making a sequel is against everything Ayn Rand stood for. Unless losing money is in the producer’s self interest, but it sounds more like altruism to me.
I think it is a shame really as you could film Atlas Shrugged as a lush alternate reality sci fi picture, of course you would have to trim shit like 20 page speeches. Think Gilliam’s Brazil for the look of the world.
As I wrote in a previous thread about the first movie, this sequel was inevitable no matter how badly the first movie did. It isn’t about box office; it’s about Ideology. The Washington Times (a Conservative newspaper) loses money every year. Fox News lost money for years after it started. The whole point is spending money to get the “word” out. Making that money back (directly) is irrelevant.
Couldn’t happen to a more deserving memory
And I agree, with this project, completing the set is nigh inevitable once you commit to starting it. The Randverse seems to the outside observer to include as a virtue a bullheaded insistence on completing your vision.
I never would have thought of you as a Randroid. (Smile, that’s a compliment.) Sure, Part 1 had some good points (Rebecca Wisocky does a great job portraying ball-busting Lillian Rearden, and Taylor Schilling overcomes some very bad writing to give an impressive performance as Dagny Taggert), but let’s face it. The film really only works for those who are strongly sympathetic to Rand and her philosophy. And that ending? Ugh! Were you being ironic?
I have no interest in Rand or this movie but I’m glad it’s getting made just for the silly reason that I hate when creative works, whether original or adaptations, get cut short before they are completed.
I did too. I thought the first part was a good, suspenseful movie and am looking forward to the next one. Great minds think alike! (Yes, I’ve read the books)
Couldn’t happen to a more deserving memory 
I never would have thought of you as a Randroid. (Smile, that’s a compliment.) Sure, Part 1 had some good points (Rebecca Wisocky does a great job portraying ball-busting Lillian Rearden, and Taylor Schilling overcomes some very bad writing to give an impressive performance as Dagny Taggert), but let’s face it. The film really only works for those who are strongly sympathetic to Rand and her philosophy. And that ending? Ugh! Were you being ironic?