A variation on Gaudere’s Law? 
Anyway . . . yes, parts 2 and 3 are the middle and end of the story, not sequels. And assuming they’ll be made, I’m waiting for the DVD, so I can see it all at once. And I’m not at all surprised by the reactions of the critics and the public.
By the way, was Francisco d’Anconia in the movie? I’d heard that one of the major characters had been cut, and if he’s the one, I won’t be buying the DVD either.
My dad plans to go see it with some friends of his. I think I’ll wait until it comes out on DvD and just buy a copy. No matter how bad it is, I’ve bought worse in the past…movies I vaguely remember seeing previews to but never got around to going to see at the theater.
-XT
He is in the cast list at IMDb, anyway. When I read the book, years ago, I always pictured Francisco as played by Antonio Banderas. But he’s probably too old by now.
Yes, Francisco is in the movie; it looks like all the major characters are, but several secondary characters are either not included or have not yet appeared, most notably Kip Chalmers and Cherryl Brooks
I heard Quentin Tarrentino will direct it
I saw it this weekend. I’m a big Atlas Shrugged fan (read it for the first time at age 13 and several times subsequently). Honestly, I was fairly disappointed. The casting was okay for the most part (I quite liked Hank Rearden, and Dagny wasn’t bad) but it was just kind of dull and sterile, even the John Galt Line scene, which was one of the most exciting in the book IMO. I’m glad I went to see it because I’ve been waiting years for it to come to film, and I do hope they manage to make parts 2 and 3 (I will go see those too), but I really think they could have done a lot better job. I am impressed with what they did on the budget they had, though.
Ahh, thanks. My mistake. I should’ve indicated nebulous memories were at play.
The time spans between me reading the book, seeing the movie, and replying to your original post were too great. I remember the intergalactic politics stuff from the book, figured that was excised from the movie, and mistakenly remembered that the end of the movie relatively matched the ending of the book (whose details I currently can’t remember).:smack:
This phenomenon is always rich in irony, but if it takes place with this movie, it will positively clang with every contact.
Yeah. This movie will live or die on its word of mouth. I can’t recall seeing a single ad for it anywhere, and the only reason I knew it was even coming out this weekend was I happened to see Roger Ebert’s review of it.
Well, now that a few people have seen it…
I’ve never read any of Ayn Rand’s books, and my understanding of her philosophy comes from the Simpsons parody of The Fountainhead, the Rush album 2112, and what i’ve read of it on the internet, and i’ve come to the conclusion that she was an egotist with the kind of contemptible “Screw you, I got mine” philosophy that’s far too common on the right these days.
That being said, the trailer did look intriguing to me. Would I enjoy this movie, or am I going to be bored to sleep by hours and hours of talking heads droning about how greed is good?
Which is probably on par with Southpark’s ManBearPig skit concerning Al Gore, wrt the reality of his life and positions. 
-XT
I disagree. That about nails it. her “philosophy” is pretty much just a sophomoric apology for living completely selfishly and regarding any compassion for others as weak and immoral.
To be sure, DtC, but you aren’t exactly an unbiased observer, since you pretty much hate her works. Right? And I seriously doubt you are going to go pay money to see this movie either…again, right?
-XT
Clearly you are missing Rand’s main premise: that doing what’s best for yourself IS what’s best for society. You are free to disagree with the premise, but don’t be dishonest and deny that that’s her point.
Me too, but mostly I learned there aren’t any orcs in Atlas Shrugged, mostly.
CMC fnord!
I’m not missing it. I’m calling it disingenuous, self-serving, uncompassionate and evasive of social responsibility. There is no love in her philosophy, only cold and sanctimonious justifications for living selfishly.
I also think what she calls “collectivism” is a complete strawman.
This is absolutely not correct. Rand’s philosophy is rational self-interest. “I’ve got mine, screw you!” is not rational. But neither is “you must turn over the products of your work to others simply because they need them more than you do.” Rand is anti-altruism in the form of coercing or guilting people into giving up what’s theirs. She is not anti-charity, nor is she against supporting the less fortunate. It’s simply a matter of whether you do it voluntarily or under duress.
Truthfully, if you don’t know/like the book, you’ll probably be bored. I love the book and I was bored in spots. There are a lot of talking heads. Half the movie seems like it’s spent with people sitting around tables talking to each other. I’m disappointed that this is so–I wanted so much to like the film, and it definitely had its moments. But overall, as an Atlas fan, I was disappointed.
I liked Atlas Shrugged (though as I’ve said before, The Fountainhead is actually my favorite Rand book), and that’s what I’m afraid of…that it will be a bit boring and won’t meet my expectations about the book. Especially since it seems like it was done on a shoe string budget, and without any of the major movie production companies involved.
I will most likely wait to see it for when it comes out on DvD…though if my dad asks I will go with him to see the thing.
-XT
Oh, come on. Seriously, I’m not a Randroid or an unapologetic Rand follower, but have you even read any of her work? Have you read any of her nonfiction? Have you read her theory of love and sex? I have absolutely no problem with people reading her works and deciding they’re not for them. But I do have a problem with people misrepresenting her philosophy down to a soundbite, and an incorrect one at that.
That being said, it’s a very common way of reducing it — Ebert uses essentially the same line in summing it up in his review — and I don’t think this movie does much to change that. It’s what I meant when I said I thought Johansson missed the point of the book; to the extent that there is a philosophy in Atlas Shrugged, isn’t it pretty much “live for yourself, not for others”* and “don’t be disingenuous about how you want to live your life”? This is exactly the same “follow your dreams”/“be true to yourself” moral at the heart of a billion other stories; I think people tend to reduce it to “screw the little guy” because she doesn’t exempt businessmen from it.
I also think that’s compounded in this movie, though; Johansson has reduced the plot to “businessmen should be able to do whatever they want and nobody else matters.” At least, so far as I can tell, nobody who matters in the movie isn’t a businessman. I always kind of thought the message of Atlas Shrugged was that everyone was supposed to be able to pursue their interests genuinely, which was the point of the whole Richard Halley arc. And the reason why their little utopia at the end is filled not just with industrialists but also surgeons, philosophers (Akston and Danneskjöld), actors, sculptors, judges, etc. At least in this movie, that’s all been boiled down to just people in boardrooms or, as you put it, “sitting around tables talking.”