The novel has a very 1930s feel to it, so I’d set the film in an alternate 1948 – in which there’d been no WWII because every major industrialized nation except the US has gone Communist, and the Great Depression just kept getting worse.
I’m picturing everything having a shabby, rundown feeling to it, like the London of the William Hurt version of 1984 (except not quite that decrepit.)
I’d say it has more of a 1950’s feel. I can definitely see much of the action taking place in a semi-delapidated New York.
You know, I guess the frustrating thing for me is that there is a potential for some excellent scenes here–the train wreck, the farming disaster, the lights going out all over New York–but I really just don’t trust anyone to put together a script that can tie it all together in a compelling, or even a coherent, story. It’s hard to see who they’d cast in any of those parts. Brad Pitt as John Galt???
No, AS seems much closer to the '30s for the following reasons:
Vast new (un-elected, unaccountable) bureacracy promulgating sweeping economic regulations.
Pro-totalitarian, Red Decade intellectuals “first to scream when it’s safe . . . first to shut their traps at the first sign of danger”.
US is isolationist. No cold war, no nukes. Other countries are barely mentioned, only in the context of their slowly starving to death.
No McCarthyism. Only the heroes of the book are anti-communist. Everyone else is either openly pro-Red or just “meh, whatever.”
Even the “jazzing-up” of Halley’s concerto echoes a 1930s fad of taking classical pieces and “spicing” them up.
Note that one major plot point simply won’t work if the film is given a modern setting:
Floyd Ferris’ threat to ruin Dagny’s reputation by revealing Rearden’s affair with her.
Well, if the movie gets made, at least I’ll finally learn how to pronounce “Dagny” properly. Right now I haven’t a clue.
It’s just like it sounds: “DAG-ny.”
Which is sort of confusing, because I think “Ragnar” (as in “Ragnar Danneskjold”) is pronounced “RYE-nyar.”
Just like it looks, I mean. I was having posting trouble (stupid hamsters!) and ended up hitting “submit” on an old version of my reply. :sigh:
Couldn’t it be DAY-nee ?
Nope. I’ve actually heard Rand say it (she was on a Donahue show back in '80 and my mom audiotaped it for me–I was quite the Rand nut in high school) and she says “DAG-ny.”
Interestingly, if you get the unabridged audio version of the book, this is exactly how they break it up…into 3 parts and where you are designating the breaks.
I have to say that I’m a Rand fan myself…and I actually liked the book. 
I even read through the speech…at least the first time I read the book. After that I just skimmed (I did listen to the unabridged audio version of the speech…I think I actually got several commutes in for that one speech 
).
That said, I have no idea how the movie will be. Most likely bad. I certainly don’t envision Galt as Bradd Pitt, nor Dagny as Jolie. I also can’t see how you could do this movie as a single standalone movie. There is just too much, even stripped down, to fit it all in. It would be like the recent Sense and Sensability movie, but more so (which actually wasn’t all that bad IMHO). IF they do it in 3 parts, and if they at least give a nod to trying to be faithful to at least the core of the books philosophy then it might not be TOO bad.
Its puzzling why you guys would even want to discuss this though. I’ve never seen such outright hostility to a book before (well, maybe that piece of trash Hitler wrote 
). Obviously you guys don’t like the book…on ever level. Badly written, bad character development, and bad philosophy. I think the key to liking the thing is being able to connect with the underlieing message. If you can’t connect then the book is torture. If you can then the book is actually pretty good.
Obviously I’m not the only one in the world who likes it (just appearently one of the few on this forum who does)…the thing has been out for ages.
-XT
p.s. I agree that the Fountainhead would be a better, more entertaining movie. But who is an actor with red hair who could play Roarke?
If anybody mentions David Caruso, I’ll cry. 
Fine, Danny Bonaduce it is.
:eek:
Perfectly true. Provided the correct meaning of the word “arguable” is intended in that sentence.
That would be worse than what Roland Joffe did to The Scarlet Letter!
Ackshally, Stone’s a Buddhist now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharon_Stone#Beliefs
Oh, it could be done.
But most assuredly NOT with those two turkeys in the starring roles.
Me neither, but I have read The Fountainhead. Rand had some brains and talent, but she was one sick heartless bitch. And not just in the intellectual sphere, either.
I was once at an SF con where the program included a schedule of movies to be shown. Including a blurb on Jim Henson’s Atlas Shrugged. 9 hours long, with Kermit the Frog as John Galt. Now that would work!
[hijack]
Say, when are they gonna film The Turner Diaries?
[/hijack]
They could start with her 1981 audition for Body Heat. I dunno who’d play her, though.
Easy! Sharon Stone!