Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Atlas Shrugged,' Take Five
Box Office Mojo ^ | 5/18/03 | Scott Holleran

Posted on 06/08/2003 1:41:51 PM PDT by RJCogburn

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-159 next last
To: TradicalRC
Do it with unknowns and save a fortune on the cast budget.
41 posted on 05/02/2004 3:34:40 AM PDT by HitmanLV (I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: HitmanNY
Tommy Lee Jones as Reardon.
42 posted on 05/02/2004 3:53:40 AM PDT by Conservative Kay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
This is from the WSJ article about Phil Anschutz that ran a week or so ago:

"For a brief time, Anschutz and Baldwin were excited about the prospect of filming Ayn Rand's epic novel Atlas Shrugged. They snapped up the movie rights for more than $200,000 in 2003, only to discover that the 1,075-page book's sprawling nature, long speeches and many subplots made it an extremely problematic film project. Anschutz insiders say it's an open question whether they will press on."

The project looks to be dead in the water.
43 posted on 05/02/2004 5:16:26 AM PDT by Misterioso ("A liberal is a person whose interests aren't at stake at the moment." - Willis Player)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Misterioso
I think this could also be one for the small screen--make a six-weeker out of it.
44 posted on 05/02/2004 7:09:07 AM PDT by Mamzelle (for a post-Neo conservatism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Joe Bonforte
Ah, but the fun question is: Who would you cast in the major roles?

Hank Rearden-John Malkovich
John Galt-Gary Sinise
Francisco-Andy Garcia
Dagny-maybe Sela Ward or someone like that
Ragnar-Ted Nugent
Hugh Akston-Robert Duvall
Eddie Willers-Drew Carey
James Taggart-Kelsey Grammer
Orren Boyle-Dennis Franz
Ellis Wyatt-Brad Pitt

45 posted on 05/02/2004 9:30:49 AM PDT by nonliberal (Graduate: Curtis E. LeMay School of International Relations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: TradicalRC
I would throw in David Ogden Stiers as Halley.
46 posted on 05/02/2004 9:33:25 AM PDT by nonliberal (Graduate: Curtis E. LeMay School of International Relations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
Some books are too important to make shallow, facile films from. I wish Hollywood would just leave Atlas Shrugged alone.
47 posted on 05/02/2004 9:46:21 AM PDT by Mr. Jeeves
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nonliberal
I would throw in David Ogden Stiers as Halley.

While he does have the aristocratic bearing, he does not have the "look".

I would have DOS as Jim Taggart and Kelsey Grammar as Halley.

And now that I think about, there's gotta be a spot for George Clooney somewhere.

48 posted on 05/02/2004 11:00:59 AM PDT by TradicalRC (Bibo ergo sum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
Given my handle is "Roarkman," you know I gotta give this a ping.

Ping.
49 posted on 05/02/2004 1:05:16 PM PDT by RoarkMan (no tag line entered)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TradicalRC
Clooney is a flaming pinko.

More cast members:

"Non Absolute"-Freddie Prinze, Jr.
Wesley Mouch-Steve Buscemi
Lillian Rearden-Patricia Heaton
Quentin Daniels-Stifler from American Pie
I would also make room for Jeff Daniels in the cast.

50 posted on 05/02/2004 8:13:09 PM PDT by nonliberal (Graduate: Curtis E. LeMay School of International Relations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: MonroeDNA
I hope they do the book justice. It is a great read, and prescient.

Not to mention immensely juvenile. Whittaker Chambers eviscerated the novel, and he's correct.

51 posted on 05/02/2004 8:19:59 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael
I hope they get someone to who is 'into' the book to Direct and write the screenplay...

Let's be honest, Doc: it would be an awful movie. The only way it could work is as camp, in the same way they did Dragnet.

52 posted on 05/02/2004 8:25:13 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: nonliberal
I'd have Matt Damon play Quentin Daniels.
53 posted on 05/03/2004 6:04:49 AM PDT by TradicalRC (Bibo ergo sum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: nonliberal
Clooney is a flaming pinko.

One must assume that everyone in Hollywood is a flaming pinko, whether willfully or by default because they are generally too stupid to make a living at doing anything but repeat dialogue.

You simply can't use that as a standard for hiring, we can count the Hollywood conservatives on one hand and they are not really all that conservative (except for Mr. Gibson).

54 posted on 05/03/2004 6:10:21 AM PDT by TradicalRC (Bibo ergo sum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
I read both Witness and Atlas Shrugged and enjoyed them both.
Yes, Chambers was correct in attacking her atheistic philosophy but wrong in not even attempting to find common ground or debating her philosophical principles point by point.
He was too broad in his dismissal of her. It would have been more helpful if libertarians and conservatives could have been on the same side while the liberal Leviathon was (is) expanding. Too bad they don't declare a truce until government starts getting smaller. Then we could debate on exactly how small is small enough.
55 posted on 05/03/2004 6:18:43 AM PDT by TradicalRC (Bibo ergo sum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Tweeker
I agree. Diane Lane would make a great Dagny Taggart.

I also think that Deniro would make a great Hank Reardon.
56 posted on 05/03/2004 6:26:23 AM PDT by Fishface (teach a man to fish...he eats for a lifetime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: TradicalRC
The problem with Ayn Rand is that she was nothing more or less than an intellectual fraud. Her philosophy is built on a set contradictory assumptions that cannot be demonstrated by application of reason, except as a relativist philosophy.

You say Chambers was correct in attacking her atheistic philosophy. But you need to ask yourself whether her philosophy even makes sense if her atheism is wrong -- and it doesn't.

So we're left with a novel that "exposes" a bunch of things that we already knew were bad, and she writes it down with all the style and grace of a German jazz band.

57 posted on 05/03/2004 6:29:56 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
I dunno if Hollywood can put together a decent movie for Atlas Shrugged. First, it would have to be a "Winds of War"-type mini-series that would last a week. Second, they'd have to figure a way to get D'Anconia's "Money" speech and Galt's radio broadcast down to seven minutes each. Considering the ever-shrinking attention span of television viewers, will any network take the risk to show it? Plus, I can't imagine which Hollywood producer or director can put something like this together without working in a Leftist slant.

But if someone can pull this off, I'll get the beer and popcorn.
58 posted on 05/03/2004 6:47:17 AM PDT by Guvmint_Cheese
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
While Atlas Shrugged is routinely vilified by left-wing intellectuals, who oppose Rand's view that capitalism is the only moral economic system, and repudiated by those on the right, who shudder at Rand's rejection of religion,

I'm one of those right-wingers. Beyond that, her philosophizing is very shallow. Her philosophy is a house of cards, resting on nothing but her rhetoric. She does a lot of hand-waving, and claims Aristotle as her inspiration, but I doubt that she read him. She never mentions the basics of his philsophy, which includes substance and accident, the four causes, and the problem of change. She also claims to admire Aquinas, at least to a degree, but never mentions the five transcendentals, his "five ways" of proving the existence of God, the problem of universals, and his resolution of the antimony of God's transcendence and immanence.

59 posted on 05/03/2004 6:47:48 AM PDT by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 7thson
I have also come to believe that there are people that must do things that while maintaining the freedom and liberty of the majority, dooms their souls.

You should reconsider this position. It's Machiavellian, and not consonant with Catholic teaching.

60 posted on 05/03/2004 6:51:05 AM PDT by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-159 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson