Atlas Shrugged

directorik said:
Originally Posted by Instag8r
This is hysterical and you just proved my point. You're clueless. And I'm done with this thread.

I'm taking bets that Instag8r returns to this thread.
Click to expand...

I've smelled this smell before and I'll second your bet that Instag8r will fail to follow through with his ernest declaration.

Anyone want to broach ettiquet and triple dog dare him/her?


FWIW, Ann Rand and Atlas Shrugged really aren't familiar to me, however the "passion" vomited up on this thread sent me wikiing them both.
IMHO, this feature strikes me as achieving what Battlefield Earth did for John Travolta.
Just a thought. Half of one, even.
 
Last edited:
NickClapper said:
The film couldn't get any proper actors. It's directed by someone most famous for being in One Tree Hill and it's been entirely funded by someone who might have a political agenda *cough* as a vanity project.
Click to expand...
This seem unusual on a forum devoted to filmmakers who
make *cough* vanity projects and cannot get "proper actors".
And while we may not fund our films based on a political
agenda we do either find funding or fund our own movies
based on our own agendas.

I will not comment on this movie even though I have seen it.
My only comment is on the thought that a project might be
somehow less because it was independently financed, the director
is inexperienced and they didn't have the budget for name actors.

I find that odd in the context of this forum.
 
directorik said:
This seem unusual on a forum devoted to filmmakers who
make *cough* vanity projects and cannot get "proper actors".
And while we may not fund our films based on a political
agenda we do either find funding or fund our own movies
based on our own agendas.

I will not comment on this movie even though I have seen it.
My only comment is on the thought that a project might be
somehow less because it was independently financed, the director
is inexperienced and they didn't have the budget for name actors.

I find that odd in the context of this forum.
Click to expand...

The *cough* is because I decided to edit out what might have been perceived as a politically charged comment. Please read the *cough* as being part of the preceding 'might have a political agenda' rather than as part of the 'vanity project'.

But I think there's a very real difference between the films being made on a forum like Indietalk and this adaptation.

Firstly no one here is making the first film adaptation of one of the most famous books in the world. If/when they make a film adaptation of, for example, The Catcher in the Rye, do you not think it would be very odd if they could not attract, for want of a better word, serious actors to the project? Or an experienced director?

It's also clear that no one is willing to touch this project, hence the reason it's been independently funded by someone who obviously loves the book and wants to provide an easier way of getting its message than reading a 2000 page novel.

I just find the whole thing very odd. Almost all the reviews reference bad acting, stilted dialogue and poor production values. Do you not find this strange given the enduring 'popularity' of the book?

I think you're twisting my words slightly because I was in no way suggesting that the film is any the less for these factors- all I'm saying is that they indicate to me the fact that the reviews might be correct in saying that the film is bad.

Once again I would reiterate the fact that I haven't seen the film and that every post I've made on this thread has been in response to the idea that all the world's film critics are engaged in some conspiracy to bury an excellent film. I'm just using the inexperience of the actors and director and the slightly unusual method of funding as evidence for why those reviews might be justified.
 
I apologize for twisting your words.

The “less” comment was my word and not intended to twist your
words. It was my reaction to what you wrote, not an attempt to
twist anything you said.

If I could get the rights to a famous book no one in the studio
system would touch I would jump at the opportunity. And if I
didn’t have the money to attract name talent or an experienced
director I would still do it. That, to me, is the entire meaning
of “indie” filmmaking. If I could manage to get a small theatrical
release I would do that, too.

Many “serious” actors may not want to be involved in a
controversial project directed by an experienced director. That
dos not indicate, to me, that the project is lesser (my word not
yours) than a project that does attract serious or name talent and
an experienced director. To me that is the very definition of
independent filmmaking. I admire those who can get a film made
like that.

Regardless of the reviews, I found it surprising that on a forum
dedicated to independent filmmakers this came up. On a site
dedicated to movies I can see it - just not here. Here we are the
embodiment of the spirit of independent filmmaking and all that it
means. Including - in my opinion - making projects no one else is
willing to touch. And even making movies critic’s hate. And even
making bad movies.

Not saying anything against you as a person or a filmmaker, Nick.
Maybe the reviews are justified. I find it odd that you use the
fact of the move being self financed, having an inexperienced
director, attracting no serious or name actors and being a project
no one is willing to touch as a justification of those bad
reviews.

I am also quite certain that no critics are conspiring to shut down
an excellent film because of its political leanings. But I am just as
certain that no one in the studio system would touch this because
of its political leanings.
 
directorik said:
But I am just as
certain that no one in the studio system would touch this because
of its political leanings.
Click to expand...

Do you feel this strictly because of the politics of the story, or because it wouldn't generate a positive return-on-investment? In other words, why wouldn't Hollywood touch it? Only because of the message, or because it wouldn't make for a popular film that would get butts in seats? I'm curious to have you develop this point further.

I'm thinking of some of the more famous and famously successful conservative movies of years past (Dirty Harry, Red Dawn, The Patriot, Passion of The Christ, even Pixar's The Incredibles). Popular movies that sold lots of tickets that carried politically conservative messages.
 
Instag8r said:
It's disgusting how politics can influence people. They should be ashamed of themselves, but they won't because their agenda means too much to them, even more than their honor and reputations.
Click to expand...

Instag8r said:
the fact that you used the term "rampant conservative" tells me all I need to know about you and where you're coming from (the same place as the agenda driven critics).
Click to expand...


Now, I've only seen the trailer, so I can't say if the movie is good or bad. I'm just curious how one justifies being completely angry for people making assumptions about a film, but turns around and makes assumptions about the reviewers?

"Hello, Mr. Kettle, this is the pot. You're a tad dark. "


On another note... I guess I define "real" actors as something else. I saw some of my all time favorite character actors like Michael Lerner, Armin Shimmerman, Michael O'Keefe, and Patrick Fishler. If I see an IndieTalk movie with an actor with 1/10th the resume of those actors, I'll be happy to wash your car or give you a foot massage.
 
Well, this has turned out to be a rather interesting debate. Uranium, when you mentioned those conservative-leaning movies that have done well at the box office (three of which I really like), I was reminded of a thought that popped in my head a while ago.

There is a market for Christian movies. This very large demographic is actually kind of starved of quality movies to watch (that also have a Christian message). The thought has crossed my mind to start making low-budget Christian movies, and do my darndest to make them fun and entertaining to watch. For profitability, low-budget indie filmmakers seem to tend towards horror, but perhaps the biggest pot of Gold is with the God Squad.

Anyway, sorry for going off-topic there, but to bring it back on-topic, can't we also use box-office as some sort of indication of the movie's entertainment value. Yeah, it's true that a low-budget movie like this, without a name actor, isn't going to open to big numbers, cuz it really takes powerful advertising to do that (and a lot of screens). But that's not what I'm talking about; I'm talking about what comes after the opening.

Look, word-of-mouth is a powerful thing. Just as there is a market for Christian movies, it's also true that there are a great deal of people who agree with the political ideas of Ayn Rand, and I would think that they'd want to see this movie. Yet, in it's 2nd and 3rd weeks, it dropped 54% and 59%, respectively. Those aren't horrible drops, but they're not good, and it's an indication that the movie isn't getting very good word-of-mouth.

Just cuz of this debate, I'm almost tempted to go watch the dang thing, just so I can weigh in, but I'm going to resist. I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no interest in this movie.
 
@directorik: I still think you're not quite appreciating the fact that my first post was simply listing a few reasons why I'm not surprised by the reviews. Have there been good movies made with inexperienced cast and crew? Of course. Have there been good independently funded movies made? Of course. I was just stating that these factors coupled with the trailer I posted (which, by the way, I still think looks absolutely dreadful) meant that I'm not at all surprised that the movie has been critically mauled. Thus I do not think it's a critical conspiracy.

But you seem determined to make out that I'm demeaning all independent films by what I said which, in my opinion quite clearly, I was not.

@sonnyboo: Yes, 'real' was clearly the wrong word. I don't have the US character actor knowledge that you clearly do, I just remain surprised that roles like Daggney Taggart, Hank Reardon and John Galt (which are totally iconic to a certain group of people) have gone to people with very little feature film experience. There's even a guy from Coronation Street in it...
 
Pretty interesting discussion thus far. Let's keep it on target and remember the forum rules:

Please be civil. Do not attack others. Discussions that turn into flame wars will not be tolerated.
Racist or any remarks that can be considered offensive will not be tolerated.
We are a group of filmmakers. Politics only serve to divide us. We do not allow political discussions unless they are related to film. If they turn into political bickering, they will be closed.
Click to expand...

Which I take to mean we can discuss politics in movies as long as we don't devolve into a "my politics are better than your politics" ping pong match.
 
Again I apologize, Nick.

I am not determined to make out that you are demeaning all
independent films. I will keep all further opinions to myself.
 
Uranium City said:
Do you feel this strictly because of the politics of the story, or because it wouldn't generate a positive return-on-investment? In other words, why wouldn't Hollywood touch it? Only because of the message, or because it wouldn't make for a popular film that would get butts in seats? I'm curious to have you develop this point further.

I'm thinking of some of the more famous and famously successful conservative movies of years past (Dirty Harry, Red Dawn, The Patriot, Passion of The Christ, even Pixar's The Incredibles). Popular movies that sold lots of tickets that carried politically conservative messages.
Click to expand...
"Hollywood" - meaning the studio system - has a very difficult time with
movies featuring a strong conservative agenda. Not movies with politically
conservative messages. And this is because by and large the people in the
industry are liberal in their views and agenda. There is no conspiracy, there
is no conservative black list, it's not that they are out of touch or have sold
their souls. The vast majority of the people in the studio system are politically
liberal so they avoid films with a politically conservative agenda.

"Passion" is an excellent example. One of the top director/stars of the 1990's
could not find studio funding for that film. And once made no major distributor
would touch it. But it in no way had a politically conservative message - it was
completely void of politics. On the other hand, seeing the huge audience for a
deeply religious film not a single studio put any religious films into production.

"Hollywood" will gladly make moves that might not get butts in the seats if it
has a politically liberal agenda, but won't if there is a politically conservative
agenda.

But of course, "politically conservative message" is highly subjective. My father
feels the current president is too conservative and that NPR is in the pocket of
the right wing. For example I see "The Incredibles" as having a pro family message
but not a politically conservative message. And both liberals and conservatives are
pro family.

In the case of "Atlas Shrugged" no studio would touch this, so John Aglialoro who
has been trying to get it made for 20 years put up the money himself. Who knows
what would have happened if he had made a good movie instead of a bad one.
 
Cracker Funk said:
There is a market for Christian movies. This very large demographic is actually kind of starved of quality movies to watch (that also have a Christian message). The thought has crossed my mind to start making low-budget Christian movies, and do my darndest to make them fun and entertaining to watch. For profitability, low-budget indie filmmakers seem to tend towards horror, but perhaps the biggest pot of Gold is with the God Squad.

...

Just cuz of this debate, I'm almost tempted to go watch the dang thing, just so I can weigh in, but I'm going to resist. I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no interest in this movie.
Click to expand...

http://www.christiancinema.com/catalog/default.php?cPath=22
&
http://www.christianfilmdatabase.com/#
(I think it's funny the drop-down list for the "Browse Film Catagories" DOESN'T include "Love", but... whatever.) ;)

Yeah, at bedtime I'll read to my three little kids, at their own request/demand, from a "Bible Stories for Bedtime" book I bought at Dollar Tree a few years ago.
We chuckle and laugh at the back cover text which includes "Bible Stories for Bedtime, written specifically for ages three to eight years, has more than 300 pages worth of the best loved Bible stories your children will delight in."
Three to eight. Hmph.
Needless to say, my demented children actually are delighted by stories of Cain murdering his brother, the entire book of Kings, 2 Chronicles 21 is "nice", and lots more! Fine by me and all, I just smirk at the "Bedtime" appropriateness of any of it.
Not exactly visions of sugarplums dancing in their heads stuff.

Personally, if I could make any Bible film I wanted, I'd pick the story of the people of Gerasenes after Jesus sends Legion into two thousand of their pigs which then run into the sea and die. Then Jesus leaves after the people tell him to, (Mark 5).
LMAO!
What was the economic damage to the community caused by the loss of two thousand pigs at the gain of one guy who then ran off to Decapolis?
That's the story I want to examine.

Anyway... back on subject.

I probably won't see Atlas Shrugged either.
Love it when my wife says "Eww! This stinks! Smell this!" then sticks something in my face.
I decline with a smile.
Likewise...
 
Last edited:
Zensteve said:
What is this hidden agenda that film-critics supposedly have? :hmm:
Click to expand...

The same agenda that makes them give an academy award to a steaming pile of shit with so many staged scenes it stretches the definition of "documentary" until it screams like Bowling for Columbine.

I don't doubt Atlas Shrugged isn't particularly good, largely because people were afraid to work on it, or be associated with it because in LA World the subject matter is probably held in the same regard as a film about the joys of child molestation.
 
Last edited:
Zensteve said:
Okay... but what is that agenda?
Click to expand...

Mainstream American "white wealthy guilt" liberalism. You can easily get the gist of it at any cocktail party with a healthy contingent of university professors. It largely centers around "We the educated intellectual/artistic elite know better than you ignorant rednecks". We can go into detail if you feel it's needed.
 
Last edited:
Zensteve said:
Okay... but what is it? Spell it out.

By doing X, Hollywood is trying to Y.
Click to expand...

I don't think they are necessarily trying to DO anything. It's like the quote from the Catholic Discipline guy in "The Decline of Western Civilization", "There is no such thing as New Wave. New Wave is what you call yourself because you are afraid if you say you are a punk rock band nobody at the party will give you any more cocaine."

"Conservatism" isn't "cool". It's cool and hip to be "diverse" and "Inclusive" and "open minded" and "socially conscious" and "sustainable" and all the other buzz words associated with the left. Writing, making, being associated with a film with a "conservative" agenda or that paints a conservative mindset in a positive light is like farting at the dinner table. Nobody is going to invte you to their cocktail party anymore. The whispers will start of "Oh god we can't use HIM!. He was involved with that horribel reactionary movie."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top