I still plan on adding part III to my collection. I will need to replay it a number of times to get the full effect, I am sure.
My initial impressions are:
1. John's speech was great (even if it did run a tad under 3 hours).
2. I was expecting great things from Ragnar, but was disappointed.
3. The actor who portrayed Francisco D'Anconia...really???
4. I'm not going to spoil John's stay at the SSI Hotel. However, after everyone's had a chance to see it, I would like to discuss the over exuberance of the special effects folks.
Overall, the movie was far too short to give me the feeling I was expecting...however, in saying that, I also have to state that it took more than one viewing to really appreciate parts I and II.
Part III reminded me of the (first) movie Dune. Many portions from the book were lightly skimmed over and were difficult to follow. It would probably have been better if I had NOT read the book, three times, before seeing the movie.
I'm still hoping for a decent mini-series.
Lastly, I was disappointed at the low turnout for the movie. I counted about six couples at the 6:40 PM showing, on opening night. Damn! We drove by a theatre showing Z Nation and the line went around the block.

Incoherent? You mean like your post? Um Hmm... Speaking of "reason"...

I find it interesting I've not seen you here before, yet you seem to know the players so well... Almost as if you're a sock puppet. So the real question remains...

Who do you post as when you're not hiding behinf a nom d'fume, "Mr. Reason"? Perhaps someone who showed his hand once, dropped his drawers for the world to giggle, and was muted to keep the sanity of those who belong here? Hmmm???

Balance. I don't think producing a movie without any significant marketing plan and funding is a good strategy and does not produce value for the film product. If it fails badly, then it will only be of value to those who already valued Ayn Rand.

I would like to see someone who saw it comment directly on the specific characterizations by Joseph, and specifically for Joseph, as well as others, how does it compare to the first two parts?

Not much money left over for marketing. Thinking long term, which is better: put it into the film or "marketing". Should Ayn Rand have spent all the years she did writing the novel, or a lot of that time in a lucrative job making money to market what would be left of the book?

Does anyone know how much the D'Souza works cost in comparison to AS? Regardless, I think that it takes a lot more to produce a work of fiction like AS. It takes a lot of production values, include acting, directing and writing, that must be understood as Ayn Rand intended it to project her unusual sense of life -- she wrote AS to project in fiction her idea of the ideal man and a radically different and new philosophy that makes it possible, not narrate a story. It takes more than just a plot and good but stock acting. Some of that translates into money to pay the people who can do it, but it's more than that: In today's culture it's practically impossible to find at all, especially when dealing with Hollywood. None of that is necessary when narrating a non-fiction documentary.

Who else would you have used to make the films? An expert who didn't know what it is supposed to be, or if he does, deliberately reverses it? John knew what he was after and learned what he had to in a field he had not worked in to do what he needed, the best he could after working for years on the first approach only to find that it was impossible and time was running out. Regardless of how well anyone thinks of how well the results turned out, which approach is better?

Well, it has been released so we need to make the best of it. The masses are not seeing it because of poor marketing and lack of word of mouth IMO. Maybe considering the film as more of a didactic docudrama will give it a better image.

Well then, sounds like you've thought this through and have all the right ideas in place to hit it out of the ball park. I'm sure we all look forward to YOUR personal rendition of the Atlas Shrugged book to movie adaption. Call Dinesh and find out how he got all that money together and you can do the same,.... hell, sounds like you can do it even better.

--hey, what d'ya waitin' for? Hurry up! The world needs saving!!!

I thought the movie started out slow at the beginning, ended up to melodramatic toward the end, and didn’t follow the book entirely. But I am glad I saw it, and will probably get a DVD of it (to go with my first two DVDs).
I was disappointed in the attendance and hope more folks do attend. No escaping the analogies to what is happening today.

My point was only that most of Hollywood has gone flaky on U.S., with their PC and all of that other nonsense. And now that you bring it up, where were you with your artistic film skills and $20-$30 million when it was being made? I do understand all your points however. Maybe some day it can be made again, with the same actors throughout, similar story, noted director, big budget, and some great promotion.

My only experience is a patent I was talked into getting for a terrific product that no one knew they needed until they actually saw it in use, and some said they're not sure they'd ever use it, it was poorly marketed. At least I recovered expenses and made a few bucks selling it face to face to people I ran into. This was before the internet went commercial.

I'd like to see Atlas Shrugged as a mini-series based closely on the book on some network like A&E Classics. I think FOX Movie Network might keep too many people, people that need to see it and understand the message, prejudicially away. I enjoyed D'Souza's films, read his books too.

the war of ideas does not influence millions overnight. JA figured out how to acquire the rights and he made the movies his way, which was also his right. The Ayn Rand Institute and The Atlas Society have seen record numbers using their sites, attending their talks, viewing their videos. Much of that is due to audiences for the movies. I would need scott to confirm this, but there are almost 10k members of galtsgulchonline-no other forum even comes close to that number. I don't know whether I'll like the movie or not, but I sure am glad I met you here and appreciate your insight and posts. As a matter of fact, I have made significant friends here in the gulch. The life long, got your back kind. Thank John Aglioloro and Scott Desapio next time you see them for me. They've put countless hours in to make that happen.
"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." Samuel Adams

hey, Joseph ... my first experience with lovemaking
was not all that I had hoped, since the woman was a
tall, slender person and I like tall and curvy.... but
I did not murder her since she did not rise to my
level of expectations! I still praise her to this day,
46 years later!!! -- j

A is A

You got that right Josephaliota. And it could have been done.

Hmmm. Instead you cited a passage who's author's criticisms were false and misleading. Roark's justification for the destruction was laid out in his courtroom speech and centered on the valuing of personal property rights. Perhaps you have not read the book?

You need $20-$30 million for marketing, and the product has to be good.

Sure it could be made in Hollywood, though not necessary. D'Souza's made two great docs that were artisticly and financially successful. They've enjoyed a much larger audience.

I researched Mr. A and he was not someone I'd want to do the films. The first two were B grade with no marketing. You have to have the capital to do it right. Dinesh D'Souza has done two outstanding films without Hollywood and he got the money together to do them well and they sold well as docs. Also, I would do a film for its artistic merits and story and not as an attempt to influence an election. That failed. I don't know that the films have brought thousands to Rand. 1,000s ? You need millions.

I have not seen the movie. I simply responded to your extremely emotional responses, including the pleas for people to avoid seeing it . An Objectivist position would be to simply give their opinion, certainly not promote people not thinking but following your lead. You also quoted material regarding the Fountainhead from a critical source instead of quoting Rand or the book itself. Why? You are new here and ad hominem does not fly-nor persuade. why are you here?

-1. Pom poms? Really? You don't like the movie, so you toss ad hominems at those who do. Very 'reasoned'.

troll

Saw it the first showing in my city, it was FANTASTIC!!!!!

I saw the AS 3 yesterday at 11:30 AM. I was hoping that it would have shown the machine that blow up things from a distance and how the Taggert Bridge was blown up but that was the only disappointment. It is a very short movie but it shows somewhat what the liberal & bureaocrates have done to the once great country. We can take it back now since most democrates have finally seen what damage they.have done to this country by giving a man a fish instead of teaching a man to fish. "Run Ben run