13

Should the Movies not have been made when they were because they couldn't secure the same cast for all three?

Posted by Ibecame 9 years, 10 months ago to Ask the Gulch
83 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

In other words should the Producers have held off to some future year when enough money could have been put together to retain the cast?

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 3.
  • Posted by Ibecame 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    They actually did that for ASP3 or you never would have seen it. The problem with crowdsourcing is that the largest amount raised so far was only $87M, and that really is the exception. I'm sure it would do better now than then simply because it is so much better known.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Esceptico 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I am sure there are many behind the scenes issues of which we have no knowledge. Somehow a teenager-looking Dagny and a grandfather-age Francisco just did not match up as possible lovers, for just one example of what I considered terrible casting. I fail to see how that could not have been money or deadline.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ EloiseH 9 years, 10 months ago
    I think some attention should have been paid to having actors of the appropriate age and at least paying some attention to the descriptions of the characters in the book. Francisco, Ragnar and Galt are all the same age. Francisco is a tall, classically Latin looking man. Ragnar is Nordic. They are all in their 30s.

    Part III was extremely disappointing, from the script onward. Reardan who is key in this part of the book is all but ignored in the movie, for example. I agree that a miniseries would be a better format. Certainly the casting should should have been more consistent with the book. and it goes without saying it should be the same throughout. I would have liked to see Eddie's role in keeping Galt informed about what's happening with Dagny and the railroad. The movies and especially Part III did not reflect as much commitment and understanding of the message of the book as I would have hoped
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Ibecame 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Here is where reality jumps in. Atlas Shrugged did very well (wait, let me finish). Hollywood and its bean counters look at Cost to produce vs. Distribution, and residuals (DVD, merchandise, etc.) Atlas Shrugged did quite well for the very limited distribution it had. From this standpoint it did well, and if you go back and look at a lot of the remakes AS is in a pretty good category.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Ibecame 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    My understanding is that they were on a limited budget and at the end of a firm deadline when they started, but I bet if you would cut them a check for $350M to finance the deal they would be more than glad to fulfill your desires.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by slfisher 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I don't necessarily agree with that. Hollywood has been doing lots and lots of remakes, and sometimes of films that didn't do so well the first time.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Ibecame 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I can't speak for the producers, and my understanding was that money and a deadline were the issues, you would prefer that they not have made the movies at all?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I now agree with the other side. Two movies I enjoyed were Goal 1 and Goal 2. Another example Major Leagues 1 and Major Leagues 2. James Bond stopped with From Russia With Love for me others found it wildly popular especially in Japan. The same with copy cat books with many authors following the popular trend and producing trash when once they provided brilliance. The producers focus on advertising dollars and always manage to go just one step or more too far and having no creativity...bomb. Young Guns and Back To The Future were just right. The few that did do well featured brilliantly talented directors and actors.
    Politics aside if Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks paired up again I wouldn't ask I would just by the DVD. Sleepless in Seattle, Little Shop/You've got Email and Joe vs. the Volcano. Remember Top Gun? What's his name went on to ruin Jack Reacher. Meg Ryan became something special. The other duds are automatic no no's and reasons to stay away. so....? It's not necessary to have the same actors and actresses. The point was to get the story out where eventually it will be seen by millions and not only in the USSA. If the story gets out some will follow the path. That is the point of AS I, II, III X
    + Y does not always equal Z. No matter how hard modern education tries to make the formula work.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by joy-123 9 years, 10 months ago
    I must agree with another comment that part III was inferior. I thought Parts I and II were very good, although I too would have preferred the same cast in all three. I think that Part II could have run just a bit longer and ended the story. Part III was disappointing and had the least good cast overall.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ sjatkins 9 years, 10 months ago
    I think it would have been much better to secure the same cast for all three. There were many things that could have been better including not cutting most of the substance of the "Money Speech" which I think is one of the shorter pieces that needs a very wide hearing.

    Part 3 would have benefitted immensely by including more of the dialog in the Gulch as much of it is philosophically rich and short in the book.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Esda 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "Superman" made money. "Lord of the Rings" made money. "The Matrix" made money. "Part I" lost money, and with that lost any chance of getting, say, Taylor Schilling back.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Esda 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The difference is that no one will touch "Atlas Shrugged" as a film or series for half a century now, so synonymous is it with certain box office failure.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Esda 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    What I've heard is that the actors didn't want to participate in another Aglialoro production, and then Aglialoro then spun it as fear of Hollywood retribution.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Esda 9 years, 10 months ago
    Holding off wasn't an option; Aglialoro only had a limited window for the film rights, and that window was closing too fast with too little funding to secure a three-movie deal. If I remember right, principle shooting started about a week before the rights would have otherwise reverted. The real mistake is not having seen that deadline coming sooner, and doing the planning and pre-production in less of a pure time panic, something which hurt the first movie so badly that the trilogy was never really able to recover. It effected lots of things, the casting only the most obvious.

    Also, no, there's no miniseries coming.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 9 years, 10 months ago
    I like the fact that they did it before the U.S. fell.
    it might help the U.S. to continue to stand for
    another decade or two. . ya think??? -- j
    .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by davidmcnab 9 years, 10 months ago
    AR would be puking in her grave if she saw how the trilogy actually turned out.

    In my opinion, they needed to wait till they had enough funding to produce all three movies, with quality actors, contractually committed to the whole trilogy.

    Better yet, they should have had some respect for the book's volume of plot material, and done it as a 30-hour miniseries. Then, they would have been able to include all the childhood segments as well, and not skip over so many areas.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Esceptico 9 years, 10 months ago
    The lady who played Dagny in Part I was the perfect casting. The next two, sadly, were not. Since she is a main character, this is a particular pity. Rearden in Part II was better than the other two. Part III, in general, well, there is no way to say this nicely. Part III was embarrasing and I have not recommended it to anyone.

    The desire to "get it done" I think ruled over "get it right" and Objectivism lost in the process. Haste does make waste.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by teri-amborn 9 years, 10 months ago
    One must start somewhere.
    I make things by hand for a living and the same principles apply here.
    1) There exists a great idea.
    2) There exists a creator that can bring it to life.
    3) The final product can be improved upon BUT NOW WE HAVE A PATTERN!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by slfisher 9 years, 10 months ago
    The producers made the best decision they could with the information they had at the time. Since we can't go back in time and change things anyway, what's the difference?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by a59430802sojourner 9 years, 10 months ago
    I'm not certain, but i believe i read somewhere that the actors in part one did not want to participate in any other part for fear they would be ostracized by the industry for portraying something the industry stands against, namely that what Ayn espoused.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Susanne 9 years, 10 months ago
    To me, it was a case of getting it done, before the rights were lost and some left-leaning company came in, bought the rights, and either ruined the story or quashed it altogether.

    While having different casts made the movies, to me, disjointed, and I wish there was $$$ to sign all 3 movies (at least the main characters) at the onset, they did what they had to do.

    The only other complaint I had about 3 was the location for the gulch. While location shooting in Colorado (or elsewhere in the high Rockies) would have cost more, it would have added a sense of credibility that shooting on the Ranch in SoCal could not. Wrong flora, wrong climate, wrong altitude, wrong terrain. Sorry...

    Again, tho, they were working with a budget that, honestly, they were lucky to pull it off. THAT was an effort that was worthy of Galt.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo