Mel Gibson....before he gets too old!PS. I knew GD well that Turner would bottle up AS and never let it see the light of day....grrrrrr.
Posted on 05/17/2002 7:22:27 PM PDT by RJCogburn
Atlas Shrugged is an epic novel, the story of a society in mysterious decline, of the heroes who fight to preserve their world, and of the secret enemy who becomes their savior. Adapting the novel for the screen has proved to be a challenge of equally epic proportions. Since the 1970s, when Ayn Rand herself took up the challenge, three distinct projects have made it as far as the contract stage. At least six complete screenplays have been drafted. But so far none have even been cast, let alone filmed and released.
The current project, a TV miniseries for Turner Network Television, recently entered an uncertain phase when its contract expired in March, and "the making of Atlas" may now continue under several different plot-lines.
The project was a three-way collaboration. John Aglialoro, CEO of UM Holdings (and a trustee of The Objectivist Center), holds the film rights on the novel. Two years ago he signed with TNT's Originals division to produce a five-hour miniseries, with Al Ruddy of the Ruddy-Morgan Organization as executive producer. By the fall of 2000, Ruddy's team had completed the screenplay; anticipating an actors' strike the following summer, they were eager to line up the director and cast and complete the filming by June of 2001.
Then entropy set in. Prospective leads either were not interested or were otherwise committed. The economy hit the skids, making the projected $25 million cost of the film seem riskier. And TNT went through a wrenching process of reorganization when its parent company, Time-Warner, merged with America Online. Two executives involved with the project left, and Variety reports that half of the TNT Originals staff has been laid off.
In quick succession last summer, TNT first cut its financial commitment to $10 million, then withdrew from the project altogether. That left the project in Ruddy's hands, with nine months left to get it off the ground. He reconceived it as a feature film rather than a TV miniseries, and condensed the script accordingly, but was not able to line up the talent or the financing by the March deadline.
What happens now? Ruddy is still working to find those missing ingredients. Aglialoro says he would consider a new contract with Ruddy, but he will also be exploring other possibilities. He agrees that a full-length feature film is now a better approach than a TV miniseries.
"I am looking at all the options in terms of how to structure the story as well as the project. After half a dozen scripts that tried to tell the whole story, it may be time to consider spinning out the core plot of the strike, which conveys Rand's essential message, and not trying to include all the subsidiary plot-lines, relationships, and consequences of the strike."
Stay tuned….
if you can get Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal for this flick...
I might consider watching!!
I have the same concern but Rand apparently thought it doable.
but somehow I became a loner with a strong sense of justice...
I was watching "The Fountainhead" and I was trying to think of a way I could sue Ayn for following me around...
but she wrote it and they filmed it before I was born!
No wonder I am still a loner!!...
An All-American loner thought!!
Hmmm...
You know, this would make a really interesting movie if Oliver Stone directed it, dontcha think?
For example, instead of a railroad executive, why not make the main protagonist the major software manufacturer in the USA? Combine contemporary rhetoric from the democratic party and leftist elite with the oratory from the novel. Instead of having the heroes create an "invisible utopia" in America proper- have them buy an African nation and do the same thing (this is plausible- Bill Gates can afford a nation). Of course, you can add the PC element by showing that hard work pays off for blacks/hispanics as well. That may have of whiff of pandering to it- but it's a theme people relate to and why not make PC work for you if you can. Hell- have Denzel Washington play John Galt. Have one of the consequences of following the collectivists be a terrorist attack on our country. I guess what I'm saying is- you have to make the novel (and novelist's) world view fit to the actual world, because if it won't fit- it's not valid.
But that's just an idea. Another interpretation of Rand's novel is that perhaps she was trying to provoke a "philosophical jihad" if you will. The intellectual youth in our nation read Atlas Shrugged and then they set out to make it come about- thus defeating collectivism once and for all. Is this what the author had in mind? Who knows? But the fact that novel and its core ideas is still being discussed and will be made into a movie does indicate that this theme is enduring and I suppose- at least from the perspective of the political left- revolutionary.
Either way you look at it, which is more important? Staying true to the original story or conveying the message in the novel to the public at large? Personally, I say it's the latter and to do that the novel in its screenplay form needs to be reworked.
True. It took her a year to write that speech. 11 years for the novel in total.
I'd love just to see Fransisco's "money is the root of all evil?" speech televised.
That commie? John Q? Puh-leeze!! Only George Clooney could carry if off anyway.
Mel Gibson....before he gets too old!PS. I knew GD well that Turner would bottle up AS and never let it see the light of day....grrrrrr.
On a side note, I haven't seen John Q Public (Denzel's latest film?). I did give some thought after I posted to the importance of the actor. Should he be someone who embodies (at least partially) Rand's principles? I believe she would say yes. But I am more to the bent that I think her ideas are important enough to make a compromise in the "marketability aspect" of the film. Think about this- if you make that film with all white characters, you're never going to get a fair shake from the left. They're going to disqualify you in public with that point alone (and remember- the uninitiated are the ones you're trying to reach). "Atlas Shrugged- a movie about rich white people..." That's how the reviews would read. On the other hand, given today's attitudes, if you had someone like D. Washington play one of the roles, the ideas in the film would get automatic air time simply because of that. The left wouldn't be able to "poo-poo" the film.
At any rate- there will be black characters in the film although there were not any in the novel- that's just how it's done nowadays. I doubt seriously, however, that Washington would do the film anyway. My point was more about maximizing your opportunities to spread a message.
Yes, and Ayn Rand should have done the same thing in about 250 pages (sarcasm).
I've been waiting for the movie/mini-series for the last two decades and I've been concerned over this very same issue. I am convinced now that the best and only way to do it is to be faithful to the book with the "hi-tech" railroad theme. It is far enough out of date that it will allow the concepts themselves to dominate. It would be much like using english subtitles in a foreigh movie instead of using english voice-overs, which would detract to the technique. The mind can assimulate the content as only Ayn Rand could have intended, instead of debating the technical merits of the subsitutions.
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.