Atlas Shrugged, filmen

[carl]

Er det også mulig å se filmen noe sted, eller er den forbeholdt omtale?

[Vegard Martinsen]

Er det også mulig å se filmen noe sted, eller er den forbeholdt omtale?

Vil tippe at den kommer på DVD snart.

[Cragfarm]

Selv om filmen skulle være dårlig, er det ingen skade gjort. Heller tvert imot. Filmen har jo bidratt til å skyte salgstallene til boka i været og skapt masse oppmerksomhet rundt Ayn Rands ideer.

[Vegard Martinsen]

Selv om filmen skulle være dårlig, er det ingen skade gjort.

Hadde filmen være svært dårlig ville det ha vært negativt, men det ser ut til at filmen er OK nok til at den ikke er skadelig.

Forøvrig, det er bøker som endrer verden, ikke filmer.

Heller tvert imot. Filmen har jo bidratt til å skyte salgstallene til boka i været og skapt masse oppmerksomhet rundt Ayn Rands ideer.

Sant nok, og dette er meget bra!

[Vegard Martinsen]

http://www.altfg.com/blog/movie/atlas-s ... nt-bowler/

The first installment of a planned trilogy based on Ayn Rand's 1957 novel, Atlas Shrugged: Part I had one of the worst drop-off rates this weekend at the North American box office, down more than 70% after losing 143 locations. Currently showing at 228 theaters, Atlas Shrugged earned only $131k, averaging a dismal $601 per theater on its fourth weekend out according to studio estimates found at Box Office Mojo. ...

Producer John Aglialoro has said he wanted to go ahead and make Atlas Shrugged parts II and III, but without betraying Ayn Rand's "principles." Since that meant "without losing money," chances are there'll be no Atlas Shrugged sequels. Made for a reported $20m (earlier sources pegged the film's budget at $10m), Atlas Shrugged has taken in only $4.28m in North America.


Noe som betyr at den kommer raskere på DVD.

[rev]

Producer John Aglialoro has said he wanted to go ahead and make Atlas Shrugged parts II and III, but without betraying Ayn Rand's "principles." Since that meant "without losing money," chances are there'll be no Atlas Shrugged sequels.

Ayn Rand hadde vel aldri noe hellig prinsipp om at man ikke skal gjøre noe så lenge man ikke tjener penger på det? Det finnes da mange andre verdier enn kun penger som kan rettferdiggjøre å lage del II og III. Blant annet økt oppslutning rundt individuell frihet og en generell heving av moral i samfunnet. Vi ser jo allerede nå at filmen har ført til langt høyere salgstall for boken. Dette er vel i alle sin rasjonelle egeninteresse?

[Vegard Martinsen]

Producer John Aglialoro has said he wanted to go ahead and make Atlas Shrugged parts II and III, but without betraying Ayn Rand's "principles." Since that meant "without losing money," chances are there'll be no Atlas Shrugged sequels.

Ayn Rand hadde vel aldri noe hellig prinsipp om at man ikke skal gjøre noe så lenge man ikke tjener penger på det? Det finnes da mange andre verdier enn kun penger som kan rettferdiggjøre å lage del II og III. Blant annet økt oppslutning rundt individuell frihet og en generell heving av moral i samfunnet. Vi ser jo allerede nå at filmen har ført til langt høyere salgstall for boken. Dette er vel i alle sin rasjonelle egeninteresse?

Dette er helt korrekt. Det er skribenten jeg siterte som gir en feil fremstillng av hva ARs syn var.

[Vegard Martinsen]

En grundig kommentar til hvordan filmen burde ha vært:

http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/opinio ... r-film.php

[Panther]

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/arts/movies/6415-atlas-shrugged-part-i-a-cinematic-go-cart.html

Atlas Shrugged, Part I: A Cinematic Go-Cart
13 May 2011 Edward Cline

The rebranding of that movie as a defensible work of art by writers who form an ad hoc but wishful consensus to give a disastrous cinematic rendition of Ayn Rand’s monumental novel, Atlas Shrugged, a passing mark has produced some curious reviews.


Atlas Shrugged Movie Photo

You are standing in a gallery with another critic before two paintings hung side by side, one by William-Adolphe Bouguereau and one by Pablo Picasso. Let us say they are Bouguereau’s Idylle (1851), and Picasso’s La Vie (1903). You both agree that the Bouguereau is a fine painting, depicting two lovers in a classical setting, the young man seated on the ground, looking up with adoration at the young woman. His hands clasp her legs possessively; she glances down at him in worship. Their glances are obviously fixed on each other. Everything in the painting works because the colors, the anatomy, the composition, the theme are integrated. You can enjoy the painting, even be inspired by it, and want to own it, without having to analyze it. Your introspection gives it a “10.” You accept it as a completed entity, without the necessity of dissecting its attributes. You explain in detail these virtues to the other critic, but he merely grunts in agreement.

The Picasso painting is a “Blue Period” monochrome that initially is repulsive, and on inspection is depressing. Aside from the annoying blue, the figures in it are anatomically impossible, none of figures or the four groups is thematically connected to any of the others, and the malevolence of the picture telegraphs itself from across the gallery. The whole work seems to be an arbitrary jumble of random figures that just happen to be on the same canvas. The composition is erratic and happenstance. Its theme is the futility of existence. The figures could just as well be inanimate objects or a menagerie of zoo animals. It doesn’t matter.

[YouTube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W07bFa4TzM&feature=player_embedded[/YouTube]

You state that La Vie is not merely bad, incompetently done art; it was perhaps deliberately intended to be such. The other critic defends the painting with some emotion, claiming that while there are flaws in the anatomy and composition, and other lapses and errors one might object to on mere technical grounds, they aren’t important, and so one really had no justification to judge the painting so negatively. The figures are recognizable, and there seems to be a theme, though he cannot quite put his finger on it, but denies it is the futility of existence. And how would we know that Picasso was an incompetent artist with nothing of value to say? Besides, he says, if this painting were by chance seen by someone uneducated in art, he might move on to appreciate the Bouguereau.

You walk away, shaking your head. You don’t know what else to say to the other critic, but you sense that whatever else you said, would be taken as offensive.

That is the situation I find myself in regarding John Aglialoro’s film, “Atlas Shrugged, Part I.”

[Erik]

Lindsay Perigo:

"When the novel came out, 54 years ago, it was vehemently attacked by all and sundry. Conservatives attacked it because it attacked religion; liberals attacked it because it attacked socialism. Intellectuals attacked it because it exposed them as charlatans and shysters, no better than witch doctors and with even less excuse. Moralists of all stripes hated it because it taught that man is not a sacrificial animal and “the purpose of morality is to teach you not to suffer and die but to enjoy yourself and live.” Ayn Rand herself acknowledged, nay boasted, that she was challenging the cultural tradition of 2500 years. The extraordinary thing was, for all the unremitting hatred poured upon it by all branches of the Establishment, the novel became a run-away best-seller, cited in one famous survey as being the second-most influential book after the Bible.

Mark this, ladies and gentlemen: when it becomes the most influential book, and garbage like the Bible and the Koran, not forgetting Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto, is widely derided as the life-hating, freedom-denying, mindless, superstitious, derangement that it is, then the world will be able to become free, peaceful and prosperous ... enduringly."




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aE7oSZmtys

[Cragfarm]

Hjemmeside for del 2:

http://www.atlasshruggedpart2.com/

[stian]

Nå tror jeg den ikke tro inn så mye penger akkurat, part 2 kan derfor være litt tvilsom dersom de ikke gjør det sykt bra på DVD salget.

[lba]

Nå hadde den ikke så stort budsjett, og jeg tror den kan selge ganske bra på dvd. Også skal det sies at Ayn Rand-fans ikke er så ivrige på ulovlig nedlastning som andre, noe som kan bidra positivt til dvd-salg.

[stian]

Nå hadde den ikke så stort budsjett, og jeg tror den kan selge ganske bra på dvd. Også skal det sies at Ayn Rand-fans ikke er så ivrige på ulovlig nedlastning som andre, noe som kan bidra positivt til dvd-salg.

De fikk vel inn ca 5 million $, og budsjettet var på 20 million $, gitt at de tjener 10$ per DVD salg så må de selge 1,5 million DVDer for å gå i null.

[lba]

Såpass ja, jeg trodde det sto bedre til. Da kan det bli vrient likevel ja.