Greetings music613,
Great commentary. Whatever portion of the speech is deemed appropriate for the movie. It needs to be comprised of the most salient and impact-full verbiage. It must also have the proper timing like a well told joke, or a good composition.
Respectfully,
O.A.

That could be a very unfortunate fact. It's really depressing. I'd go back to school just to teach HS English to get the kids thinking instead of turning into sheeple.

Let us not forget that Ayn Rand was Russian to the core - albeit quite the opposite kind of Russian that Stalin would have liked. Keep in mind, too, that she writes with the full force of both the great Russian novel, and its ultimate corruption, the great political diatribe. So, yes, I suspect (hope) the script will cover the salient elements in the novel, not give it short shrift, but also be cognizant of the architectural issues in film making and the way films are perceived by audiences. It's the same issue in music (I am a composer) and so the element of time, which is to say, WHEN something happens, is just as important as WHAT, perhaps even more so - if IT comes too soon or is too late, the effect is lost. In distilling 70+ pages of monologue into a useable 5 on screen, it needs to be handled very carefully.

Ayn Rand was involved then. She was a big part of why it was made into a film. And Hollywood sort of understood back then. By the time the Godfather producer picked up Atlas, Ayn Rand's hard nose oversight was not welcome. So the deal broke and sat on a shelf until Aglialoro picked it up and spent years trying to gain support for it.

well, I'm not sure. Fountainhead was picked up pretty quickly and made into a movie. I agree the ease to do it is difficult. and are you aware that Rand saw AS as a teleplay? in today's terms, TV series. I think it is possibly due to the advent of television at the time the book came out. However, there is appeal there....

If AS was easy to put onto the big screen it would have been done in the '70s. The fact is the message transcends all other considerations. Shortening the speech to appeal to those with limited attention spans is nonsense. Let the producers, director, and actor figure out how to present the speech in a way that holds the attention of the audience.

What? I missed that.. ;-p

I agree. It wasn't until I read the book for the fourth time that I actually read the whole speech. Felt like I was being beaten over the head with it.

Galt's speech and the Gulch illustrate what moves the world and the potential of productivity, free of coercion.

The speech is a sales pitch that addresses every form of coercion as roadblock to man, not protector of man. Just the act of showing on screen, great men creating without coercion disguised as protection, will illustrate what the speech describes.

If they are using the movies to capitalize on political climate and build a franchise, or expand the existing one then good on em.

I can only talk from my own personal experience, but I have had nearly 20 (17 I can think of off the top of my head) people around me ask me about the book due to the movies. Did they see the movies? Some no and some yes. The fact it was made generates questions.

Of the seventeen, six became serious enough to either barrow my copy (4 of them) or go buy it (2 of them) and the 4 that borrowed my copy all went and bought the book later on. All 6 that read it are going down the path of learning. Two of those have now borrowed and read my capitalism book by Rand.

Now did the politics play a part in there interest; definitely. It is the existence of the movie that moves the interest from disgust with the current situation to an interest in Atlas Shrugged.

In the case of some of the friends and associates who did not read the book but asked me about it. All of those 11 who have asked about it have now seen the movies, they provide the same context with which to have a discussion with them as it did with my wife who has not read Atlas and likely never will. The movies are great for that as well

I am not saying the movies are perfect, or they even did well at the box office. I am simply stating that your are assuming motives (like unto some on the San Sebastian Copper Mines) that may or may not be the driving motive behind the films. The fact that the second was made would indicate another motive. The fact that the third is being made (which I thought it would not be after the box office failure of the second) reinforces the idea that there is more to the motives of the investors than generating money. Perhaps there motives are not to unlike the motives of John, Fransisco and Ragnar.

I think as Galt is giving the speech, they should cover the movie with the next chapter, idk if that might work. Or they can show clips of current events in today's America.

Darren,
What is your background? are you a movie buff or work professionally in the industry? Have you read any Ayn Rand?
Do you have any interest in here other than on this post?

Yes. The future prospects and continuing sales can make a financial success with many possibilities. Is a long term investment that turns profitable still a financial failure? I might suggest that whether it is a financial success, being relative, is dependent upon the expectations of the investors.

I know the first movie broke even after DVD sales, rentals and cable revenues were in. The only official numbers I saw, were not numbers but a statement that "after DVD and cable revenues the movie did little more than pay for itself." if I remember it correctly. The article it was from was a derogatory review and it was stated in a negative tone. I have not seen anything like that said about the second which leads me to believe it lost money.

Unless you include increased sales of Atlas Shrugged and other items, such as t-shirts, jewelery, coffee cups and the like. I would suspect that the jump in paperback sales alone have made the whole thing profitable. If the profit were only $2 a book then it would be a million a year for the last 4 years in book sales. I would also expect that the store they have launched has done fairly well. Overtime if they can keep momentum they should make money on it as well. If they can build larger and larger momentum, maybe in 20 years we get a big budget version.

I want more than 3 movies though. I mean 3 is a good start but you could do so much more.

A love story about Dagny and Fransisco in there late teens. There is enough in the first act to get a movie here. You can show Jim as the lazy ass bother, Fransisco's smarts and Eddies normal ability level but hard work ethic even as kids. Hell it would have more depth than any teen romance (comedy or drama) around today.

You could do an entire movie just on the 20th century motor company and the 'wonderful' plan they put in place. The people walking, the drama and politics played and its final collapse with the last scenes looking a bit apocalyptic.

Both are small back story elements they wont ever get into the movies as they are back story. Both could be a complete story in and of themselves for movies. I do not see it happening, but there is a great deal of content that could be made into movies. Heck you could do a movie just out of Cherryl Brooks Taggart story from the book.

I digress now as I would like to see a so much more complete version on the big screen and it would take a dozen or so movies to do it. I will have to settle on one for each act.

Actually, I would bet that John Galt would invent a wormhole device to visit the Monolith at Jupiter similar to his electric engine. His lecture was to the idiots who kept engines like his from being brought to the market.

For modern evidence of a real John Galt check out Paul Mollar, inventer of the Skycar. Same thing.

The speech is just to compress thirty years of anger into a three hour speech to strike back at the parasites who require the lives of others to function.

The special edition sounds like a good way to go. Perhaps the speech combined with scenes of people as Galt described. The speech with only Galt at the microphone wouldn't hold many peoples interest.

Exactly...democracy will be America's downfall. The majority will ban Objectivism and we will be forced to love in books and not in actuality. Oh well, who is John Galt?

Hey XenokRoy,
Do you know what the figures are for DVD sales, and cable revenues? Shouldn't they also be counted? I happen to know of a few people who have stated they are interested, but are waiting till the third movie is out so they can watch all three...

O.A.

Hmm, how do you explain the explosion in sales of Atlas Shrugged then?

I was cruising youtube a while ago and saw a pretty good short adaptation of the speech by Greg Gomes. It's only about 8 minutes but includes the heart of the speech and done the right way could be a pretty good start.