SteyrAUG
03-12-15, 18:37
So I finally finished the trilogy. If you didn't even realize a trilogy existed, you aren't alone.
Possibly the most important book regarding Objectivism and libertarian views. Far more comprehensive than "The Fountainhead" which was successfully made into a film with Rand as the writer of the screenplay.
Sadly "Atlas Shrugged" didn't get the same treatment. The book is massive, repetitive and needed a talented editor and screenwriter if it was going to be successfully made into a film. It apparently had neither.
It was released in three parts, Part I in 2011, Part II in 2012 and Part III in 2014. The first big problem is Part I wasn't Star Wars and the subject matter isn't going to captures audience interest to follow along over the course of three films. The second big problem is I think Part I is the only one that got a theatrical release and even that one got little promotion and only showed in the smaller theaters, usually on the "homie" side of town where nobody gives a damn about this kind of film and those who are interested in this kind of film really don't want to see it in the theaters that were showing it. Despite being a huge Rand fan, I didn't want to see it in the theaters where it was being shown.
So I waited for DVD.
The next problem was each installment had entirely new actors playing characters in a complex and involved storyline. And it is hard to give a damn about the story when you can't relate to the characters because they are new actors in each film. Imagine the Godfather with Michael Corleone played by Al Pacino in Part I, Sylvester Stallone in Part II and Paul Sorvino in Part III. A little different right? I should also mention that each film had a different director as well and swapped writers with no writer being involved in all three films.
Then comes the big problem. A massive storyline told over three films. Rather than produce a comprehensive treatise on the subject each successive film actually becomes repetitive and more simplistic than the first making each installment far less interesting than the one which came before it. By Part III even I no longer gave a damn and felt my time was wasted with the entire trilogy.
Almost sounds like sabotage right? In a lot of ways it reminds me of the 1987 miniseries "America" which was seen once, then never seen again. It was only mentioned if it was being dismissed as unrealistic, poorly written and boring. In fact it was a fairly accurate depiction of what life in the US would be like under Soviet, and by extension any socialist ruling government. If freaked out leftists because they feared it exposed their naked emperor and the rest of us ignored it as soon as we discovered it didn't have the action of "Red Dawn." People got bored and watched the Cosby Show instead.
So what could have been one of the most powerful films ever made about "individualism" is given a half assed treatment and promptly forgotten.
By contrast "Reds" (1981) had high profile writers, actors and directors, won academy awards and was listed as one of the ninth best film in the epic genre by the AFI. It was a sympathetic portrait of notorious American communist and radical activist John Reed.
Possibly the most important book regarding Objectivism and libertarian views. Far more comprehensive than "The Fountainhead" which was successfully made into a film with Rand as the writer of the screenplay.
Sadly "Atlas Shrugged" didn't get the same treatment. The book is massive, repetitive and needed a talented editor and screenwriter if it was going to be successfully made into a film. It apparently had neither.
It was released in three parts, Part I in 2011, Part II in 2012 and Part III in 2014. The first big problem is Part I wasn't Star Wars and the subject matter isn't going to captures audience interest to follow along over the course of three films. The second big problem is I think Part I is the only one that got a theatrical release and even that one got little promotion and only showed in the smaller theaters, usually on the "homie" side of town where nobody gives a damn about this kind of film and those who are interested in this kind of film really don't want to see it in the theaters that were showing it. Despite being a huge Rand fan, I didn't want to see it in the theaters where it was being shown.
So I waited for DVD.
The next problem was each installment had entirely new actors playing characters in a complex and involved storyline. And it is hard to give a damn about the story when you can't relate to the characters because they are new actors in each film. Imagine the Godfather with Michael Corleone played by Al Pacino in Part I, Sylvester Stallone in Part II and Paul Sorvino in Part III. A little different right? I should also mention that each film had a different director as well and swapped writers with no writer being involved in all three films.
Then comes the big problem. A massive storyline told over three films. Rather than produce a comprehensive treatise on the subject each successive film actually becomes repetitive and more simplistic than the first making each installment far less interesting than the one which came before it. By Part III even I no longer gave a damn and felt my time was wasted with the entire trilogy.
Almost sounds like sabotage right? In a lot of ways it reminds me of the 1987 miniseries "America" which was seen once, then never seen again. It was only mentioned if it was being dismissed as unrealistic, poorly written and boring. In fact it was a fairly accurate depiction of what life in the US would be like under Soviet, and by extension any socialist ruling government. If freaked out leftists because they feared it exposed their naked emperor and the rest of us ignored it as soon as we discovered it didn't have the action of "Red Dawn." People got bored and watched the Cosby Show instead.
So what could have been one of the most powerful films ever made about "individualism" is given a half assed treatment and promptly forgotten.
By contrast "Reds" (1981) had high profile writers, actors and directors, won academy awards and was listed as one of the ninth best film in the epic genre by the AFI. It was a sympathetic portrait of notorious American communist and radical activist John Reed.