What would you consider the number one priority in the making of Atlas Shrugged Part III?
We want to hear from you. What would you consider the number one priority in the making of Atlas Shrugged Part III?
A. Casting
B. Getting the message of Atlas Shrugged right
C. Cinematography
D. Special Effects
E. Hiring the right Director
F. Other
Leave your answer in the comments below.
A. Casting
B. Getting the message of Atlas Shrugged right
C. Cinematography
D. Special Effects
E. Hiring the right Director
F. Other
Leave your answer in the comments below.
Previous comments...
Thanks
Simon
Both Part I & Part II were well done and the message was right. I've shown my copies to some friends and now they're reading the book and paying attention.
The masses aren't going to come watch unless dragged by a friend, so trying to hit the mass market is a waste of effort. Better for the bottom line granted, but still a waste of effort.
Casting of big name known liberal progressives would ruin the experience for me and destroy the credibility of the project. I'd rather see unknown or lesser knowns that would hopefully read the book, and even more hopefully 'get it'.
Main stream media can't find the news unless they are hit in the face woth it, and then they deny it.
It is going on right now. All this stuff they are putting out on the media, is hype whle they hide their real agenda; One World Government!
But still -
A - casting hardly matters anymore; when you did the recast with Part II, the continuity was broken. Plus the odds are you don't have anyone from Part II on contract, just as you didn't for Part I, so it's going to be another recast.
B. Since two terrible movies have driven off everyone but the truest True Believers, and since Parts I and II seemed uninterested in any cinematic value except for hammering home the hamhanded message, I think this is pretty much the only area where you might still be able to convince a fraction of your very tiny audience that your movies are in any way even adequate.
C. I wouldn't worry too much about cinematography, given that nobody sees these in the theater. The few who do watch these do so on their TVs at home.
D. Same as C - since nobody's going to watch in on the big screen, don't waste your money on big-screen effects. (Of course, to follow that thread to the end, since nobody's going to watch your movie at all, don't waste your money making it.)
E. So far, you've had a guy you hired less than two weeks before shooting, who spent his nights desperately rewriting the next day's scripts so that it wasn't more inane than a toothpaste commercial, and you've had some guy who didn't get any work as a director for twenty years but slapped together a Rand doco. Really, at this rate, you should just flip open the LA phonebook and pick anybody at random. You can't do worse than you've done.
F. The best thing you could do is get John Aglialoro's ego in line with reality. He makes crappy movies. Does he honestly not know that?
Bingo.
I took a look at the Wikipedia entry on Part II. Said something really sort of amazing. When you adjust for inflation, Part II had one of the two hundred worst wide openings of the last thirty years. And then its second week was one of the two hundred worst slides, percentage wise, of the last thirty years. You know how they say "at least you can't fall off the floor"? This one did.
But up come the Randian reality-deflector-shields: "oh it was the critics" "oh everyone was off watching the Kardashians" "oh it was this, it was that, it was anything but the fact that the movie sucked."
Load more comments...