Atlas Shrugged Part II TV Movie Quality?
Personally I thought that Part II looked like a professional, studio made movie with a much bigger budget then it had. Yet I read a lot of reviews from Rand fans and most said it was TV movie quality. Am I missing something here? Did part II have bad production qualities?
I have watched my DVDs of AS I and AS II several times
Both are professionally done.
And I've seen my share of movies
Usually it all comes back to free stuff. Reviewers like studio perks, and progressive messages.
And Atlas is on television, its on DVD and has been on Netflix and looks quite good compared to other films. Doctor Who has terrible production values, yet it is still fun to watch for fans. These are good, indpendent films based on a classic American novel. And I enjoy them.
overmanwarrior: "I think a lot of those reviews are from people looking for studio freebies, they were sucking up."
You're asserting that the Rand fans who criticized the movies for being "TV movie quality" were actually insincere in their criticisms, and would have had positive opinions of the movies had they been given freebies by the studios?
I don't know what they are. What are "critics in general"? Do you mean, professional critics employed by, e.g., mainstream media outlets such as NBC, CBS, NPR, PBS, The New York Times, etc.?
JRMR was speaking of "Rand fans", meaning some — perhaps many — of the people on this board and in the Gulch. You're claiming that anyone, anywhere, for any reason, who criticized the film did so because he actually wanted "studio freebies", and would have given the film a glowing recommendation had he received such favors? Even the Rand fans are guilty of this insincerity? Even Gulchers?
There are trolls here sometimes employed by places like the Huffington Post, and Media Matters who pretend to be "Rand Fans" so that they can take pot shots at the film makers because they don't like the message of the film.
Those same types of people also complain about movies like Star Wars, for having "cardboard actors" and too many effects. Yet those movies are very popular and well liked in spite of the critics. Giving away free stuff and winning over the trolls, and low life's who want another Hangover movie instead of Atlas are nothing to be concerned with.
That was the point. There are "professional critics" who sell themselves as creative assasins to " work the boards" with the sole purpose of steering the direction of critical opinion. It's not a new trick.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/atlas_s...
You'll see on the left that the professional critics gave it an average rating of 5%, while the audience rating on the right gave it a 63%.
I did my own informal estimate of audience rating by calculating the average stars for the first 50 entries in the "Audience" tab. There were 31 web pages of entires, making over 600 reviews total, and it seems that the distribution of positive to negative reviews changed a great deal over time — meaning, the next time I do this I'll try to take a *random* sampling of 50 out of those 31 pages, instead of simply working with the last 50.
In any case, the last 50 rated the film with an average of 2.32 stars. Since there are 5 stars, each star is worth 20 points, or 20 percent. That would be about 46%.
However, even if we go with the higher number of 63% as calculated by Rotten Tomatoes, that still wouldn't answer why the film failed so badly at the box office.
What I did notice from a casual look at the audience reviews of Atlas Shrugged Part 2, was that those who greatly approved of the film (3.5 stars to 5 stars) almost never did so for aesthetic/cinematic reasons. They didn't write things like, "What a great script, directing, and acting!" The majority that I read claimed they loved the film specifically for ideological reasons: i.e., it conformed to the book, which most of them had already read.
So this points to a possible truth that is precisely the opposite of the one you assert; namely, the viewers who hated the film, did so mainly because they found it to be a lousy movie qua movie; it did NOT have the cinematic/aesthetic values they respond to in movies they usually regard as good (e.g., tight plotting, sparkling dialogue, compelling characters, sharp editing, etc.). Conversely, those who loved it, did so for ideological reasons regarding Objectivism, and not because they could point to any specific cinematic values they found impressive.
I believe that's the opposite of what you claim. You claim that people who dislike the movie do so for ideological reasons (they're leftist moocher/looters who want freebies from the studios). I claim that those who loved the movie did so for ideological reasons.
Robbie53024 concurs. He claimed that "most of us" (meaning, "most of us Objectivists") were simply happy to have anything that was faithful to the book. In other words, irrespective of movie-qua-movies cinematic/aesthetic values mentioned above, Objectivists would like the Atlas Shrugged movies, just based on ideology alone.
Robbie53024 is quite wrong, however, when he asserts that Rand fans who loathed the movie did so because they wanted more money thrown at the production. Throwing money at a production so that it's a big-budget H'wood blockbuster in no way guarantees tight plotting, sparkling dialogue, compelling characters, imaginative directing, and sharp editing, or any other cinematic/aesthetic value evident in good movies qua good movies.
I read the reviewa at Rotten Tomatos, and I understand the rating system and how the numbers are comprised quite well. There are psychological factors obviously at play that do not reflect well in general assessments.
Any complaints about the movies quality is mute at this point. The filmakers have made the movie and are happy with it, all three in fact. To suggest that a movie like this should not be made because it isn't on par with other similar productions is like saying that certain people should not exist unless they are on par with social norms and expectations. There are movies that should have been made for television and shows on tv that should be released in a theater because their quality is so good. It is ultimately the preference of the film maker and what they wish to do that matters. It's a free exchange of ideals that counts.
I enjoyed immensely your conversation about part 2 and I will be watching for some of the mistakes. I am a big Dr Who fan and I also look beyond the video to the dialog and what is being conveyed.
Atlas Shrugged is now becoming more fact than fiction as the mysterious motor really does exist. and can be built but is forbidden to be put into manufacturing. I am looking forward to the completion of the part 3.
I'm thankful that the first two have kept very faithful to the book and expect the 3rd to be as well. These are challenging concepts to "bring to life" and the fact that they have done so in a realistic way has really been a credit to the producers.
It would actually be easier to cite the scenes that were not sub-TV quality. Some scenes with Rearden in the plant are good enough.
I would re-make part 2 before trying to make part 3.
Here are some instances that weren't good.
1) The tv reports are less convincing than most found online. Babylon 5 on TV did them better 20 years ago. The producers were smart enough to use an actor from B5, perhaps they should have hired the Director/Producer/Writer to consult.
2) the scene with Dagny and Eddie in the limo is unconvincing
3) the music does not elicit the emotion it should
4) setup shots to introduce scenes often result in time wasted that could have been used better
5) Dagny was hideously miscast and her scenes do not depict Dagny. The nickname "Slug" does fit her in this movie though.
6) Halley's music was uninspiring, just noisy. That scene was a waste of moneyand so was the next one in the car with Dagny and Rearden
7) I would liked the 1st scene with Dagny and Daniels but it reeks of TV quality, and is not film-like
8)Ditto for the Danager/rearden lunch meeting. And why do we need a shaky cam walk down the hall? Just a waste of digital video.
That scene should have been outside where there could be no bugs. Lillian could have been left out of the movie entirely.
7) Daniels workshop in Utah scene - TV quality again, but good dramatic effect inspite of the quality.
8) The train repair scene with Jeff Allen and Dagny is the worst scene. Ayn Rand would have pulled the plug on the project on the quality of that scene.
At least the wreckage of the plane was more realistic than the BS at the pentagon.
For some reason, the producers and the composer chose a style of music for Halley that was a cross between Gershwin and Prokofiev. Odd choices, given that Rand's favorite composer was Rachmaninoff, and her favorite genre, Romantic. Where was David Kelley in all this? I thought he was supposed to be a philosophical advisor on the project, ensuring that everything — including the style of Halley's music — be consistent with Objectivism?
I found it strange that the writers would bring in the character of Halley so late in the game. In the book, Dagny's first clue that such an Atlantis as Galt's Gulch existed was when she was traveling by train and heard an employee of Taggart Transcontinental whistling a snippet of Halley's Fifth Concerto. You'd think the producing team and the writers would have brought in the character of Halley way back in Part I. Instead, they pointlessly stick him in Part II, in the context of a date-night (IIRC) between James Taggart and Cherryl.
This is a "kitchen-sink-approach" to screenwriting: throw in whatever you can, just to be able to say you included it.
Same thing can be said for the character of the Wet Nurse. He's an important (if minor) foil for Rearden, but he appears for no reason in the movie, and disappears just as quickly for no reason. Another "let's throw in Halley, the Wet Nurse, and the kitchen sink for good measure, just so we can say that we included everything."
Weak screenwriting.
Keep in mind, also, that most of the below-the-line production crew were culled from television, and not big-budget, big-screen, motion pictures.
Given all that, It would have been surprising had AS1&2 not looked like television movies.
The topic I care deeply about is whether or not Objectivists might be in denial over certain facts of reality. FACT: ordinary people (not professional critics) who saw the AS movies and loathed them cited the dearth of cinematic/aesthetic values, not ideology, as the main reason for their negative reviews. FACT: Objectivists who saw the AS movies and loved them cited ideology, not cinematic/aesthetic values, as the main reason for their positive reviews; they were willing to overlook cinematic/aesthetic values claiming they were less important than ideology and presenting the novel's message.
Objectivists, however, also claim that the main reason anyone could loathe the AS films must be ideology; they must be "haters of achievement", or "moochers", or "looters." Not so.
overmanwarrior: "Any complaints about the movies quality is mute at this point."
MOOT, not MUTE.
overmanwarrior: The filmakers have made the movie and are happy with it, all three in fact.
I don't think so. Aglialoro admitted in an interview that he was so unhappy by the lack of public enthusiasm for Part I, that he was ready to "throw in the towel" and give up. Whatever the reasons were that he decided to go ahead with the rest of the trilogy, happiness with Part I wasn't one of them. Furthermore, if he had been so happy with Part 1, why change every cast member before shooting Part 2? Aglialoro even admitted that in Part 2, he and Kaslow had finally "got it right" (i.e., the casting); which means that in FACT, he had not bee happy with Part 1.
overmanwarrior: To suggest that a movie like this should not be made because it isn't on par with other similar productions is like saying that certain people should not exist unless they are on par with social norms and expectations.
Huh? One has nothing to do with the other. No one is saying that the Atlas films should be like other movies. They're saying they should be good movies: i.e., with tight plotting, sparkling dialogue, imaginative directing, spot-on casting, sharp editing, etc. It's clear from the reviews of those who loathed the first two films that they did so because they found the plotting confusing (especially if they had not already read the novel), the dialogue dull, the directing wooden, the acting robotic, and the editing choppy. None of that has anything to do with ideology, or with wishing they were like other movies.
"Standard" opinion? What the heck is that? You mean, there's some "standard length" of an opinion? Huh. Well, I'll be. Never knew that. What do you know . . .
You're fun, big guy. As we cowboys used to say in Bakersfield while ridin' bronco, "You're a very special kind of stupid, ain't ya?"
I'm sure you'll seek a way to block quote my statements so that you can debate around the issue and hope that nobody notices. But at the heart of the matter it is the notion of sacrifice that really divides lovers of the Atlas stories from everyone else who desire to maintain that infintile illusion.
You're psychologizing.
OW: The Atlas films, particularly Part III is challenging the ancient premise that "sacrifice" is needed for society to function when in fact it is productivity that drives everything.
"Particularly Part III"? Part III hasn't come out yet, so you actually have no idea what it is actually challenging or not challenging. You're assuming.
"Challenging the ancient premise . . ." That's why Parts I and II failed to excite moviegoers at the movies closed shortly after they were released: (a) If viewers hadn't already read the novel, they wouldn't understand that an ancient premise was being challenged; and (b) moviegoers go to movies to be entertained, not lectured at. They way you challenge an ancient premise in a movie format is by telling an entertaining story. The screenwriters never figured that out.
OW: If I had to bet money, for those who don't like the Atlas films, their reason is wrapped up in having their ideals of sacrifice challenged
Thanks for proving my point: Objectivists liked the films for ideological reasons, not because they were particularly well-made movies or well-told cinematic stories (they weren't). Conversely, the majority of people, i.e., non-Objectivists, loathed the films because they were not particularly well-made movies or well-told cinematic stories — they grew bored, they couldn't follow the storyline easily, the editing was choppy, the acting wooden, the directing unimaginative, the entire thing uninteresting. To claim they loathed the films for any reasons other than the ones they stated, e.g., they couldn't handle having "their ideals of sacrifice challenged" — is to psychologize.
OW: I'm sure you'll seek a way to block quote my statements so that you can debate around the issue and hope that nobody notices.
More psychologizing. You do it so often, you're unaware when you do it. It's second-nature to you.
OW: But at the heart of the matter it is the notion of sacrifice that really divides lovers of the Atlas stories from everyone else who desire to maintain that infintile illusion.
"Infantile", not "infintile."
Lots of Rand admirers loathed the movies, too, and for the same reasons the majority of moviegoers did: mediocre production values.
Even an ideology one likes can't save a poorly made movie.
And I'm sure that would be just your style. However, I did not "find things out of context" in your posts. I was careful to copy/paste your posts _in full_, and then add my comments to individual points you were addressing. Nothing was taken out of context. Maybe what you object to is that I highlighted how weak your arguments are — not to mention how unintelligible your writing is.
OW: I type pretty fast on an iPad and don't always catch things like "infantile" and "infintile."
Right. I have an iPad that I type pretty fast on, too, and it somehow always catches typos. It's called "spell-check". Ever hear of it?
OW: And I am perfectly aware of the "psychoanalyzing."
I wrote nothing about "psychoanalyzing". The term is PSYCHOLOGIZING, not PSYCHOANALYZING.
See what I mean? You might be a big, lovable lug, but you're also as dumb as a bag of hammers.
And aren't you cute, unintelligible writing. Only people like you have a problem with it. And that is fine with me.
And you do what, waterboy?
No one said it was an _improper_ term, per se, Big Guy; it just wasn’t the _relevant_ term. The relevant term was the one I used previously: “psychologizing.” Ayn Rand used the term quite often in her non-fiction writing, but I guess you’re unacquainted with her philosophical essays.
OW: Name one argument that was weak of mine.
OK. I’ll name two.
(1) You claimed that those who gave the AS films bad reviews did so out of spite: had the studios given them “freebies”, they would have reciprocated the favor by giving the films good reviews.Any evidence for that claim? No. Ergo, a weak argument.
(2) You claimed that those who gave the AS films bad reviews did so for ideological reasons; they didn’t like the “ancient premise” of self-sacrifice being challenged, and they were hostile to Rand’s ideal of rational selfishness. Any evidence for that claim? No. Ergo, a weak argument. Any counter-evidence contradicting your claim? Yes. I pointed out that the majority of ordinary audience viewers (i.e., not the professional critics) on Rotten Tomatoes who disliked the AS films wrote that they disliked them specifically because of their poor storytelling and amateurish production values (writing, directing, editing).
OW: All you've done is make some childish conclusions.
And you’ve jumped to incorrect ones.
OW: And aren't you cute, unintelligible writing. Only people like you have a problem with it.
That’s because I’m the only one here actually paying attention to what you write.
The cartwheel effect as someone is flung out the airlock is particularly worth watching, especially the way khalling does it.
Couldn't we also conclude that since the first two films were box-office failures, we should say that the third installment would be similarly unsuccessful?
Anyway, you never know what the vibrant imaginations of Aglialoro/Kaslow will pull in Part 3. Wasn't it Aglialoro who claimed in an interview after Part 1 closed that he might make Part 2 into a musical? He was joking, of course, but it was from desperation, since he knew that he would have to do something very different next time around if Part 2 was to be successful.