I have seen quite a few articles in reaction to the kickstarter campaign stating that due to the lack of revenue generated by the first movies makes it a “flop” and is an indication that it is “a pretty loud and clear rejection by the free market.” Because of this they should give up and realize that it is a product that is unwanted.

Seriously?

So just because the populace isn’t as interested, as they claim, there is no other value or claim to be gained? If the only goal was to make a monetary profit then yes, but that was not the sole reward to be gained through this venture (as I understand it, it was also to get the message out there about the philosophies presented, which is awesome). The value intended to be gained was, so would that not be a success? If a venture flops, then you try again and improve upon it, there have been many instances where a product will “fail” but eventually gains traction through time or revision. When I read this claim of rejection I can’t help but think of Reardon Metal’s initial public opinion and the clamor by the media to discredit it. Furthermore, all revenue generated by the Kickstarter through voluntary backing, none of it has been forcibly mooched, looted or cheated from the populace, and each backer knowing full well what they are going to be gaining and willing to fund a cause they believe in that has no victims. All of this falls inline perfectly with objectivism and the “morals” spoken of in Atlas Shrugged…so what is the big deal?

Personally I feel that the movies can only truly be appreciated if one is familiar with the source material. They are good movies, but I always encourage people to read it first and then view the movies as a bonus. It is such a massive book that it would be hard to translate it sufficiently within 6 hours spanned across three movies (Galt’s speech alone would take up half of that). Would I have liked to see this be a mini-series? Of course, but I can appreciate the effort and result of what has so far come about.