Jim V. Hart's ATLAS SHRUGGED

Is Jim V. Hart rewriting ATLAS SHRUGGED?

From the Baldwin Entertainment Group website:

LOG LINE: Dagny Taggart, one of the great heroines of modern literature, struggles to fulfill her great-grandfather’s legacy as she steers her family’s railroad conglomerate through the triple threat of government corruption, international terrorism and a mysterious force that is silencing the great thinkers of the day.

SYNOPSIS: Ayn Rand’s groundbreaking novel foresees an American future eerily similar to the future that America faces today. The politics of fear embodied by stringent government regulation and irresponsible foreign policy have driven American society to the brink of collapse. Against this backdrop, Dagny Taggart wrestles her corrupt and dissolute brother for control of their great-grandfather’s railroad conglomerate. Determined to live up to her ancestor’s name, Dagny steers the railroad through a minefield of government sabotage, domestic disintegration, and international terrorism. All the while the destruction of the American way is hastened by a mysterious force that is silencing the great thinkers of the day. Their disappearance inspires a universal sense of fatalistic dread that is summed up by the new popular catchphrase: “Who is John Galt?”

Maybe I need to re-read ATLAS. International terrorism? Something tells me we’re not talking Ragnar Danneskjold here. Anyone getting worried about the liberties Hollywood is about to take with one of the greatest novels of all time? Let’s hope they haven’t offered John Galt to Jack Nicholson.

Anybody have any additional information about this?

(Edited by Dennis Hardin on 8/16, 10:38pm)

Post 1

Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 10:45pm

This is the scriptwriter who sabotaged Contact. What did you expect?

Post 2

Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 10:50pm

I hope this option expires!

---Landon

Post 3

Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 10:52pm

Scratch that...

I hope this option expires. And I hope that an Objectivist filmmaker is able to step up to the plate, and prove that there can be great Objectivist films made regardless of whether or not Atlas EVER gets adapted!
---Landon

Post 4

Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 11:11pm

Dennis,

Could you post the URL? Google does not have it indexed yet.

Post 5

Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 11:28pm

Adam,

Here you go….

Post 6

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 1:23am

On the other hand, one could cast Atlas Shrugged in this manner, keep the script in spirit to the book - and be thus able to give forth a movie not of insurmountable length. Think about it.

Post 7

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 5:27am

I agree, Robert. The Logline and Synopsis, while cast in modern lights, do describe the action. It is an easy prediction that when Atlas Shrugged is released, Objectivists will complain.

Post 8

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 7:20am

This is just the sort of thing you have to do in adapting a story from one medium to another. Movies are visual, while novels are verbal. The book was written 50 or 60 years ago; the movie is being made today. This change tells us nothing about how good or bad the movie will be. I agree with Marotta and others (including me) who've said that the hardcore fans are going to hate the movie no matter what. This is one reason why it's such a risky venture commercially.

Peter

Post 9

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 8:30am

Just a guess: one reason, perhaps, for injecting international terrorism is the question of period. If the movie takes place in a contemporary setting, as it would probably have to in order to attract an audience, how will it deal with the fact that so much turns on cross-country train trips and network radio? This might turn out to be a clever way around that problem. Too clever for me to figure out at this point, but I'm willing to wait and see.

Post 10

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 9:27am

No, you don't have to scrap the original intend. Many hollywood producers did it, but not many succeed in doing so. Adoptions of books and other media that are not faithfull to the original often tend to go down the drain.

I aggree that the novel is too long not to do it without cuts, but to change the plot so dramatically is a bad thing to do. The message will be corrupted in a way that it won't be Objectivism any more.

government sabotage, domestic disintegration, and international terrorism

This reads like they want to be apologetic for "bad" economic decisions and not to show that government shouldn't interfere with the economy at all. If we have to make such amends to the public in the USA today to make the movie successful, I don't think anyone should do the movie. To substitute Socialism/Communism with International Terrorism would be stupid and unfaithful decision in my eyes.

Post 11

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 9:52am

It sounds like they'd be using Atlas for their own political agenda, and throwing in "international terrorism" to try to update it and make it "topical". I think a better approach would be to have the setting be in sort of an "alternate time", not our past, present, or future, but an alternate future that didn't really happen. Like Batman Begins, except this "time" would not have as much advanced technology.
(Edited by Laure Chipman on 8/17, 10:04am)

Post 12

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 10:38am

Nothing in the synopsis has me worried. That sounds mostly like the book I've read and re-read. What am I missing?

Also, FYI, at the TOC conference it was mentioned that this will most likely be done as a trilogy.

Post 13

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 12:36pm

To Max I say: QED. You want a political tract, not a movie. You want a movie that tries to be a novel, not a film. If it ever comes off, you'll be disappointed on both counts.

To Laure I say: whose political agenda did you have in mind? The movies have pretty much ignored terrorism all these years, so we can safely rule out standard-issue showbiz left. That's the only conclusion that comes to mind. I like your idea of an alternative future. Come to think of it, that's what the book does, its world hovering, to great effect, an inch or two above the real one. According to Barbara Branden, the decision not to allude to dates or current events was Isabel Paterson's suggestion.

While we're on the subject, I can't help putting in a plug for the look I'd like to see: http://ah.bfn.org/a/archs/wright/va/. Scroll down and open the pictures of the Kaufmann office. Can't you see Hank and Dagny playing a scene on top of that desk?

Peter

Post 14

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 2:56pm

After 9/11, if all the copper mines in the world get blown up, that really looks like international terrorism. (Unless you know it's the person who owned them that blew them up.) I wonder what would be a good way for a movie to handle this.

Not to mention a mysterious pirate who's harrassing government ships...that could look like terrorism too. Especially from the point of view of a post-9/11 audience who doesn't know the plot of Atlas Shrugged yet.

Post 15

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 3:15pm

I personally crave to see a modern version of the film made. In fact, years ago, some of us even dreamed about changing Taggart Railroad to Taggart Airlines to satisfy the obvious dated aspects of the book in making a movie out of it.

I know the Atlas Thumpers would hate it, though.... We were just dreaming! Relax!

Post 16

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 3:15pm

"After 9/11, if all the copper mines in the world get blown up, that really looks like international terrorism. (Unless you know it's the person who owned them that blew them up.) I wonder what would be a good way for a movie to handle this.

Not to mention a mysterious pirate who's harrassing government ships...that could look like terrorism too. Especially from the point of view of a post-9/11 audience who doesn't know the plot of Atlas Shrugged yet."

I think the danger of these scenes post 9/11 and post Oklahoma is that they can be taken out of context if the movie fails to present the context correctly. Ragnar (and Roark's) actions today can be seen as parallels to Tim Mcveigh's psuedo-libertarian destruction. Remember, the defense even tried to tie Mcveigh to Bin Laden, too. Some people could walk away with the idea of playing Ragnar in real life, or maybe even sympathising with Bin Laden's methods ("I loathe your goals, I admire your methods.")

Long time Objectivists have struggled to keep the abstractions of Rand's characters in context, I can only imagine how the general public would react to such things post 9/11.

Post 17

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 3:29pm

I really hope this doesn't get made for a few reasons. One, it will never be able to be accurate to the book, and alot of the point will be lost; ex: Galt's speech. Two, a lot of the finer nuances of O'ism will be missed, or misinterpreted, and may end up being detrimental to O'ism in the end. Part of me would love to see this on the big screen.
Atlas Shrugged could easily be an action movie.
I believe the time has passed, for now, for this movie to be made in a proper form.

(Edited by Donald Talton on 8/17, 3:50pm)

Post 18

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 4:00pm

Some worry that the moviemakers will maliciously graft alien ideas onto Rand's story. I doubt that, but another possibility, just as horrifying and much likelier, occurs to me: they'll make a sincere effort to get the ideas right. The really awful prospect is that it will come out as some amalgam of religiosity, pop-Thoreau rugged individualism, Science of the Mind and [you fill in the rest] because somebody was making an effort to let Rand speak for herself. Philosophical sophistication isn't what gets you ahead in that business.

Post 19

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 4:28pm