The official trailer (just released):
Or if you prefer, the “freelance” trailer made last year:
No cynicism here. I actually liked part 1 even with all its low-budget faults. But the new cast looks … well, tired. The square jaws and steely eyes have been replaced by weak chins and dark bags under the eyes. Hm. Worrisome. S’pose it’s possible the acting quality has improved, but I’m not seein’ it.
And even if it looked like the smash hit of the year, I ain’t goin’ into civilization to see it this time. I’ll wait for the DVD and let you folks who already live in civilization do the reviewing. October 12.
While I’d like to see more continuity in actors (the whole Batman franchise was pretty much ignored by me), I’ll be there opening night. I dearly hope the movie doesn’t suck eggs, as it’s a message I really want to see out there, but there have been so many folks who pounded on the first one (most without even watching it) based on its message… hell, I don’t even have anything particularly eloquent to say, but I’ll be there.
A.S.2… please don’t suck.
They changed the cast? Who changes the cast between installments in a trilogy? Why’d they do that? (I’ve never seen the first one. Maybe they sucked that bad, I dunno.)
I need to watch the first part again. I remember it being very rushed, like a meth head doing a speed read of the book.
Yeah … “A.S.2, please don’t suck.” My sentiments exactly.
ILTim — wouldn’t have thought of it in quite those terms, but now that you’ve put it that way, I’ll probably never be able to watch it again. LOL. I agree, it did feel rushed or terribly compressed in some places.
Joel — Why they changed the cast, I don’t know. The original Dagny, Hank, and Francisco all looked wonderful for their parts, but Dagny at least (Taylor Schilling) had TV-level skills that weren’t quite up to the “bigness” needed for the movie. Still, none of them were bad. This new Dagny looks like an overworked housewife & I sure didn’t see any sterling acting skills shining through in that trailer, did you?
Nope. Not even a small spark of desire to see the second one.
LibertyNews — I recall that you saw the first A.S. movie in a theater on the first day. Don’t recall your reaction to it. That bad, eh?
The first one was indeed “rushed”, but I attribute that to trying to compress even 1/3 of that mammoth book into an hour and a half movie. Time frames were speeded up, characters minimized (or even eliminated), whole scenes deleted. It was necessary, and in the end it worked as well as could have been expected. If you’ve read the book even once you’ll note the omissions, but if not you won’t miss them and you’ll get the message. It worked. (And I *sincerely* hope they take an aggressive red pencil to John Galt’s speech when they get to that part!)
With respect to the change in cast, I wasn’t aware that it was happening, but I don’t really have a problem with it. As I said at the time the first installment came out, I thought Taylor Schilling was miscast in the role: she’s just too young. The new actress (I have no idea who she is) seems a better choice. She looks more mature, less overtly pretty (which distracts from the role). More “Dagny-esque”, in my opinion; certainly closer to my conception of her.
And as to them looking “tired”, well, they’re *supposed* to be tired! They’ve been working like dogs for years, trying to hold society together nearly single-handedly, thwarted at every turn by their own government, and they’re getting worn out. It’s exactly how I would expect them to look as the economy is collapsing (being destroyed) around them and they’re beginning to seriously contemplate John Galt’s message.
I probably won’t be there opening night (I generally avoid those) but I’ll certainly see it in a theater.
Good point about how in real life they would look tired. It’s just that in Hollywood, nobody ever actually does look tired. 🙂 People in movies may be dragging their asses after an arduous trek across a desert or a bureaucratic landscape — but they never get bags under their eyes!
I didn’t think either actress looked the part of Dagny. But each of us has our own idea of what the characters look like. That’s why books are better – we each get our ideal. :- ) (And there’s *nobody* who can properly play the part of D’Anconia; he’s a god!)
I’m still waiting until the three movies are in, then I’ll see them together.
Well the first one was ok. While I have never read the book, I suspect many of the problems I had with the move (one dimensional chars. problems that were magically solved without any explanation how, and a political message that smacks you up the side of your head over and over again) were because of the source material.
Judging from the four giggling teen girls behind me, it will also put people to sleep. They knew who Ayn Rand was and had apparently read Fountainhead (another book I haven’t read). From what I heard of their conversation, they really had nothing good to say about the film.
I really hate to agree with those 4, but part one really wasn’t that great. When part 2 comes out I’ll go see that just to support the message. However I think the only folks who are going to like these films are the ones who already like the political message or are fans of the book (but I repeat myself).
I’m not thrilled about the Dagny actress change, but I can live with some of the others. Hollywood usually weighs heavily on the action & love story portions, but I am hoping for a strong representation of the message.
Immense audience popularity for Pt 1 + Pt 2 being made = no box office poison. About 542 theaters confirmed for Pt 2 – lot more than Pt 1. : )
The movie, Atlas Shrugged Part III will be 3 hours of John Galt sitting in silhouette, speaking into a radio microphone. After the first 10 minutes, he’ll start repeating the same arguments using only slightly different word orders. The director’s cut will restore the additional 2 hours of the speech, as well as 5 minutes of other action, including the special effects destruction of several rail bridges.
Don’t get me wrong: I loved the book, but ‘the speech’ was interminably long.
Yes, it was too long – but don’t you think it had to be?
I’ve noticed that every i has to be dotted, every t has to be crossed, and every peripherally-related idea has to be laid out precisely before any individualist or freedom message can be understood. And even then something is taken out of context and/or will be misinterpreted. I’m sure Rand was aware of that when she wrote the speech.
Yes, it was way too long, and no, it didn’t have to be. Every time I read the book (and I’ve read it several times and listened to an audiobook version once) I start off The Speech thinking “this isn’t as bad as I remembered”, then start skipping lines, then paragraphs, then whole pages waiting for it to end. I’ve never been able to read the entire thing. It’s boring and repetitious. She desperately needed the strong hand of an editor, and I hope the director of the movie provides it (along with something more entertaining on screen than him sitting before a microphone). Otherwise it will put everyone to sleep.
I admit that the first time I read The Speech — when I was 18 or 19 and Atlas Shrugged was the first sign I’d ever gotten that I wasn’t some sort of not-liberal-not-conservative weirdo freak — I read every word of it.
Holy Writ, it was. No, better than holy writ, because unlike the bible, the words of John Galt really spoke to me. They defined something I already knew in my heart but had never been able to articulate. Something that sustained me through the times I was considered my high school’s “class commie” — when I knew I wasn’t that, but couldn’t say what I was.
Then … yeah. Every time after that I’ve just skipped the whole darned thing. Ptooey.
LOL, CCC, you may be a cynic, but gods forbid, you may also be prescient.
Now, Francisco’s speech on the nature of money, on the other hand …
“Holy Writ, it was. No, better than holy writ, because unlike the bible, the words of John Galt really spoke to me. They defined something I already knew in my heart but had never been able to articulate.”
And that’s exactly why it had to be “too long”. People only have to read it once if they’re ever going to get it. It only becomes too long after you know what it means.
So, a miniseries, with a more solid cast (not necessarily from the cover of E magazine, just looking for real talent), some creative re-editing of what many people will consider tedious (I, for one, would sit through Galt’s speech gladly), and enough time to give it proper treatment.
As I understand, something like that had been planned in the past, but for whatever reason, didn’t pan out. Maybe one day it can be tried again, but I wouldn’t give it to Fox, after what they did to Firefly.
velojym (BTW, great to see you around here again) — Agreed on the mini-series. Wish it could happen, and happen in the right way.
Also agreed on &^%$#@!ing Fox. I’m re-watching my Firefly DVDs this wee and having a hard time believing it’s been 10 years since Fox murdered that astoundingly wonderful series. No matter how often I re-watch the series, my love for the show is clouded by sadness that there’s so little of it and anger about the way it was done in by cynical or stupid programming execs.
I have never read the book…
*GASP* To the stake with the heretic!
No, no, Joel! You’ve got it wrong.
People who have never read the book are to be proselytized and converted to the One, True, Randian Faith! Because surely, as soon as they read her Glorious Prose, the veils will fall from their eyes.
It’s people who have read The Book and later have the slightest doubt about its brilliance or veracity … erm, people like you and me … who are destined to burn at the Objectivist stake.
Oh. Yeah. My bad.
So…that explains the angry mob of Obbies I had to put down last week. I wondered what they were so upset about.
Found my original comments from part I – http://www.backwoodshome.com/blogs/ClaireWolfe/2011/04/15/quick-take-on-atlas-shrugged-part-i/#comments
I guess I didn’t dislike it quite as much as I remember. The first one was tolerable, I guess, but this second one looks worse. I really *want* to like it, but it doesn’t look like it will live up to expectations.
Now, the new NBC show looks interesting, I’m a sucker for TEOTWAWKI stories.