ATLAS SHRUGGED: PART 1 Trailer | Collider

atlas-shrugged-part-1-movie-image-slice-01

The film adaptation of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged has been a massive undertaking. It’s difficult to condense Rand’s 1200 treatise on the value of being a selfish prick, so the folks behind the movie have decided to break the book up into parts. The trailer for Part 1 of the adaptation has been released and I half-expected a title card that read “From executive producer Glenn Beck”. It doesn’t feel like it’s a trailer for a real movie because characters are just espousing Rand’s beliefs in casual dialogue. There are other bits of comic goodness scattered throughout and I have to admit I want to see this train wreck (pun intended) out of morbid curiosity. I also like that they basically took the marketing campaign for Salt and simply changed the “S” to a “G”.

Hit the jump to check out the trailer. The film is due out on April 15th, as a “suck it” to Tax Day even though Tax Day was moved back to April 18th because of Emancipation Day. But it’s good that a film is pointing out this tyrannical holiday because I hate paying for roads and fire departments. Give me traveling on dirt and burning buildings or give me death!

—

Loserguy3000

The ignorance on display in this post is breathtaking…simply out-of-this world with the sheer delight of speaking ‘truth to power’. I’m not going to make any calls whether the author has ever read the book, although its clear he doesn’t think highly of certain pundits.

No bother, because marginalizing classics one doesn’t understand and treating a film he hasn’t seen with such contempt is par for the course by today’s pseudo-journalists. I’m sure “everyone” you know is doing the exact same thing, so that makes it OK. Power in numbers and peer pressure, you know.

I’m not defending Rynd’s book (which I have read) but the ridiculous nature of writers fellating certain projects (Inception) or totally and completely misrepresenting others (Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark) to help sell your blog and website to Google and troll for hits. Its totally and completely true.
- Eli B
  
  He must have misinterpreted his own opinion then…
Pingback: Tweets that mention ATLAS SHRUGGED: PART 1 Trailer -- Topsy.com
durhonka

With regard to transportation, you display a remarkable lack of imagination. Have you ever considered what our lives would be like if the government hadn’t distorted our entire economy and society by constructing trillions and trillions of dollars worth of (pointless) roads after WWII? We would be a much more urbanized, efficient, and sustainable society (much more like Europe). All of the suburban sprawl, smog, pollution (that the left wails about endlessly), resulting from all the government-built roads would be nearly gone. Trains, airplanes, and walking would be our primary mode of transportation. Vast areas of the North American continent would be uninhabited (and left completely natural) instead of being cluttered with sprawling subdivisions, freeways, and strip malls. It’s terribly ironic how the left gripes non-stop about our automobile culture – but then “who will build the roads!??” is the line they scream when confronted with the possibility of a libertarian government. As Ms. Rand liked to point out, every government intervention in the economy – every regulation, control, subsidy, or project – causes distortions in the economy and in our lives, which the statists then use as an excuse for more controls and regulations.
- Ringbearer1420
  
  You make anperfect point about roads, but their is definitely a need for sensible regulations. No one ideology is correct, so it’s about make the hybrid that works.
  But She is a philosopher, so like Plato the point isn’t weather you agree it’s weather it made you think and question things. Besides he philosophy heavily influenced Steve Ditko and that helped lead to Spider-man so no one can write or Rayn altogether.
- Drew
  
  I think you’re forgetting the freedom of transportation that roads allow. Amtrak, mind you, is a government-owned corporation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrak. So, as someone so anti-government, are you suggesting we’d all be better off traveling primarily through government-owned transportation???
  - durhonka
    
    Drew – The reason why the government has to subsidize passenger trains is because nobody wants to pay to ride on trains because we already have the vast “free” network of roads that the government has already built. Stated otherwise, passenger trains would be a profitable business if it were not for the fact that automobile transportation receives a big fat government subsidy in the form of trillions and trillions of dollars worth of roads. Most likely, if the government hadn’t grossly distorted our society by building all these roads, our cities would all resemble NYC, San Francisco, downtown Chicago, downtown Washington DC, and other cities that grew in the 19th-Century before the all the roads went up. That is, people would live in towers just a few miles from where they work; they would travel by foot or scooter between work and home. Traveling between cities wouldn’t necessarily happen by train – my guess is actually that air travel would be the most common method of traveling between cities. Living in rural areas would be quite expensive (as it should be, since it’s economically inefficient), and most of the middle of the country would be populated largely by farmers and people that worked in businesses related to farming. Of course, all that is conjecture. All we do know is that government building of roads is far from necessary and that the building of roads by the government has greatly disorted our economy – for the worse.
    
    Incidentally, I think it’s worth noting that most economists are Republicans or libertarians – and that Rand is often a revered figure among economists (e.g. Alan Greenspan has been a life-long devotee of Ms. Rand). Those who would dismiss Ms. Rand’s ideas as ignorant or simplistic are doing nothing but demonstrating their own ignorance.
  - Drew
    
    durhonka – Very logical argument, but you still haven’t noted the freedom of transportation that roads allow. Assuming you have the means and the vehicle, you can head towards anywhere in the country at any time. You don’t have to schedule around a flight, train, etc.
    
    Also, your argument doesn’t account for the growing population. If all of our population was centralized in cities like this they would be very large and thus require intra-city transportation, like a subway system. Would we expect the government to not subsidize something like this?
    
    And finally, you discount the fact the people can very well travel and live the way you describe in current day, if they want to. You have the freedom to live in a city, never have a car, never even drive if you want to. Think about all those wags in NYC.
    
    The U.S. is a country of freedoms and I think roads add to those.
monkeystoyourhouse

Uh Oh! Looks like you’ve disturbed the pseudo-intellectuals by dissing their Bible!
Jonathan

You know, I always take the time to read Matt Goldberg’s articles. They are so funny, witty, and smart, and to be honest with you, I look forward to them. However, I always have a moment of hesitation when I see his name at the top of one of these stories/articles on Collider because I think to myself – “I hope he didn’t review a film that has a political message other than Liberals are right, conservatives are evil”, because if he did, then I know just to skip over the article because all of a sudden, the objective and sensible critic is no where to be seen. Matt subrcibes to the belief that because he is a critic, he can throw objectivism out the window and simply insult the potlical position presented in the film because he disagrees with it.

Matt is usually a fair critic, but not when it comes to political films. The way he insults and criminalizes the political position of some of these films, is disgusting. And not to the people who created the film, but to the readers of his articles who may agree entirely or partially with the potlical message of the film.

For the record, I too think this film was constructed/filmed terribly (based on the footage that I have seen up to this point). But this is a comment on the lack of film-making technique, not an insult to the potlical position of the film.

Anyways, here’s hoping Matt gets back to reviewing films like the Social Network and Black Swan. I never understood why actors, directors, writers, and yes even critics, never realize that probably half of their fanbase holds a politcal belief that is different than their own. And that by insulting a films political message, you are infact insulting a large part of your fanbase. Is this so hard to understand?
BRZ

I love how this guy disses a book and movie that support capitalism while his whole page looks like a NASCAR driver’s fire suit!

Three adds at the top by ARALifestyle.com,
three very large Burger King adds,
three more ARALifestyle.com adds down the side of the page,
an Amazon widget,
six small adds for movie/celeb clips,
an add for “Take Me Home Tonight”,
and a list of six headlines from iamrouge.com

It seems like he would enjoy a movie on “value of being a selfish prick.”
Joe

You would think such a renowned book would get more than just a straight-to-dvd quality adaptation. I never read it, nor do I feel like getting into some psuedo-intellectual political debate, but quite frankly this movie looks like crap. They should’ve set in the past because who really rides the train anymore? Or if they were modernizing it, make the whole thing about some new energy source or method of transportation. This just looks, sorta silly.
- Jared Flynn
  
  It does indeed look silly with a modern setting. I have read the book and was kind of excited when I saw this until I realized that its set in the present. Also, from the clip none of the characters seem to have a personality, but as Goldberg says they are just spouting off the lines. Yay for hollow characters that the viewer won’t care about.
Ben

I think anyone who grew up in the Soviet Union as Rand did might have an easier time understanding her hostility towards government. HOwever, the vast majority of people who read and enjoyed Atlas Shrugged are not saying there is no place for government. Instead we are saying that government has gone overboard and taken control of or meddled in things that it has no business dealing with, to the detriment of our society.
Ben

Durhonka: Greenspan was once a devoted follower of Rand, but no one who runs the Federal Reserve Bank and meddled in the economy as much as Greenspan did (and his forced low interest rates definitely contributed to the current economic mess) could possibly be called an Objectivist or even libertarian. If anything, his actions in government have betrayed Ayn Rand.
Shepherd

Soooo, Matt… I take it you’re a liberal?
aaronsullivan

Silly sentionalist commenting in Matt’s review (as is customary) but the trailer shows a film that is amateur in execution no matter the source. No sense of drama, natural dialogue (those poor actors!), or tone. Probably a well-meaning set of filmmakers taking their first shot at things from mostly outside the studio system. That can work if the filmmakers are full of filmic passion and spark. Not seeing it here.
JohnQ

http://www.slashfilm.com/atlas-shrugged-trailer/

That’s how you write an article on this subject. You give information on the mishaps they’ve had during production, info about the rights expiring, multiple directors, etc…Then, you posit a couple different viewpoints and let your readership discuss. Matt is neither funny, nor witty…he’s just snarky (which is simply annoying) and unabashed with his views that have nothing to do with movies. If you people want to read a real movie blog, go over to slash film.

Another thing: I feel bad for Frosty, because it seems like he works so hard to put out a ton of great material (which he does), and then you have Matt most likely turning off tons of potential followers with his awful writing style.
Matt

Rand is not a good writer.
Guy

What Is Wrong With This Article:

1. Predicts the future: Matt has not seen this movie, but KNOWS it is a “train wreck”
2. Ignorance about subject matter: Matt has clearly not read the book, so he criticizes the character’s for discussing Rand’s ideas. THE WHOLE FUCKING BOOK IS AN IDEA. This book is a big metaphor and it doesn’t pretend it isn’t. Likewise, the movie will be a metaphor as well. Don’t expect deep characters. That isn’t the point.
3. Reads like a tantrum: Matt sounds like a five year old. The opinions on Objectivism are more like hateful name calling than logical attacks. In other words, the article was written by a toddler with an average vocabulary. Even for someone who disagrees with Rand, this is embarrassing.
Stefan

I know liberals hate Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. But this breakdown of the trailer does not make any sense. Galt and
Salt, there’s nothing there man.
Pingback: Ayn Rand cultists make a movie; Hollywood shrugs – Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog) | Latest News Wall
JohnWhilm

“But it’s good that a film is pointing out this tyrannical holiday because I hate paying for roads and fire departments.”

Right, because that’s purely what our tax dollars go to such things these days. The government doesn’t waste a dime; no, no, no – we’re not working until July to pay for silly government spending or anything. Just roads and fire departments. Riiiiight……

Nice try, comrade goldberg….
- The Train!
  
  it’s such a carnard of liberal discourse. whenever you question the validity of certain taxes, someone replies with, “i like to pay taxes because i like having roads” or some such nonsense. it just serves to cast the argument in either/or terms, as though conservatives and libertarians are genuinely proposing an end to all taxation.
Joey Robinson

Okay, it’s crazy time at Collider. And I’m talking about all of you arguing about this ancient tome and its author. Hey Matt and readers, how about discussing the reason we’re on the site– the trailer? This looks so cheap and poorly made it’s hard to believe it’s real. I’m intrigued by the idea of turning this into a movie but jeez, this is the best they can do? Embarrassing.
ginny

Matt, I don’t know that you have not read the book, but your comments make me question your article.

“The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction [that] you give it.” (‘John Galt Speech’ 1957)
MarsHottentot

“Why Won’t You Let Me Start This BUSINESS??? WHHHYYY???”
Toughbutfair

Ayn Rand looks like a dude. Just saying.
The Train!

i love atlas shrugged. this movie looks like garbage.
Michael R. Brown

You have your history wrong, dude. “Salt” took their ad campaign from the novel “Atlas Shrugged.” This movie is going to be something else.
JRock

Never read the book. Don’t know anything about the author or here enthusiastic fans/followers (who are apparently legion!) but from a purely filmmaking quality stand point, this movie is obviously going to be terrible. No disrespect to the source material, but the movie as its own thing will be inspiringly bad. Sucks for her fans, but what can you do. I LOVED the book Battlefield Earth by that crazy scientologist Hubbard guy, but that didn’t stop the movie from sucking to no end. Just the simple fact that a script based on a book so well known and beloved wouldn’t draw top-tier talent (director, actors, producers, etc.) is proof. ‘Tis a shame another book will be butchered by incompetent filmmakers.
honestann

Not to prick your self-inflated bubble, author, but that’s the most utterly empty and disingenuous [non]-review I’ve ever seen. Presumably the first thing you do after you receive your paycheck is to go hand it out to random people who do NOT work. Right? No? Then you’re selfish in exactly the way advocated in the book. That is, assuming you are paid because you produce something real and valuable. Certainly your bogus “review” has no value, so hopefully you do something else worthwhile.

The rest of us must wonder aloud sometime what’s so wrong with being able to keep what we produce? If you are 10 times smarter and/or work 10 times harder and thereby grow 10 times more tomatoes than the farmer next door… why should you not earn 10 times as much when you sell the 10 times greater quantity of tomatoes that your produced? BLANK OUT (as Ayn Rand would say when you fail to provide a rational answer, which you cannot).

What so many people COMPLETELY and sometimes purposely misrepresent about AtlasShrugged and the philosophy portrayed by that novel [and movie], is that most business-people and most corporations are portreyed as EVIL by this story and philosophy, because one way or another they receive special favors from government, or succeed by nefarious means (by misrepresenting their products, by polluting, etc). That’s right. This philosophy is about DOING GOOD and DOING NO BAD… and then having the Galt to ask that you can sell what you produced after you have taken the risks, invested your savings, and produced the goods.

Oh my, what evil…. NOT.

Go see Atlas Shrugged on April 15, 2011. It is a good film, and hopefully convinces you to rush out and buy the book and read what makes this story so important. No story anywhere is as important or timely in the world of today.
Kefka

Matt Goldberg i Think u upset a lot of readers sir .
You have Targeted a few like Glenn Beck .
Beck is a talking Head just like all that is on Cable and Main News Stations . and u Crying about how a Idea is turning in to a movie.

there is a lot of movies out there that are down right junk yes but a lot those junk movies came from good books.

So just go at the acting , Production , Script , FX, Music of the movie and what esle goes in to making a movie but pls never attack a idea

now saying u do not like the idea is one thing but do not attack it .

Would you like some attack how u think? Talk? Live?

I Bet u be up in arms if some one does.

be hard on a review is fine but not outrageous

Unintentionally Amusing Trailer for ATLAS SHRUGGED: PART 1

by Matt Goldberg Posted: February 14th, 2011 at 10:07 am

Tags:

Related Links:

Comments:

Features