Jump to content

Talk:Atlas Shrugged Part III: Who Is John Galt?

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is this film a Vanity project?

[edit]

I think it is. The first 2 installments bombed at the box office: the second lost more money than the first. If anything, the long Galt speech implies that Atlas Shrugged III presents the most difficult artistic and commercial challenges experienced in the series. I see little possibility that any backer will get back their money.

While incorporating this point into the article seems appropriate, I'm not sure how to do it. I made a clumsy attempt to do so in my initial characterization of their promo piece and was (correctly I think) swatted down and subjected to rewrite (and thanks btw). Incidentally, there's nothing wrong with financing a film with little chance of positive financial return - charitable foundations do this all the time when they fund documentaries. But this case seems a little different, firstly because Rand didn't consider charity to be a primary virtue and secondly that it's ostensibly a for-profit venture. Some players will make money after all.

A section on this topic would run into Wikipedia's original research guidelines, but honestly this is a matter of addressing the near obvious. Perhaps we could just mention the financial returns of the previous 2 films and leave the emotive phrase "Vanity project" out of it. Though I expect Atlas Shrugged III to flop as well, the book is certainly a culturally significant work and for that reason alone this article may deserve additional attention. Thoughts? Measure for Measure (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If a reliable source says it, then there is potential to say this. Without sources, however, you are right to expect this to run afoul of the rule against original research. --RL0919 (talk) 02:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no question but that the movie will not recover its costs, and the article should note that, provided that there is a way to do so without simply noting our opinion. There is no harm done if we wait until it finishes its run before reporting that. If the question is what moved Aglialoro to finish the series, I expect he will be asked that, and we can simply report his answer. Branding it a "vanity film" would be done in order to discredit him, and we are not in that business. Rand touted money as a measurement, but did not say that the individual should translate each of his values into money nor be willing to abandon any value for a suitable payment. If I start a project and foolishly stick with it to completion, was it for the sake of completeness, or for the sake of myself (which would be vanity)? Spike-from-NH (talk) 00:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the film's "ironic disproof" was its heavy reliance on national parks - something Ayn Rand definitely didn't approve of, but that's another discussion. There's no need to try to find a WP:RS to support the statement "the film will not recover its costs". We simply have to wait for it to close in a few weeks and update the total. The last films made half their gross on the first weekend, so based on that it'll probably be less than a million, but just wait for the numbers. As for labeling it a "vanity project", that's a non-starter.KaturianKaturian 13:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Quibble: The real irony (noted in one of the reviews) was that Rand imagined railroads as exemplar of capitalism. I don't think it's ironic that the film used government property, or even labor belonging to a union that Rand would have disagreed with — any more than that the cast of Promised Land drove to work, perhaps with gasoline from fracking. Even if making a film about a utopia/dystopia, you must still do so in the real world. Spike-from-NH (talk) 02:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The irony isn't that they just used national parks, it's that they used them extensively and were clearly trying to convey the message "Look how beautiful the country would be if the government stayed out of things.". There are plenty of real world examples of what you get with laissez faire capitalism and insufficient government regulation. They don't look like Sequoia National Park; that's for sure.KaturianKaturian 12:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
To use a newer review we now point to: The movie "(twice!)" has a car driving through the famous sequoia — to that reviewer, notorious not for being a national park but notorious for not being in Colorado, where the scene is set. That is, the issue is not irony/hypocrisy but cheap/gimmicks. KaturianKaturian (your user name is Prebys), this talk page ought not descend into a "small government = ugly" riff, as most reviews with reader input have become. There are plenty of examples of government mismanagement of land too. Spike-from-NH (talk) 01:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"If the question is what moved Aglialoro to finish the series, I expect he will be asked that, and we can simply report his answer." FWIW, I agree with the views here. Report the costs and revenues of this and previous installments and if Aglialoro says something interesting report that as well. Keep it factual. Aglialoro might not provide a candid quote though, as I understand he harbors hopes of a TV miniseries. Incidentally, I could have called it a "Labor of Love" rather than "Vanity", but of course both are somewhat loaded, though the latter is a commonly understood expression. FWIW, I still wonder about this film's financing. Measure for Measure (talk) 22:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This was Aglialoro's life's ambition. He bought the rights in 1992 and has been trying ever since to get it made. So whatever he said about giving up if the first lost money, it's not surprising that he decided to see it through in any way he could. As for the financing, there are lots of really rich people who literally worship Ayn Rand, and could have lavishly funded this out of pocket change, so I was personally surprised he wasn't able to raise more. I guess the answer is that they didn't become rich backing things like this movie. But back to the article, I think getting into the head of the producer is not a typical part of a movie's article, so I don't see any reason it should be here.KaturianKaturian 12:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Universally panned

[edit]

Wikipedian SoBanal,SoBanal was correct yesterday to change this phrase to "widely panned." Universally is not just POV, it is not true. But several reviewers reviewed the movie from the standpoint of their own ideology (as did John Tamny, quoted in the article on Part II). Fans of objectivism exulted in a film rendition of their own beliefs, while opponents of objectivism tried to play the low-cost film or its poor commercial reception as the film's own ironic disproof.

I take it from reading all of the reviews (though Wikipedia now has more external references than when I did so) that the film is woefully low-budget, it shows in many places, such as relying on simulated broadcasts to cover the events in which the moviegoer would be most interested, not letting the forces of government speak in their own defense but having them be ineloquent straw men to be knocked down, and preaching to the choir with a heavy hand, as when Galt is arrayed in the crucifixion position by the forces of government for torture. A lot of this is faithful to the source; one reviewer said there was no characterization, as all the characters are simply different facets of Rand's ideology, but I think this was exactly her method; for instance, the union boss is a "looter" who understands and accepts that he is a looter. Spike-from-NH (talk) 00:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Atlas Shrugged Part III: Who Is John Galt?. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Atlas_Shrugged_Part_III:_Who_Is_John_Galt%3F&oldid=1205466902"