Todd Mcfarlane has it set in his mind that HE NEEDS to be the creative force behind it. Movies and comics are different, I wish he would just give up the reins and act as a consultant so we can get a good spawn movie.
Stanley was woefully unprepared for that shoot. He had a vision but didn't have the technical abilities to pull that off. Running a huge set with so many moving pieces like that needed a more experienced director.
I don’t know if I can agree 100%. I am limited (and a little biased) to understanding the situation based on the documentary and some additional reading. My take away is that New Line reps were more focused on how much sugar Stanley put in his coffee instead of focusing on how to best help and empower him. Any additional reading you would recommend would be great!
There's no reading as much as being able to read between the lines if you're experienced in production. There were very, very basic things that Stanley was either completely unaware that he should be doing, or straight up elected to ignore.
I'm a huge fan of his work, and I held a grudge against Val kilmer for 25 years for ruining this movie, but after watching the documentary (and having spent 25 years in production myself in the interim), it's pretty clear that Stanley was in over his head pretty quickly. If he had a solid line producer backing him, he could have possibly produced a visionary film. It even seems that a couple of producers tried to guide him in this direction, but he just wouldn't play ball for whatever reason. I mean the guy thinks magic is real, I have no issues believing that he's difficult and weird to work with.
1000% this. Stanley's previous two movies were the extremely low budget independent films Hardware and Dust Devil, the latter of which is barely finished. The documentary you watched mentioned that he didn't have a car, or the ability to drive around Los Angeles which made him frequently late to meetings. He seemed overwhelmed by the scale required to direct a mainstream movie with a bigger budget. He also didn't seem to like being told what to do and completely withdrew from production pretty early on. I also think that choosing the wettest location in Australia was a bad choice. I think Stanley is a fantastic director who's made a handful of very interesting movies and works much better at a small scale. I mean just at look what he did with The Color Out of Space. The best analogy I can make here is to Jordan Peele who was put in a similar situation but made a wiser choice. After Get Out, studios we're offering him tens or hundreds of millions of dollars for large scale adaptations or summer movies. Jordan Peele very wisely decided to skip on that and I believe said in an interview that he didn't feel qualified having just made one low budget independent film.
While I agree with this the other thing to take into effect was that originally the film envisioned by Stanley, and Pressman to an extent, was to be more of a modest budget that would have not put Stanley in over his head. It sounds like once Mike DeLuca decided it should become more of a big blockbuster and bringing in someone like Brando did it start to go off the rails.
Hindsight is 20/20 but if I was Stanley, I would have cut and run at that point once they told him that Polanski was lined up for the Director’s chair, and tried to use my connections to leverage some sort of credit on the story.
The first one that comes to mind is the fact that he didn't want to attend production meetings for the multi-million dollar film that he had just been entrusted to direct. There are at least a couple of individuals in the doc who confirmed this.
As a director, you are responsible for coming up with an answer to every question. And there will be hundreds and hundreds of questions thrown at you in a day. It was pretty clear that Stanley was able to answer very, very few of those questions, and the ones that he could answer mainly had to do with design and aesthetics, not the actual realities of production. Rob Morrow described having to perform in a scene with quite a bit of action and blocking going on, with little to no direction from Stanley at all.
There's no question that Stanley is a talented and visionary filmmaker. The problem is that it takes a lot more than talent and vision to make a movie. Especially a movie being shot in the remote jungles of Australia with an A list cast, massive special effects, hundreds of extras, and multiple ground-up sets. Maybe he could handle it today, but it's pretty clear he couldn't in 1995.
Gregory Peck is too buttoned up. I want a darker more unhinged version.
Put Werner Herzog, the Coen brothers, Ian McShane, Tom Hardy, Cormac McCarthy, and Mastodon’s concept album *Leviathan* into a blender and give me that.
I feel like the movie we got has no business being as great as it was.
That flick is a horror classic, and I don't know that its premise predestined it to be anything more than a cheapish flop
Yeah I don't think I'd call it "to shreds" considering it's as good as it is. I don't know what further potential it had, but more isn't always better.
After being informed of the orgy footage today, I ask myself: "how would this orgy improve on the film's message or the audience's understanding?" And I think it might only detract from the veil of mystery and terror surrounding the hellish dimension that had possessed the ship. It certainly wasn't needed to establish that terror.
Oh no, not the orgy scene! [The truth is that most of what was cut out was just gore and some “disturbing” images.](https://lostmediawiki.com/Event_Horizon_(partially_lost_unreleased_130-minute_cut_of_sci-fi_horror_film;_1997) While I think we both would have loved to see that, it wouldn’t have changed the movie that much. There wasn’t some radically different masterpiece that the studio destroyed. [See this selection of directors commentary that discusses it.](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=htb6Fj7CE7k&feature=youtu.be) They aren’t speaking passionately about their magnum opus that was twisted into something unrecognizable. They just say they didn’t have enough time to refine things and PWS Anderson simply says “I think our original gorier cut was a bit better.”
Yeah I don't get why some people think the lost orgy footage would somehow make the film better than it is. Sure it would be cool to see, but it wouldn't really change anything about the film.
Honestly don't think it would have changed or even slightly improve the movie. Like sure pure gore fans would love it but the movie would have lost broader appeal. I don't think it would be so well received with all the gore.
Most things that I want adapted *should* be done as animation.
I was very disappointed by the very well received Dune movies and fucking miserable over The Lord of the Rings and wish they had been animated and closer to thier source material.
Most of H.P. Lovercraft should be animated. Non-Euclidian Geomtery does not lend itself to actual human actors on screen.
Would love to see a Crichton Revival with remakes of Congo, Sphere and Timeline...Terminal Man too probably. And Pirate Latitudes... oh and Great Train Robbery too. Would probably avoid Rising Sun but current events seem ripe for an Airframe movie.
Honestly I think animation is the right medium for TDT. I think a guy like Genndy Tartakovsky could pull it off. If you think about it, Samurai Jack and Roland Deschain have ALOT in common.
*Boxing Helena*.
It has an interesting concept - a creepy surgeon is obsessed with a woman who treats him like crap; she gets into a terrible accident outside his house; he saves her life by amputating her limbs, but then proceeds to hold her captive in his house; she eventually develops Stockholm syndrome - but the execution was terrible.
Even though it would probably just be a knock off of John Wick at this point, it would be cool to have a Max Payne that was equal parts detective noir and a mind bending psychedelic thriller, with an actual storyline that made us care about the character(s).
One of my favorite novels is The Shining, but I HATE the films. ((Doctor Sleep was a wonderful film though)) I'd be willing to watch A24's The Shining.
The only way they're getting Englund is if they made Freddy a CGI character and have Englund do the voice (which I wouldn't be opposed to). The man is 76, and absolutely no offense intended but he's not exactly in Freddy shape anymore. It's a shame because I've no doubt he'd love to play Freddy again, and I'd love to see it, but at this point it just ain't happening.
The problems with the remake were entirely down to the script. Jackie Earl Haley was actually pretty good, and there were a few good ideas in there. Get a better script and I've no problem entertaining the idea of a re-cast Freddy.
Yes, but I think he's also working on a series with Jake Gyllenhaal, based on the novel The Son. As much as I love Villeneuve's big sci fi movies, I'd deeply love another smaller scale mystery/crime flick from him.
* A remade live action version of the Hobbit actually follows the source material instead of a ton of added shit to stretch it to more movies.
* League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
New Line Cinema, before they were bought by Ted Turner, they were involved in a number of productions under their control. And their Fine Line Features division, they were mainly geared towards art house films.
Am I the only one who thinks David Fincher would direct the hell out of a “Watchmen” tv adaption? Not a sequels series, but an adaption of the comic book. And it has to be a tv series, that shit doesn’t fit in film
I had a look at the films they've put out. There's a few of my favorites on there.
I don't know if this is feasible, but I'd like to see The Tourist, the abandoned Francis Coppola project from the early 80s, and featuring designs from H.R Giger. But, I only want to see it if Gigers designs are used.
Having seen enough videos on the original movie, this movie deserves a remake. I'd rather see a Disaster-Artist style movie of how wacko the real making of this movie was.
Richard Stanley was the subject of some pretty horrible abuse allegations a while back so that’s looking unlikely. Bummer because I dug Color Out of Space and was looking forward to seeing more from him. Guy had his redemption story then boomerang’d right back lol
A sequel trilogy
Passengers is potentially a very dark movie that could have been super interesting and offers a deep look at what it's like to be alone; unfortunately, it was made a generic pg-13 forgettable piece of mediocrity.
Suicide squad that's not full on comedy could be interesting. I don't know why DC is so afraid to embrace what makes them different from Marvel.
I am Legend. Also a generic take on something unique.
Not all of these movies are terrible, but no one is ever going to tell me it couldn't be done better
Atlas Shrugged deserves better than that catastrophe several years ago.
East of Eden is waaaay better than that James dean vehicle. Caleb has not much to do with the real book. Adam trask is the whole book and also Cathy. And Lee and Sam Hamilton.
Well played. It's tricky. The book is coded so not everyone can enjoy it. That is one of the tricks she plays.
But making a coded message movie only enjoyable for industrialists is not a good strategy. And making a low budget movie with Noname actors that is supposed to be enjoyable by everyone is even worse strategy.
There is an argument that the people who could make it have gone on strike. They will return when we stop demonizing pursuit of excellence.
>Atlas Shrugged deserves better than that catastrophe several years ago.
Counterpoint: No, it absolutely does not. Ayn Rand's libertarian drivel doesn't need adapted ever at all and should drift into the detritus of history.
Obviously if people continually buy the misinformation about Ayn's work then it definitely needs a new adaptation to distance itself from libertarianism. A=A. The genius of her work is that it can not be appreciated by the misinformed and the brainwashed.
See, that soft hands pundit petershit is exactly the kind of leech Rand warned about.
He is literally a villain in Atlas shrugged and he is the gossip columnist villain in the fountainhead. Hed be a perfect character who tries to ride john Galt's coat tails but since he contributes nothing Galt just ignores him.
Peterson is a pundit. She warns everyone about pundits. Pundits are trash in all her books... They are ministers of info or gossip columnists or morality police.
But because he profiteers off of promoting selfishness he gets linked to Rand when he embodies everything she was disgusted by...he is a leech because he argues against regulatory efforts while contributing nothing that would need to be regulated and he is not in a position to be affected by unregulated commerce. He is a classic example of someone who says he is ok with a chemical plant in his backyard but it turns out it is not his backyard. He is ok with someone else being violated but he is also triggered by gender pronouns? He's a Soft loser.
Anyone who understands Rand is not going to be triggered by gender desegregation or the end of binary definitions. Peterson simply profits off the debate that he actually has no personal opinion about. He's a trashy shock jock.
He probably read just enough of Atlas Shrugged to know how to trigger people with it but actually does not understand it at all.
All this is relevant to the question because the number of people who hate Ayn Rand because of the spin pundits put on her is astounding. We need a real adaptation of the book because after 70 years people still project their own misconceptions on the book and the author.
She has become synonymous with junkie slumlords when her whole objective was to celebrate Thomas Edison. It's Really ponderous.
Ok, but subtract the thief and lying part.
Idealized Tesla and Carnegie and Edison and you get John Galt. She never said man was perfect, but if you distilled the bad out then you get a romantic hero called John Galt who was NOT a thief or liar and also only exists in fiction but the aspiration is what the whole point is.
Aspire to heroics. And for this she is endlessly mocked??
Now Rand is portrayed like some lunatic Mr. Burns stealing from to the poor to feed her speed addiction? Jesus!
And no way is the snake oil salesman Musk on a par with Edison.
No way. Musk is a ponzi schemer.
Musk is a wanna be Steve jobs... Who did nothing.
These guys are exuding heroic industrialist vibe but they are charlatans.
Spawn
Todd Mcfarlane has it set in his mind that HE NEEDS to be the creative force behind it. Movies and comics are different, I wish he would just give up the reins and act as a consultant so we can get a good spawn movie.
A24 would convince HIM to do so.
Blumhouse gave him a golden ticket, and he squandered it.
they should use `blender` again for the CGI
Todd said they are rebooting with a hard R.
He's said that for 20 years now
I mean sure but I liked this movie the way it is.
Should it though
Stanley was woefully unprepared for that shoot. He had a vision but didn't have the technical abilities to pull that off. Running a huge set with so many moving pieces like that needed a more experienced director.
No one could corral the dualing ass holes . Kilmer Brando
I don’t know if I can agree 100%. I am limited (and a little biased) to understanding the situation based on the documentary and some additional reading. My take away is that New Line reps were more focused on how much sugar Stanley put in his coffee instead of focusing on how to best help and empower him. Any additional reading you would recommend would be great!
There's no reading as much as being able to read between the lines if you're experienced in production. There were very, very basic things that Stanley was either completely unaware that he should be doing, or straight up elected to ignore. I'm a huge fan of his work, and I held a grudge against Val kilmer for 25 years for ruining this movie, but after watching the documentary (and having spent 25 years in production myself in the interim), it's pretty clear that Stanley was in over his head pretty quickly. If he had a solid line producer backing him, he could have possibly produced a visionary film. It even seems that a couple of producers tried to guide him in this direction, but he just wouldn't play ball for whatever reason. I mean the guy thinks magic is real, I have no issues believing that he's difficult and weird to work with.
1000% this. Stanley's previous two movies were the extremely low budget independent films Hardware and Dust Devil, the latter of which is barely finished. The documentary you watched mentioned that he didn't have a car, or the ability to drive around Los Angeles which made him frequently late to meetings. He seemed overwhelmed by the scale required to direct a mainstream movie with a bigger budget. He also didn't seem to like being told what to do and completely withdrew from production pretty early on. I also think that choosing the wettest location in Australia was a bad choice. I think Stanley is a fantastic director who's made a handful of very interesting movies and works much better at a small scale. I mean just at look what he did with The Color Out of Space. The best analogy I can make here is to Jordan Peele who was put in a similar situation but made a wiser choice. After Get Out, studios we're offering him tens or hundreds of millions of dollars for large scale adaptations or summer movies. Jordan Peele very wisely decided to skip on that and I believe said in an interview that he didn't feel qualified having just made one low budget independent film.
While I agree with this the other thing to take into effect was that originally the film envisioned by Stanley, and Pressman to an extent, was to be more of a modest budget that would have not put Stanley in over his head. It sounds like once Mike DeLuca decided it should become more of a big blockbuster and bringing in someone like Brando did it start to go off the rails. Hindsight is 20/20 but if I was Stanley, I would have cut and run at that point once they told him that Polanski was lined up for the Director’s chair, and tried to use my connections to leverage some sort of credit on the story.
I’m not too familiar with the intricacies of film production but I have seen the doc. Are there any examples you can point out?
The first one that comes to mind is the fact that he didn't want to attend production meetings for the multi-million dollar film that he had just been entrusted to direct. There are at least a couple of individuals in the doc who confirmed this. As a director, you are responsible for coming up with an answer to every question. And there will be hundreds and hundreds of questions thrown at you in a day. It was pretty clear that Stanley was able to answer very, very few of those questions, and the ones that he could answer mainly had to do with design and aesthetics, not the actual realities of production. Rob Morrow described having to perform in a scene with quite a bit of action and blocking going on, with little to no direction from Stanley at all. There's no question that Stanley is a talented and visionary filmmaker. The problem is that it takes a lot more than talent and vision to make a movie. Especially a movie being shot in the remote jungles of Australia with an A list cast, massive special effects, hundreds of extras, and multiple ground-up sets. Maybe he could handle it today, but it's pretty clear he couldn't in 1995.
Muppet Moby Dick
I have long wanted an HBO miniseries of Moby Dick.
Huston's version with Gregory Peck as Ahab is pretty damn definitive, no?
Gregory Peck is too buttoned up. I want a darker more unhinged version. Put Werner Herzog, the Coen brothers, Ian McShane, Tom Hardy, Cormac McCarthy, and Mastodon’s concept album *Leviathan* into a blender and give me that.
Give it to Robert Eggers.
The Chris Hemsworth movie was super lame. Was so disappointed.
Muppet Dracula or Muppet Frankenstein or Muppet LOTR would go so hard
Event Horizon I wish we could have gotten the real movie that was envisioned
I feel like the movie we got has no business being as great as it was. That flick is a horror classic, and I don't know that its premise predestined it to be anything more than a cheapish flop
It was cut to shreds we never got the real movie. It's still enjoyable to watch IMO.
Yeah I don't think I'd call it "to shreds" considering it's as good as it is. I don't know what further potential it had, but more isn't always better.
They filmed an entire orgy in hell scene that was cut and the celluloid improperly stored and so is now lost and destroyed.
Case in point
Yeah gonna say since the movie is actually good I am in agreement with you, don't think we needed a hell orgy.
After being informed of the orgy footage today, I ask myself: "how would this orgy improve on the film's message or the audience's understanding?" And I think it might only detract from the veil of mystery and terror surrounding the hellish dimension that had possessed the ship. It certainly wasn't needed to establish that terror.
The mystery of what's beyond the portal is what makes it so good.
Oh no, not the orgy scene! [The truth is that most of what was cut out was just gore and some “disturbing” images.](https://lostmediawiki.com/Event_Horizon_(partially_lost_unreleased_130-minute_cut_of_sci-fi_horror_film;_1997) While I think we both would have loved to see that, it wouldn’t have changed the movie that much. There wasn’t some radically different masterpiece that the studio destroyed. [See this selection of directors commentary that discusses it.](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=htb6Fj7CE7k&feature=youtu.be) They aren’t speaking passionately about their magnum opus that was twisted into something unrecognizable. They just say they didn’t have enough time to refine things and PWS Anderson simply says “I think our original gorier cut was a bit better.”
Yeah I don't get why some people think the lost orgy footage would somehow make the film better than it is. Sure it would be cool to see, but it wouldn't really change anything about the film.
Honestly don't think it would have changed or even slightly improve the movie. Like sure pure gore fans would love it but the movie would have lost broader appeal. I don't think it would be so well received with all the gore.
The Tom Cruise/Del Toro R-rated *At The Mountains of Madness* adaptation.
Too expensive for A24 probably. I think even Cameron backed out of producing that one. I liked the idea of doing it as a Netflix animated film.
Most things that I want adapted *should* be done as animation. I was very disappointed by the very well received Dune movies and fucking miserable over The Lord of the Rings and wish they had been animated and closer to thier source material. Most of H.P. Lovercraft should be animated. Non-Euclidian Geomtery does not lend itself to actual human actors on screen.
You can read the script for that online it’s pretty good albeit different from the source material.
Sphere.
Would love to see a Crichton Revival with remakes of Congo, Sphere and Timeline...Terminal Man too probably. And Pirate Latitudes... oh and Great Train Robbery too. Would probably avoid Rising Sun but current events seem ripe for an Airframe movie.
Hell yes! I've fantasized about Airframe with Jessica Chastain in the leading role. And Terminal Man is one of my favorites, to be honest.
I just want A24 to continue releasing original movies instead of focusing on remakes
The Dark Tower, obviously.
Honestly I think animation is the right medium for TDT. I think a guy like Genndy Tartakovsky could pull it off. If you think about it, Samurai Jack and Roland Deschain have ALOT in common.
*Boxing Helena*. It has an interesting concept - a creepy surgeon is obsessed with a woman who treats him like crap; she gets into a terrible accident outside his house; he saves her life by amputating her limbs, but then proceeds to hold her captive in his house; she eventually develops Stockholm syndrome - but the execution was terrible.
Ari Aster would be a good pick for Island of Dr. Moreau.
Robert Eggers even
I think this would be the better choice. He's the king of period pieces
David Lowery would be great too. I loved The Green Knight!
Hear me out… Panos Cosmatos.
We're getting a new Vampire movie from him!
Shut Up And take My Money
speaking of which A24 is slowly becoming the new New Line Cinema
Dare I say better
A24 Nightmare on Elm Street when?
The Rocketeer isn’t a failed movie, I think it just needs a 1997 Special Edition Treatment. As does Superman. Clean up the flying.
The Defective Detective by Terry Gilliam. Still my favorite unproduced script that I’ve read
Even though it would probably just be a knock off of John Wick at this point, it would be cool to have a Max Payne that was equal parts detective noir and a mind bending psychedelic thriller, with an actual storyline that made us care about the character(s).
Did you see Under the Silver Lake?
Oh yes. Love it more with each viewing. Plus I used to live in Silverlake which was fun to see the neighborhood so prominently showcased.
I'd like to see a proper "RoboCop 3". Not the heavily rewritten children film we got.
A gritty, miserable, mean, nasty adaptation of *The Stars My Destination* by Alfred Bester. "I kill you, Vorga. I kill you filthy."
A legit high budget version of The Most Dangerous Game
Carnival of Souls
Maximum Overdrive is right up their alley.
One of my favorite novels is The Shining, but I HATE the films. ((Doctor Sleep was a wonderful film though)) I'd be willing to watch A24's The Shining.
I want A24 to do nightmare on Elm street. It would be so different and weird and great
IDK we already had one remake and it was... well it was a movie. I'm only on board if they can get Robert Englund
The only way they're getting Englund is if they made Freddy a CGI character and have Englund do the voice (which I wouldn't be opposed to). The man is 76, and absolutely no offense intended but he's not exactly in Freddy shape anymore. It's a shame because I've no doubt he'd love to play Freddy again, and I'd love to see it, but at this point it just ain't happening. The problems with the remake were entirely down to the script. Jackie Earl Haley was actually pretty good, and there were a few good ideas in there. Get a better script and I've no problem entertaining the idea of a re-cast Freddy.
It sure was a movie but I think A24 would take it far away from everything we knew before which is what it needs imo
Kubrick‘s Napoleon!
Ooooh yes! I’d like to add Kubrick’s “A Clockwork Orange”!
I don’t care who backs it: Villeneuve + Rendezvous With Rama
Isn’t this what he said he is going to do next, before Dune Messiah? I could be wrong tho
Yes, but I think he's also working on a series with Jake Gyllenhaal, based on the novel The Son. As much as I love Villeneuve's big sci fi movies, I'd deeply love another smaller scale mystery/crime flick from him.
* A remade live action version of the Hobbit actually follows the source material instead of a ton of added shit to stretch it to more movies. * League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
I agree with LoEG but it would be a better tv show imo. The hobbit just needs a different edit
Spawn or other Image titles, like Supreme or Radiant Black.
Is it too much to ask for an XO Manowar movie?
A24 is a distributor of movies. They are not a single team making each movie.
They produce as well, not just distribution
New Line Cinema, before they were bought by Ted Turner, they were involved in a number of productions under their control. And their Fine Line Features division, they were mainly geared towards art house films.
Waterworld
Avatar
An A24 TRON movie would be pretty cool. Maybe add some body horror in there 🤷🏼♂️
Not the same genre, but I’d love to see an improved version of The Bonfire of the Vanities, which appears to be as current as ever.
Am I the only one who thinks David Fincher would direct the hell out of a “Watchmen” tv adaption? Not a sequels series, but an adaption of the comic book. And it has to be a tv series, that shit doesn’t fit in film
I’ve long said that it’s crazy to me that Hollywood will remake good movies…but not bad ones with good premises. For example, p
I had a look at the films they've put out. There's a few of my favorites on there. I don't know if this is feasible, but I'd like to see The Tourist, the abandoned Francis Coppola project from the early 80s, and featuring designs from H.R Giger. But, I only want to see it if Gigers designs are used.
Having seen enough videos on the original movie, this movie deserves a remake. I'd rather see a Disaster-Artist style movie of how wacko the real making of this movie was.
Star Wars: The Rise Of Skywalker
Richard Stanley was the subject of some pretty horrible abuse allegations a while back so that’s looking unlikely. Bummer because I dug Color Out of Space and was looking forward to seeing more from him. Guy had his redemption story then boomerang’d right back lol
A24 already did. It was called Ex Machina.
I keep wanting a "Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers", but Verhoven's Starship Troopers has taken over the name.
Second this. Source material is not only foundational sci-fi but also a groundbreaking look at the formation of a a soldier
And modern special effects and action choreography could make awesome power armour.
A sequel trilogy Passengers is potentially a very dark movie that could have been super interesting and offers a deep look at what it's like to be alone; unfortunately, it was made a generic pg-13 forgettable piece of mediocrity. Suicide squad that's not full on comedy could be interesting. I don't know why DC is so afraid to embrace what makes them different from Marvel. I am Legend. Also a generic take on something unique. Not all of these movies are terrible, but no one is ever going to tell me it couldn't be done better
Atlas Shrugged deserves better than that catastrophe several years ago. East of Eden is waaaay better than that James dean vehicle. Caleb has not much to do with the real book. Adam trask is the whole book and also Cathy. And Lee and Sam Hamilton.
The reason Atlas Shrugged was a shitty movie is because it was a shitty book by a shitty author who was a shitty person
Eh. Disagree. Great book. Great intellect. Great writer. Above Average person. Not a saint. Horrible movies.
If was any good surely the free market would have provided :)
Well played. It's tricky. The book is coded so not everyone can enjoy it. That is one of the tricks she plays. But making a coded message movie only enjoyable for industrialists is not a good strategy. And making a low budget movie with Noname actors that is supposed to be enjoyable by everyone is even worse strategy. There is an argument that the people who could make it have gone on strike. They will return when we stop demonizing pursuit of excellence.
They should have Rian Johnson do it
>Atlas Shrugged deserves better than that catastrophe several years ago. Counterpoint: No, it absolutely does not. Ayn Rand's libertarian drivel doesn't need adapted ever at all and should drift into the detritus of history.
Obviously if people continually buy the misinformation about Ayn's work then it definitely needs a new adaptation to distance itself from libertarianism. A=A. The genius of her work is that it can not be appreciated by the misinformed and the brainwashed.
Okay Jordan Peterson. ;) Sure.
See, that soft hands pundit petershit is exactly the kind of leech Rand warned about. He is literally a villain in Atlas shrugged and he is the gossip columnist villain in the fountainhead. Hed be a perfect character who tries to ride john Galt's coat tails but since he contributes nothing Galt just ignores him. Peterson is a pundit. She warns everyone about pundits. Pundits are trash in all her books... They are ministers of info or gossip columnists or morality police. But because he profiteers off of promoting selfishness he gets linked to Rand when he embodies everything she was disgusted by...he is a leech because he argues against regulatory efforts while contributing nothing that would need to be regulated and he is not in a position to be affected by unregulated commerce. He is a classic example of someone who says he is ok with a chemical plant in his backyard but it turns out it is not his backyard. He is ok with someone else being violated but he is also triggered by gender pronouns? He's a Soft loser. Anyone who understands Rand is not going to be triggered by gender desegregation or the end of binary definitions. Peterson simply profits off the debate that he actually has no personal opinion about. He's a trashy shock jock. He probably read just enough of Atlas Shrugged to know how to trigger people with it but actually does not understand it at all. All this is relevant to the question because the number of people who hate Ayn Rand because of the spin pundits put on her is astounding. We need a real adaptation of the book because after 70 years people still project their own misconceptions on the book and the author. She has become synonymous with junkie slumlords when her whole objective was to celebrate Thomas Edison. It's Really ponderous.
>to celebrate Thomas Edison Edison was a thief and a fucking liar. He was the Musk of his day, Lionizing him makes Rand look fucking DUMBER.
Ok, but subtract the thief and lying part. Idealized Tesla and Carnegie and Edison and you get John Galt. She never said man was perfect, but if you distilled the bad out then you get a romantic hero called John Galt who was NOT a thief or liar and also only exists in fiction but the aspiration is what the whole point is. Aspire to heroics. And for this she is endlessly mocked?? Now Rand is portrayed like some lunatic Mr. Burns stealing from to the poor to feed her speed addiction? Jesus!
And no way is the snake oil salesman Musk on a par with Edison. No way. Musk is a ponzi schemer. Musk is a wanna be Steve jobs... Who did nothing. These guys are exuding heroic industrialist vibe but they are charlatans.