Talk:Atlas Shrugged: Part I

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

Missing leader box url[edit]

The link for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Johansson is missing on the front page! I don't see how to add that. ---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kissedsmiley (talk • contribs) 02:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citations for use[edit]

  • Pamela McClintock (2006-04-26). "Lionsgate shrugging". Variety. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • Pamela McClintock (2006-09-21). "Jolie shoulders 'Atlas'". Variety. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • Kimberly Brown (2007-01-11). "The challenge of distilling Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged"". International Herald Tribune. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Enjoy. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interview[edit]

Not sure if this has been included yet but figured I'd post this link - John Aglialoro on the Atlas Shrugged Movie Morphh (talk) 21:03, 06 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's a great addition. скоморохъ 22:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More progress on the film[edit]

Perelman told us that he's finished with the script and just doing a polish on his rewrites but that Lionsgate has told him they want to move forward and start preparing the film in the fall to shoot in December, dependent on the script being in the right place by then. [1]

Sounds like it's going pretty well thus far. -- Stormwatch (talk) 03:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And a recent interview with the director here. -- Stormwatch (talk) 08:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perelman off Atlas project[edit]

Heres the cite for that info: http://www.cinematical.com/2008/06/19/breaking-news-vadim-perelman-shrugs-off-atlas-/

The author of the article, Kim Voynar reports this with Perelman himself as source. Sorry I don't have time to update this article right now -- also the Ayn Rand article still has Perelman on the project as I write this.—Blanchette (talk) 04:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia[edit]

This content was in the Atlas Shrugged (The Film) page. I've preserved it here for potential future use:

"Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand’s fourth and final novel, is said to be the second-most influential book ever published, trailing only the Bible." – NBC-San Diego 06/21/2010

Sales of Atlas Shrugged have reportedly increased dramatically since the US financial crisis began in September 2008." – SCIFI WIRE 07/22/2009

From 1972 to 1999, Albert S. Ruddy, the producer of The Godfather, tried unsuccessfully to bring Atlas Shrugged to film and then television. – NEW YORK TIMES 01/14/2007

Actresses who sought or were sought for the role of Dagny Taggart in the past have included Barbara Stanwyck, Faye Dunaway, Raquel Welch, Farrah Fawcett, Sharon Stone, Julia Roberts, Charlize Theron, Anne Hathaway, and Angelina Jolie.

The original title of Atlas Shrugged was The Strike.

"The Award-winning 2007 dystopian video game BioShock was heavily influenced by Atlas Shrugged, with the in-game location Rapture being a version of Galt’s Gulch, a character named Atlas, and then name of another character, Andrew Ryan, being a play on Ayn Rand’s name."

"Sales of the 1957 philosophy novel, written by the late Ayn Rand, enjoyed a major resurgence over an 18-month period that coincided with pivotal economic moments. Such is the modern-day fascination, according to The Economist, that the book's sales rank on Amazon climbed more than 500 places in the book charts over a two-year period, eclipsing such rival tomes as Barack Obama's The Audacity of Hope. The report said: "The first jump, in September 2007, followed dramatic interest-rate cuts by central banks, and the Bank of England's bail-out of Northern Rock. "The October 2007 rise happened two days after the Bush Administration announced an initiative to coax banks to assist subprime borrowers. "A year later, sales of the book rose after America's Treasury said that it would use a big chunk of the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program to buy stakes in nine large banks." The publication said that Mr. Obama's stimulus plan gave the book another sales boost in January." – TELEGRAPH Mark Coleman 03/2009

Skomorokh 12:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opening[edit]

This page was tagged with needing an expanded introduction so I pulled the first paragraph off of the book's page and put it in the header. If there are no objections from other editors I will remove the expansion tag in a couple days Noformation (talk) 23:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reception[edit]

I'm curious to understand how a review in Slate is "inherently promotional". The material added by the IP was somewhat one-sided and a bit heavy on the block quoting, but the solution to that is to add more reviews and trim the quotes, not to delete the section entirely. --RL0919 (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Including movie reviews from legitimate third party sources are par for the course for Wiki pages about movies. We should just add a more balance range of reviews. BobbieCharlton (talk) 01:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There *are* no independent reviews; the only "reviews" available are those from people invited to a closed screening of the film by the film's producers to a select audience of like-minded people. The "review" material I've been removing is quoting:
  • a libertarian political commentator
  • a Federal judge not exactly known for his movie reviews
  • a one-time friend of Ayn Rand's who also makes at least some money from the biography of Rand that she wrote
it's the "reviews from very select folks that we can reasonably expect to not be brutally honest if it's bad" that makes it promotional. If they had invited a spectrum of political commentators, then we could write a balanced reception section using whatever got written, but the producers cherry-picked their audience, so there's no way to balance. And cherry-picking your audience is called... .... drumroll.... WP:PROMOTION... Studerby (talk) 03:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One major problem with this line of argument is that if you follow the links the IP used to get the positive reviews, you will see that there there are in fact negative reviews that could be added. One called it "incomprehensible gibberish". Another says "there's zero sense of character, dialogue or pacing." If the producer tried to cherry pick for only positive reviews, he failed. --RL0919 (talk) 15:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, Roger Ebert has just released a review of the film. --MrMontag (talk) 02:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That edit war is stupid. The bottom line is that the appropriate and usual practice is to throw out some bits from popular critics and/or the component scores from an aggregator site like RT or metacritic. Checkout Dogma; Spaceballs; Knowing; Inkheart; The Aristocrats; Heavyweights; Grumpier Old Men; Stargate; Hoop Dreams; That's how it will go in this article. It's not going to be different or one-sided because an editor loves or hates it. If the reception is mixed, then the article needs to reflect that. -Digiphi (Talk) 08:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, user-generated internet polls are simply not reliable, full stop. See Wikipedia:MOSFILM#Reception for the guideline. Regards, Skomorokh 11:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As Skomorokh points out, WP policy is clear; the Rotten Tomatoes "Freshness" figure can stay, but the user figure has to go, and I have been right to repeatedly remove it. Unfortunately, I can't remove it again without violating WP:3RR, so perhaps someone else will do it. Goodwinsands (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. On that precious note, the Ebert bit is out of place, as we recognize its lack of authority and relevance. User polls are inappropriate and don't need to be debated in the article, as per policy (I now know). I now have a new project of setting to rights the above-listed articles. -Digiphi (Talk) 21:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as to the New Shenanigans brewing about Roger Ebert's 'tweet'. On the topic of notability, it's like this: Roger Ebert is a notable movie critic; his musings, thoughts on life, favorite jokes, and suspicions of impropriety are not for inclusion, unless in the text of something directly related to the article topic. The material of this 'tweet' is irrelevant. Goodwinsands, you've a record of insisting on the inclusion of off-topic, indirectly related material in several Rand-y articles. [2], [3], [4], [5]. There's an "WP:" essay about relevance that's a good guide for these things. -Digiphi (Talk) 22:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Digiphi that Ebert's community rating commentary doesn't belong in the article. There's nothing unique or interesting about such ballot stuffing; that's part of why WP policy excludes such popular ratings. (And just because a Time blog publishes something doesn't make it notable - more tellingly, does it stand the test of time?) Rostz (talk) 01:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually no evidence of ballot stuffing at all. Ebert claims that the ratings were in place before the movie's release. In reality, there were no ratings on April 14th, the day before the movie's release, or even on April 15th, the date of the movie's release proper. On April 16, the day after the movie's release, it had a 3/4 rating from users of Ebert's site. That doesn't equal ballot stuffing, that just means that people saw the movie, liked it, and voted on it. Ebert seems to have a problem with people disagreeing with him about this film, as he later tweeted about audiences generally liking the movie despite that he said that no one would enjoy it in his review. In any case, there's no relevance to Internet ratings. Audience reception should be covered by reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.145.56 (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't care about what some film critic thinks of some online poll – this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, let's stick to the real story. Skomorokh 12:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah! And Ebert is obviously a moocher, one of the non-absolutist liberals Ayn Rand dedicated her whole life to fighting. He even had the balls to "criticize" her philosophy in the review. Vincent (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC) (P.S.Bazinga! - Vincent[reply]
I've never contributed to a movie related article before and I don't intend to contribute to this one due to the emotive nature (thanks for your... whatever Vincent), but do the views of audiences count when we consider a movie's reception? They are the target market after all. As TV Tropes has already pointed out the reviews from professional critics are universally negative, and probably will continue to be as more are released, but the viewing audiences are much more enthusiastic about it. --Simpsons contributor (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
20 or so reviews is not "universal". If you'll notice, more favorable reviews are coming in, and should continue to appear as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.145.56 (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Simpson. Audience feelings are indeed interesting BUT, it's a matter of policy (as I've recently learned). There is explicitly no room in movie articles for user polls or excerpts of reviews written by users, that is: non-pros, laypersons. -Digiphi (Talk) 00:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason why a racist (white nationalist) magazine should be cited as a source of film criticism. Not reliable at all, adds nothing to the article. What was the inclusion supposed to prove, that both the far-left and far-right viewers hated the movie?

Occidental Observer is a biased source, but it is an influential cultural magazine of the white nationalist movement. It is edited by a notable academic (biased academic, but still academic) Kevin B. MacDonald, on whom we have a large article. There are other influential people who contribute to OO. Since Atlas Shrugged is a film with a strong political message, sources from different political camps are necessary to reflect what different political groups think of this movie. OO is a notable white nationalist media. The source is properly attributed, and is used to illustrate how this movie was received by the white nationalist intelligentsia. There is no reason to remove it. --GalupK (talk) 09:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that's incorrect per two policies: WP:UNDUE and MOS:FILM, which states "Reliable sources should be used to determine how the film was received. For films, sources that are regarded as reliable are professional film critics, though notable persons or experts connected to the topics covered by the film may also be cited." Note that neither the particular publication nor its editor are factors, and there's no evidence that the OO reviewer fits either of these qualifications (and he's certainly non-notable.)
When the dust settles, other reviewers will need to be cut as well. There's an WP:UNDUE imbalance in the preponderance of positive reviews from politically-oriented publications relative to the overwhelmingly negative film critic reviews. Rostz (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A quick note: I've started finding secondary sources commenting on the difference between how professional critics and audience members are rating the film. This makes the audience reactions notable, since they've attracted commentary from reliable sources. I understand leaving them out before this point, but once it becomes noticeable enough to generate commentary I think it's worth including. BloodmoonIvy (talk) 04:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't agree, sorry. To me, it's obvious that people who went to see the movie upon release and loved it are just big Ayn Rand fans. It like Battlefield Earth being praised by Scientologists in general. It's hardly representative of the general market out there. Even if audience reactions are sourced, I agree with previous posts saying they don't belong here. If this becomes controversial and stays so for a couple of months (e.g. if the film does well in theaters and becomes a hit in spite of being panned by critics) then a note saying something like "box office receipts undermine critical opinion" would be appropriate. Vincent (talk) 09:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But shouldn't a note on the issue be included when it's attracted commentary from sources like Time Magazine? Leaving it out doesn't make sense in the interest of balanced/complete coverage, per the manual of style. Just because it's obvious to you does not mean it would be obvious to others. At least by being sourced the NPOV concerns on the issue are negated. BloodmoonIvy (talk) 13:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:FILM#Reception policy is explicit: "Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database or Rotten Tomatoes, as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew." Rostz (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you're not supposed to post user reviews all by themselves and treat it the same as the views of professional critics. But what I've been posting here is commentary on user ratings, which is different. Commentary from credible sources falls under the "Polls of the public carried out by a reliable source in an accredited manner...may be used" part of the MOS. My argument is that every movie generates user reviews, which are themselves trivial, but if those user reviews form a pattern that a secondary source comments on, then it becomes worthy of note (as a form of polling). If the goal is to include a balanced summary of film professional reactions, then we should include what they think about the audience reviews. For this film, the pattern of data has become interesting enough for there to be commentary on it. BloodmoonIvy (talk) 00:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well stated, BloodmoonIvy. That's exactly right. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, you've been posting commentary ("Several film commentators noted the significant difference in reaction...") and user ratings ("According to Rotten Tomatoes, 85% of the general public..."). The latter is explicitly prohibited by the MOS:FILM policy quoted above, and I've removed it again; I can't make the issue any clearer, so further contention will apparently entail WP:DR. Rostz (talk) 03:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was posting the user ratings as cited by the secondary sources to point out the evidence they use in their articles to support their points. Similar to how you'd mention a fact being cited by someone who disagrees with a scientific theory. (I did not post them recently, though; that was another user - I stopped posting them when I realized it wasn't a matter of simple formatting.) I'm fine with the current form of the citation, though given the number of secondary sources commenting on the divide (I had 6 or so in my version), it does not seem to be weighted properly. I think dispute resolution would be a good idea - I'd like to have the matter of "commentary on user ratings" vs. "user ratings themselves" resolved, especially on whether it permits inclusion of those statistics if they're noted in reliable sources, since I think it'd be useful to the film MOS overall. BloodmoonIvy (talk) 03:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first step of DR is discussion on the relevant page, which is here. I might have missed it, but I don't think Rostz has addressed the distinction you're drawing between "user ratings" and "properly sourced commentary on user ratings". --Born2cycle (talk) 04:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how else to address the matter. The policy clearly prohibits the inclusion of user ratings and states the rationale; it doesn't contain an exception for illustrating commentary with statistics. (And I am not necessarily endorsing the inclusion of commentary itself, which others have removed as non-notable, but I'm not particularly interested in that dispute.) Rostz (talk) 12:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The way I read it, it bans user stats as standalone (since they're not reliable). However, the general MOS and other policies allow us to quote from reliable sources when they're cited. And the film MOS says we should present a balanced view of what professionals are saying about the film - which includes what they're saying about the user statistics. So saying that the prohibition against treating user stats the same as professional ratings also equates to never being able to use quotes containing them from reliable sources does not seem to make sense in light of Wikipedia's other guidelines. The problem clearly lies in a need for the film MOS to be clearer on this point to resolve the internal inconsistency. That's why I think bringing in DR and getting some other opinions on the matter would be useful. BloodmoonIvy (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I think we've understood the opposing policy interpretations (as to whether including specific user ratings is unnecessary/prohibited or allowable to support the already reliably-sourced statement of user/critic ratings differences), which is why I suggested DR a few days ago; WT:FILM seems to be a good place to start. Rostz (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Conservative reception"

Deriobamba and I discussed this section and the accuracy of the final sentence (the comments from Fox News) on his talk page. Spike-from-NH (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cost of Rights[edit]

This Apr 1 article in WP says it's $1.5m whereas Hollywood Reporter claims it's $1.1m. Any ideas? Or let "over $1 million" be. Last Contrarian (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources disagree on the specific amount but both agree it was over $1 million, then the vaguer statement is preferable. --RL0919 (talk) 12:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Reception section a mess[edit]

The "Critical Reception" section is just a formless heap of quotes, many from quite minor sources. It should be cut back by at least a third. Goodwinsands (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it! Vincent (talk) 11:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Part II confirmed[edit]

Part II has just been confirmed, fall 2012. [6][7] --Stormwatch (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really confirmed. The website is confirmed, but the film isn't - no announcements of shooting schedule, actors, director, etc. have been made yet. Many a film has gotten to this stage and fallen through, and I can't imagine studios exactly rushing to fund the sequel of such a notorious flop. Goodwinsands (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The movie is independently funded, so there is no reason for studios to be rushing to fund it, since they won't be. Approx. release date announced. Previous movie was shot very quickly after cast and schedule was announced.Jrclark (talk) 11:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The producers are on record saying the second film will only be made if the first film shows a profit. It is currently a very long way from showing a profit; the US release is 100% over, international box office will be minor at best, DVD take won't be enough to get it out of a deep, deep hole. Part II does not have "independent funding"; it has no funding at all, and won't unless Part I makes the profit it's clearly not on the path to making. Goodwinsands (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you read that DVD sales are expected to be weak? Who is to say that it won't be like Joss Whedon's Serenity, where the box office was weak, but then the DVDs pulled it out of the red and into the black? BobbieCharlton (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a comparatively rare occurance, though. Most theatrical flops stay DVD flops. Sure, there is the occasional exception, but the odds are pretty long. Goodwinsands (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FILM Assessment[edit]

This article was requested for assessment back in May (sorry for the delay). After reading the article and making some minor fixes, I've assessed the article as C class. To continue on to B-class, a few areas need to be improved.

  1. Expand the score section if possible, it is currently only a single sentence. Mention any reviews that comment on it or if it received any accolades.
  2. The writing section should be sourced.
  3. The Internet Movie Database is cited within the article; as this website is not accepted for citing material, a more reliable source should be provided to replace all instances.
  4. The citations should be formatted to include all available parameters such as title, author, work, date, etc. Many of the citations meet this, but a few include just the title or even url.

When the above issues are addressed the article can automatically be assessed as B class, or, if desired, please contact me on my talk page and I'll reassess the article. Good work on improving the article so far. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I finally got around to doing items 1, 3, & 4; had trouble finding reliable sources for 2, so marked the section as unreferenced (and will eventually remove it if it remains so.) Rostz (talk) 05:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done with help from Spike-from-NH - now a B-class article. Rostz (talk) 14:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Passionate" love[edit]

There is a revert war on the page, Anon insisting on the above adjective, as he says in the Change Summary that the love scene in the movie is not random or gratuitous but reflects a growing bond between the protagonists. That's worth saying, but the love scene is not especially "passionate"--in fact, it is more often described in skeptical reviews as "fully clothed" or "poorly acted." Perhaps compromise wording is in order. Spike-from-NH (talk) 10:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS--The latest version of Anon's insistent rewrite solves the "passionate" problem, and I don't mind some of the added detail, but it has one fault that is getting worse: It includes rhetoric of advocacy--as if to beat the reader over the head on the righteousness of Dagny and Rearden's efforts--something, incidentally, that the movie was also accused of doing. At the risk of being drier, a Wikipedia plot summary should inform the reader, not try to win him over. Spike-from-NH (talk) 22:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Audience ratings[edit]

Regarding the guidelines at MOS:FILM#Audience response. This is a guideline, not a rule. And the top of the page says:

This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions. Please ensure that any edits to this page reflect consensus.

It gives a link to WP:IAR, which says:

This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

WP is ruled by consensus, and the clear consensus here and at the sequel's page it to include the clearly notable fact of the wide spread between the critics and the people who went to see these films. Jonathan Hemlock (talk) 06:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


A big part of the intent of the guideline is that user votes from IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes should not be used, it is very easy to stack web polls, and there is no way of knowing if anyone voting has actually even seen the film.
The three reviews referenced that talk about audience response also point out with some amusement that audiences were giving very high praise of the film even before it was on general release and some even admitting they had not seen the film yet. It is misleading to leave that part of the story out. This goes to the very heart of the problem and is exactly why WP:MOSFILM discourages the use of such misleading polls. If anything they are a better indication of the grass roots marketing effort behind the film.
What WP:MOSFILM does recommend is that reliable sources of audience opinion such as polls by CinemaScore be included where available. I looked but didn't find any.
(The box office gross is also taken as an implied indication of audience reaction, which is why it and Critical response are grouped together under Reception.) -- 93.107.147.111 (talk) 23:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An anon ipv6 editor tried to add rotten tomatoes audience scores the article, they are still not allowed WP:UGC and WP:RS still apply.[8] -- 109.76.210.200 (talk) 04:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Atlas Shrugged: Part I. 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:

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.

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.

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

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

One archive was good; the other was bad. But I've replaced both with active links, so it's all good. --RL0919 (talk) 22:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Atlas_Shrugged:_Part_I&oldid=1199159497"