charlize theorn would be the perfect fit. jolie is just a lot of hot air.

I hope it bombs Ayn Rand Ideology is some of the most repulsive crap to come out of the twentieth century.

@Peter irving:

Yeah. Repulsive. She believed in reality vs fantasy. She believed people should be logical rather than irrational. She believed each of us owns our own life. She believed in the dignity of the individual and the power of each person to decide how best to life that life. She that only peaceful interactions are proper among other peaceful individuals.

Yeah. Repulsive. Right.

Chester Gould, the creator of the early 1940s comic strip detective Dick Tracy, already had predicted a wristwatch phone, which we may still have some day. I don't think she was trying to predict technological innovations, but instead she was trying to show the logical outcome of the philosophical ideas that were and are prevalent in the culture. Of course the main idea is that sacrifice is a moral ideal. This was one of the main ideas she attacked with her new scientific morality. Read the book before the movie comes out, everyone else is, seemingly.

Last June I sent Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton a copy of "The Most Unusual Small Town in the United States: Shangri-La, the Real Galt's Gulch and Angelina Jolie." Just before the Academy Awards, I sent a copy of this essay to Geyer Kosinski, Ms. Jolie's manager, asking him to pass it on to her (it had also been sent to Sen. Kennedy and Martin Sheen, among others). I predicted in my cover note to Mr. Kosinski that "Atlas Shrugged" will never be made—because the hopelessly ignorant Ayn Rand mentored the over self-confident dumpkoff who typifies the Nietzschean superman she extolled, the wizard of derivatives who melted capitalism. Alan Greenspan. Sure, he had cronies and cohorts. The question is, does the United States and the rest of humanity have a future? We'll know by the end of 2012.

Please let this be made!! Please, please, please! The book is my all-time favorite (really, I'm not just saying that). I personally would love to see Angelina Jolie star in it, as I think she has the perfect attitude on- and off-screen for the role (in fact, I only started liking her after reading "Atlas Shrugged" and learning that she was campaigning for the role). I wouldn't mind Anne Hathaway in the role, either. I love her very much, but I'm not 100% convinced this is the role for her; however, she may have the acting chops to pull it off. Charlize Theron may work, too. But I don't particularly want to see Julia Roberts in it. Her work as an actress has been too "safe"–I don't think she'd have the balls to do the role justice.

The movie will probably be terrible (because those who create it probably won’t understand the philosophy behind the story very well), but the movie will likely inspire many more new readers of the novel itself, and that's encouraging.

Ayn Rand's philosophy for living on earth certainly deserves this publicity.

Ok, it's been a few years since I read Ayn Rand but I seem to remember an extremely elitist thinking that bordered on fascism in it's belief in inherently superior humans who government and society need to hold ineligible to outside regulation and oversight. She always gave me the creeps.

But that's not saying this might not be an interesting movie if it was well done.

Are you kinding me, her book is about what happens when the government takes away motivation for working hard and taking risk. This is an awesome novel that will be screwed up by the Hollywood LEFT. Take a few days to read the book! None of these people can do the role of Dagney justice. I hope it never makes it to the screen.

Ayn Rand is one of the worst writers of the 20th century. Horrible pacing,purple prose and main characters that you can´t help but hate.
I´m against regulation and governments but Objectivisim is just for selfish,snobbish,man-babies that want to hate on poor people.

@eric: Eric, I'm glad you find such comfort in the philosophy of Objectivism. Whatever floats your boat. I guess you could say that David Gates is an example of someone who rose to prominence based on ability without a higher education. And since we don't operate out of Objectivism, you could further say that there is nothing stopping people like him in our present system.

But under Objectivism all those lawsuits, for instance, filed against Microsoft for unfair trade practices would have been thrown out because David Gates is a superior person and should not be regulated or subject to scrunity. Ayn Rand seemed to think that the only reason we would do so is out of a selfish destructive motivation. She had no regard for the principles of democracy or its basis that "all men are created equal."

Ayn created a philosophy out of whole cloth and then wrote stories where it triumphed. She no credentials beyond a basic bachelor's degree, either, so personally I have always thought that much of what she had to say was sheer egotism that made her out to be the model of of her own philosophy. I think she is interesting. I've read her "novels," but I also think she was full of crap. And I'm not alone.

@Peter irving: Ayn Rand is one of the greatest philosopher/writers in history.

She was a genius who foresaw the evils of socialism and understand that capitalism was the last refuge of those seeking freedom.

Critics of objectivism like to point out corrupt businessmen and hold them up as examples of failed capitalism as if Rand endorsed corruption. Laughable.

I can handle my own future and don't need some nanny state seizing my money. The premise of socialism is that we are too dumb to take care of ourselves and must be "protected" by the state. Then they take our money, run up huge deficits and come for more. Only an idiot can't see this pattern.

I think Charlize Theron would be the perfect Dagny. I think she is the best choice I have heard about so far. I did not like Angelina Jolie as Dagny.

The one problem I have is that this book is so long and complex that a 3 hour movie would not do it justice. A 3 hour movie would seem like a trailer for the book. This would work best as a mini-series.

The other problem is that Hollywood is full of socialists. They hate Rand because Rand, an immigrant from the USSR, knew what socialism and communism does to the soul of mankind. Socialists are idealists but they fail to see what is happening in reality. How socialism spreads poverty to all of the citizens while all the money and power is tied up in the government. Individual liberty is crushed because everything is about the collective. When they talk about liberty and freedom, they never mean the individual but rather the collective.

Our founders created a system of government that limited government to very few powers. The individual freedom was their greatest concern. Also at that time, Adam Smith came out with his "The Wealth of Nations" book, which had a great influence on our founding fathers. Adam Smith is the father of free market economics and capitalism. Despite Capitalisms flaws, unfettered free market capitalism, along with our Democratic Republic is by far the greatest system of governance mankind has ever had. The trouble is we lost all of that during the reign of the progressives starting in the early 20th century. It appears that Obama is the final nail in the coffin of individual liberty.

@–: So if your not in favor of Objectivism, then by default you would have to be in favor of Subjectivism? That would mean that you believe that nothing has any real identity and that nothing means anything. I can understand not being in favor of egoism or individualism but to deny Objectivism is to deny the axiom of identity. As Galt states in his speach "A is A" a thing is itself because it exists it can have only one identity. Please explain your aurgument agiast Objectivism, because I am not understanding the objection.

The attempt to define Objectivsm as the same as Individualism or Egoism is an error in classification. Here is Rand's own classification of her views.

Referencing: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/objectivism.html

"My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church. "

You can disagree with the final view having to do with laissez-faire capitalism, but that is a view having to do with a political vs a philosophy. You cannot object to the first 3 points which are epistemically true.

This movie has a good chance of becoming one of the best movies ever.

Man's individual spirit. His right to his own life.
It's story is timeless. It's also very complicated.
It's characters and the story must be true to the book.
Or else it won't make sense.

Not skipping important character relationships.

The human spirit must be free. To think, to try and to fail.
Then, to get back up and go at it again.
To learn from our mistakes & prosper from our hard work.
.
As a businessman I see the new administration as the beginning of the end for America.
Our graves are being dug as I write this.

I see most Americans as baby's enjoying a government tit put in their mouth.
Government assisted housing, welfare, unemployment, etc.

As if that's right. As if that's the normal thing. It's not.

I am more afraid of Congress, than I am a terrorist.

As for today problems look no further than Congress.

I believe that the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act was the biggest blunder Congress has ever made. And that's saying a lot.

It was repealed in 1999, the last year of the Clinton Administration. It took eight years, through the Bush Administration. to finally show it self for what it was. Banks for the first time since the depression were allowed to make risky investments (derivatives, swaps). Commercial Banks, not only Investment Banks could make risky loans. Easy credit, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, home owners refinancing and then spending the equity in their homes, plus $4/gal gas accelerated the financial crisis.

90 out of 98 senators voted to repeal it. It's shameful.
It's shameful because the senators are stupid or corrupt. Take your pick.
Modernize the banking industry. Huh. That was the thinking at the time.
Blubber, the banking industry was throwing money at every Senators re-election campaign that's how it passed.

One Senator could see what would happen if it was repealed.
He voted NOT to repeal it.

Senator Byron Dorgan (Dem-ND) predicted exactly what happened. In 1994 he said, "I think we will look back in 10 years' time and say we should not have done this."

It passed in 1999, how prophetic. A real sharp guy. I'm very proud of him.
Was he the smartest man in the world, probably not. But he knew what would happen if men were allowed to gamble with other mens money.

Look at the consequences.
———————————————————————-
This movie needs to be made.

The sooner the better.

Charlize Theron would be my pick. She could pull it off.

I agree, a miniseries would be the best way to tell the story.
This story needs to be told in depth.

A movie will have a hard time doing it justice.

Scarlett Johansson should be nominated for the role of Dagny.

Viggo Mortensen would make a perfect Galt.
Angelina and Charlize are both good choices as the character of Dagny. Both act well and both suit the role.
HG

Ok, where to start?

I need to say first, that I actually have read Atlas Shrugged. I, also, agree this would be better served as a series of films, like the Lord of the Rings. Randall Wallace did a great job with Braveheart, but not to many people will be willing to sit through a four hour movie about Railroads. However, stranger things have happened. I'd love to have Peter Jackson direct this. He did such a great job with LOR and he has a mind to look at power as being evil. He is capable of doing a multi part series and making it profitable! After all it is about the money first and the message next!

I have to agree with others here that Angelina Jolie doesn't strike me as a Dagny Taggart type, neither does Roberts. Anne Hathaway could, from what I remember Dagny was lithe and brunette with a great mind. I believe only two individuals in the list fit that characterization (not to say Jolie or Roberts do not have great minds!). Charleze and Anne. While I really do like Anne, my vote is for Charleze! The first thing to remember here is, it does not matter what the actor/actress politics are, all that matters is do you think they are good enough thespians to do the job right? After seeing some of Theron's work, i believe she is the right person to play Dagny. She has all the right traits, she's smart, she's lithe, she can be brunette and she is stunningly beautiful. Now a bit of regression, if this picture was being made 10 years ago, i'd nominate Valerie Bertinelli, have you seen this woman recently? O M G! she's 48 and looks 38. Sheesh, I really do hope she never comes to Memphis, I'd get in sooooo much trouble!

Russel Crowe as Hank Rearden would be perfect and I also agree with another post that Vigo Mortensen would be perfect as John Galt. But what about Francisco d'Anconia? or Ellis Wyatt? I have in mind for D'Anconia, Enrique Iglesias, it would be a great opportunity for him and maybe prove his acting ability. That along with making the film popular in the Latin American nations! My vote for Wyatt would be Kevin Bacon and Ragnar Danneskjöld.? Why not have Christian Bale? John Travolta would be great as Wesley Mouch! O M G! i can see the budget of this film getting grossly expensive! HAHAHAHA! Lastly I'd like to see Christian Slater play Eddie Willers. What a great cast this would be on the Liberty side!

Oh as a post script, i think Johnny Depp would be great as James Taggart!

Sigh, so many ideas so little time.

Anyway these are my suggestions for casting. I'd like to see a place for Hallie Berry, Don Chedle and others. I wish i had the cash to finance this myself. Dag Nabbit!

Darn! I left out an important part! John Galt's speech! I needs to be cut! cut! cut! A short explanation to the moochers and thugs is all that is needed. I fall asleep listening to speeches! And let us face it! a speech as part of a movie doesn't work unless the speaker is getting shot at! HAHAHA!

@John Galt: If we went back 10 to 15 years ago, the obvious choice for Francisco would have been Antonio Bandaras. But he is now older than Francisco.

I cannot think of any great hispanic actors right now that would fit that part. When I mentioned Benicio Del Toro to my wife she thought we was not handsome enough to play Francisco.

Perhaps this would be a good part for some up and coming unknown hispanic actor.

Viggo Mortensen might be a great actor and playing Galt would certainly prove him to be the greatest actor of all time. His politics identify more closely with James Taggart or any of the other looters and he is quite vocal about it.

BTW think Kevin Spacey would be a great James Taggert.

Also Randall Wallace did an excellant job with Braveheart but the movie's historical accuracy was way off. The first battle scene in Braveheart, the Battle of Stirling, was actually fought on a bridge. One of the things the Scots did was wait for the English to cross the bridge and push them into a marsh and let them drown. The English could not get up out of the marsh because of the weight of their heavy armor. I suppose in a movie that would not show up as heroic or dramatic as lining the Scots on one side of the field and the English on the other and letting them run at each other.

@Viral: I am an Ayn Rand fan and I doubt that anyone who really took the time to read Atlas Shrugged would really find it repulsive, except maybe the looters and moochers. Or perhaps you identify with them?

Anyway, I think that either Rhona Mitra or Kate Beckinsale would be perfect for Dagny Taggart. The better of the two would be Rhona Mitra. Anyone who has ever watched Boston Legal would see why.

Johnny Depp as James Taggart!!! :-) That would be interesting. Christian Slater is a bit old for Eddie Willers. John Travolta could pull of Wesley Mouch. Crowe as Rearden is good, but John Galt is a problem. Viggo??? If you are going to have these guys play Galt and Rearden, you might as well have Banderis play Francisco. Bacon could pull of BOTH Wyatt and Danneskjöld.

I think Jolene Blalock , best known as T'Pol on the Star Trek Enterprise series, would ideal as Dagny Taggert. In the Enterprise series she was the epitome of cold logic, calm rationality and efficacious action. All attributes of Dagny.

In spite of being burdened by the unemotional Vulcan shtick, which in the hands of a lesser actress would have come off as wooden, Blalock managed to convey the inner feelings of the character with hers eyes, voice and dry humor. Of course in Atlas she would actually be allowed to smile and laugh.

@Peter irving: why would you hope it bomb? what do you have against it? this hope of yours, does it spring from your fear of something? it sounds that you do know something about her ideology, so did it make you feel small? did she make you feel a certain way you did not like?

Denial.

Dagney: Jodie Foster
Hank: George Clooney
Francisco: Antonio Banderas
John Galt: Brad Pitt (the face without pain or fear or guilt)

An expensive dream team.

George Clooney???????? Wow! Talk about someone who would have to pull off the acting job of his life. Philosophically he is the polar opposite of Hank Reardon. He is a pretty face and that is about it. My concern is that he and Brad Pitt are good friends in real life. That doesn't bode well for Brad being a true believer in the objectivist message. Though I guess if Mary Matalin and James Carville can be happily married…………

Just good acting isn't going to allow this movie to hit the mark. Gary Cooper was an excellent actor but failed to deliver the objectivist message in the courtroom as Howard Roark in "The Fountainhead". He later apologized to Ayn Rand because he felt he botched it. He didn't understand objectivism until the movie was completed and by then it was too late. I would prefer a cast of "nobodies" that were willing to say with conviction, "I will live my life for no one and expect no one to live their life for me'.

@John Galt: If they had made this movie 10 years ago..and made it right… we may not have been on the present path to the Peoples Republic of America…Comrade Steve.

ALL NEW ACTORS AND ACTRESSES! That would be the only way to pull this off. The actresses here would be the antithesis of what rand was writing about, ESPECIALLY Jolie. And if any one remembers, Dagny was surprisingly beautiful, she wasn't an in your face stunner. The only people who saw her as gorgeous was those who recognized her skill. Everyone else thought she was beautiful only when she dressed for a party. Her sense of purpose is what made her irresistible to the men.

@Sarah: Sarah, That makes sense. Having seen the new Star Trek movie, I was happily surprised at the quality of the acting. Probably just me, but I didn't recognize any of the actors and they were good.
So what's the current status of this movie???????????

@Sarah: I agree. It's psychological trauma to take old stories and stick in "known" actors since they have a "history". Don't get me started about Elijah Wood in LOTR :P

If someone disagrees with "new actors" – remind them of smash hits like Star Wars, or err, any other movie where big shot actors got their "start". I'm available to play Galt when they are ready :)

@Patricia:

"But under Objectivism all those lawsuits, for instance, filed against Microsoft for unfair trade practices would have been thrown out because David Gates is a superior person and should not be regulated or subject to scrunity. Ayn Rand seemed to think that the only reason we would do so is out of a selfish destructive motivation. "

Firstly, it's important to point out that no part of objectivism or libertarianism for that matter suggests that political regulation should be nil because the entity in question is supperior to any other. In fact, the exact opposite is true. It's the objectivist view (and actually more a natural law view) that it is because men have equal rights that no individual (or group of individuals….ie: the government) has a right to force anyone to do ANYTHING unless that party has initiated force upon a second party. It is actually in the analogy suggested above in which you seem to believe a group of individuals (the government in this case) have some mysteriously god-given superiority over other parties. Unless they are directly infringing on the rights of another party, what gives them superior rights to supervise anyone else's property or business?

I'm not going to pretend to know where Ayn Rand would have stood on the issue of Microsoft lawsuits, but I'm guessing she would not have much sympathy for the special interest groups that have tried to break Microsoft down over the years. From a purely libertarian/objectivist point of view, there is no such thing as "unfair trade practices." So long as a producer does not have a true monopoly on resources and the trade is voluntary, no party has had its rights violated.

"She had no regard for the principles of democracy or its basis that “all men are created equal.”

Actually, I believe she would argue that people who didn't subscribe to her point of view were the people who didn't believe in equality….specifically equality under the law, which is the context of that phrase. In America today, we aren't treated equally under the law. One rule for one group is something different to another. Stealing is against the law, for instance. Yet it is legal for a poor person, in tandem with the government, to steal from rich persons to fortify his own needs and wants. Is this equality under the law?

Regardless of how you feel about this juxtoposition, the illusion that equality is the basis of democracy is laughable on its face. There is nothing more special about democracy that somehow lends itself to protecting equality. We could hold a vote tomorrow and take away the rights of all red-haired people to speak under a democracy. Will equality be ensured in rule by all? Or is democracy really just mob-rule? A tyrrany of the majority is no less real than that of a dictatorship.

"Ayn created a philosophy out of whole cloth and then wrote stories where it triumphed. She no credentials beyond a basic bachelor’s degree, either, so personally I have always thought that much of what she had to say was sheer egotism that made her out to be the model of of her own philosophy. I think she is interesting. I’ve read her “novels,” but I also think she was full of crap. And I’m not alone."

I can respect someone not liking her novels. They aren't for everyone. She was a firebrand philosophically….and almost anyone with some kind of fascist sympathies are bound to reject a good deal of what she has to say. But I wouldn't start hanging up everything anyone has to say on the pedigree of their education. As someone who believes so much in democracy, I'm sure you're well aware that the majority of voters don't have a college education at all. If she can write a novel the likes of Atlas Shrugged and you can disregard her simply based on her education, then how does this parallel with the value you ascribe to the political leverage of the uneducated masses? But outside of your view on her educational status, she certainly had enough intellectual clout to sit in good company with the likes of Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss her based on the merits you've described.

@Robert: Totally agree with everything you said. Didn't think of Charlize Theron but she really would be perfect; she's underestimated as an actress and is beautiful. Jolie is sometimes beautiful but a little too cold.

I loved this book; it opened up a whole new world and I thought Rand was too wordy at times but a wonderful writer. I don't see how they can condense the whole novel in one movie so why not a trilogy? Break it out in 3 ways…

@Patricia: Who is Bill Gates? – The Microsoft Guy (not David Gates)

I hope to see this movie come out, and I suppose the timing couldn't be better. With all these failed companies asking for help, and government expanding to the nth degree.

But sometimes i ask myself whether or not Atlas really existed. I don't happen to think there is a rare minority that move this world around. It's not a 1% thing, but more like a 10% thing of many people. Great singers that have no sense of responsibility, writers that have no sense of boundaries, thinkers that can't live. We all have vice and virtues. Ayn lived a rather dule life to my knowledge, but I do think she was/is an enduring figure in history. She held her views very highly and to some extent I'm very glad she came around.

To all that judge her or praise her,…find prudence in your steps. She isn't a god or devil.

God bless ya Ayn, even if you don't believe in god. I'd love to watch your movie.

Atlas is one of the few books that I've read twice, which, all things considered, is no humble feat.

Even though the novel has Dagny as a brunette, I can only imagine Kate Blanchett in this role. I saw her as Hedda Gabbler in New York City a few years ago and her performance was just sublime. She has the perfect combination of gravitas, drive and subtle beauty. Agreed with the comment regarding Jolie being in-your-face attractive. She is indisputably beautiful, but in the wrong way for this part.

I have to say that Brad Pitt is pretty spot on for Galt.
Javier Bardem for Francisco.
Kevin McKidd of the series Rome for Ragnar.
Casting Rearden gives me the most trouble actually. Perhaps Josh Brolin? Someone iconically "American," is right, but I cannot come up with the right face. I love the idea of getting Don Cheadle involved (to whomever suggest him first), perhaps Hank would be a gamble, but I could see it working out well!

However, this is with a list of superstars. Perhaps the best scenario would be with rising-stars or unknowns.

I'll throw my name in there. Only I'm more of an Eddie Willers.
-Marty Keiser