MovieChat Forums > Atlas Shrugged: Part III (2014) Discussion > Should I be concerned the cast has 100% ...

Should I be concerned the cast has 100% turnover with every movie?

posted 10 years ago by ShimmySnail
15 replies | jump to latest

I mean, I know they're playing it off as some kind of artsy, method casting thing, but since "method casting" isn't really a thing, and Ayn Rand fans are typically the furthest you can get from "artsy" it does seem worrisome. I hated the book with a passion (I really did read it cover to cover, unlike every single person I've ever met who claims to love it), but I have a few friends who liked the first film, so I was thinking of giving them a chance. I am guessing they toned down the gratuitous rape porn and shortened the "This is John Galt" chapter that was like 90 pages as a single quote (rant, I guess you might say) of Ayn Rand's inner reveries, because otherwise there would be no way to fit the tome into 5 hours of movies. That might make it tolerable. I do like trains.

[–] gabby_bm 10 years ago

"If you like trains, you'll LOVE 'Atlas Shrugged'" (Tex Reed- The Washington Post)

"The gratuitous rape porn will keep you in your seat!" (Dan Silberman - The New Yorker)

"The cast changes are artsy - and it's fartsy! A real ass-blaster" (Clive Venimas -The London Herald)

"It's just like reading the book- without all the exercise of turning pages" (Wanda Wilkinson- The L.A. Sun)

My New Year's resolution is to simply write 2̶0̶1̶4̶ 2015 instead of 2014"
.

[–] babastooey 10 years ago

To address the title of your post, the cast turnover didn't bug me as much as I thought it would.

For that matter, they had director and crew turnover too, and in theory that would affect things nearly as much, but it didn't seem to.

[–] ejonconrad 10 years ago

The complete changes in cast (not to mention tone and style) could *possibly* be forgiven if the movies hadn't also gotten markedly worse and noticeably cheaper with each installment.

By the time I saw the third one, I actually got nostalgic about "how good" the first one had been.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Lexx-2 10 years ago

It's bizarre to me that the first film's cast weren't given multi-film contracts to keep them in place for the whole trilogy. The films are so inconsistent in style and tone, and the recastings mean each character has to be reintroduced in each instalment. I'd be tempted to put this down to John Agalioro's inexperience as a producer, but there were plenty of industry veterans working with him, so I don't know what the issues were. There's potential for an interesting book on the making of these films, I'd wager.

[–] gabby_bm 10 years ago

locking actors into a 3-film deal costs more money than Agalioro was able or willing to spend. But yeah, I think a "Making of Atlas Shrugged" book might make for an interesting read.

My New Year's resolution is to simply write 2̶0̶1̶4̶ 2015 instead of 2014"
.

[–] raventhom 10 years ago

The acting in each segment got worse and worse, and to top it off, the characters looked and acted nothing like the ones before them The Francisco person started off as a young heart throb and by the third, he looked more like a father figure.

[–] phantom2-2 10 years ago

being a key contributor to stopping the engine of the world can just add years on to your figure....

[–] randomlynx 10 years ago

The cast of the first two movies was decent, I saw no reason to replace either. But the cast of the third? Didn't help the movie.

[–] qualitycartoons 10 years ago

It's the epitome of Ayn Rand theory. It doesn't matter who makes it, as long as it gets made. The cogs of the machine are of no consequence because the grand machine doesn't need them.
This is why the theory crumbles under its own weight. As the machine erodes because knowledgable staff are cast off, the quality will decline. The notion that any person that benefits from the work of others does not deserve that benefit, creates a system whereby Bill Gates gets all the credit for MSFT and none of the employees (mimd you Bill benefitted to a great degree from their work) should get anything.

The moral theory behind the two oversimplified schools of thought will always conflict. The balance between them is where everythimg actually functions.

[–] steve112547 10 years ago

Agree 100% - this cast was a shadow of the first - a film that was interesting, coherent and fairly well done overall. And even the disappointing re-cast of the second film was superior to this. Of course, so was the screenplay. But the producers were stuck - and felt compelled to finish the trilogy - on the cheap. I wonder if adding Hobbits would have improved this one?? Well, at least they brought back the porn segment.

What a disaster.

*Everything happens to me! Now Im shot by a child! (T.Chaney)

[–] BrandiStarBright 10 years ago

I heard because the government threatened any actor/actress who did the first film that if they did the second that they would regret it and be out of work. The government didnt want this film made and has tried to keep it from being made. So that is why the cast changed each time.

[–] phantom2-2 10 years ago

more likely it was the casts' agents telling them that if they did more than one of these installments their reputation could suffer irreparable damage. in the meantime even actors gotta eat, so if the checks clear at the bank....

taylor schilling seems to be doing just fine, at least.

[–] ejonconrad 10 years ago

I heard because the government threatened any actor/actress who did the first film that if they did the second that they would regret it and be out of work. The government didnt want this film made and has tried to keep it from being made. So that is why the cast changed each time.

LOL. Yeah, the *government* didn't want this movie made. All makers of horrible films should keep that excuse handy.

I think you're suffering from delusions of relevance.

[–] TomWilhelm 9 years ago

You're not that bright are you?