I've been willing to cut AS a whole lotta slack, part. since it's actually being filmed (finally.) But WTF is with the cast changes?? I mean, again? Taylor Schilling to the soccer mom actress, and yet another Dagney for Part III?
This is so amateur, it's unbelievable.
The passion and drive to get these made despite overwhelming odds is impressive and admirable, and like you I've cut the series a lot slack because of this. But imagine sitting down and watching these back-to-back-back. It would be incredibly jarring. I thought the first two worked pretty well on their own, but to try and match them up is like two puzzle pieces that just don't quite fit.
Oh well, I suppose this is better than not making them at all.
----
A journey into the realm of the obscure: http://saturdayshowcase.blogspot.com/
Agreed. It's an unfortunate distraction. If these movies had the same cast, they would be spectacular. They're still very good though.
shareI didn't mind so much, having a year's distance between the first two parts. i was able to adapt and the cast wasn;t so diverse that it made it difficult to associate the different actors with the roles. Something like "Lord of the Rings" would have been far more difficult to follow, i'd imagine (The "Godfather" trilogy would have been even worse with all those Italian names ending in -ini, -icci, ucci, -azi etc.!)
But I can imagine it would be unsettling to watch them marathon-style.
**WARNING: MY POSTS MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS**
.
My dad said bc thr govt didn't want to have these movies made and if taylo made part 2 she wou have been black listed abd would never work in Hollywood again.
shareYou...should never type things.
shareThey made a lousy movie, it lost money, and they couldn't afford the original actors. They made a second lousy move with different actors, and they couldn't afford to pay *those* actors again.
These folks all love capitalism - until it doesn't work the way they want it to. They they cry like little girls and blame it on a liberal conspiracy.
They made a lousy movie, it lost money, and they couldn't afford the original actors. They made a second lousy move with different actors, and they couldn't afford to pay *those* actors again.
These folks all love capitalism - until it doesn't work the way they want it to. They they cry like little girls and blame it on a liberal conspiracy.
I don;t know if they blame a liberal conspiracy. I think they simply blame liberalism in general. I don;t think that raving reviews would have changed the general attitude toward Rand, her book nor this film.
The public perception is all wrong for a film like this to succeed. It was as welcomed as a remake of "Birth of a Nation" or even "Hair". The target audience is far too small for this film to be successful.
It was a vanity project, plain and simple. And it shows. I enjoyed the first two parts but i make no excuses nor have any delusions about it being more than it actually is.
**WARNING: MY POSTS MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS**
.
LOTR had a consistent cast -- but the movie was three parts too long. It was a tedious bore. How many crises of confidence did Frodo really need for us to be bludgeoned with the point.
It isn't just the cast. The tone and style change completely among the movies as well.
The first movie looked like a weird "alternate history of the 50s". It was supposed to be 2016, but the men wore suits and hats, the women wore dresses and lots of makeup, and everyone read newspapers instead of the internet. Oh yeah, trains were somehow really important. it was a little confusing, but actually kind of cool.
When the second movie switched casts, they also changed the atmosphere entirely. It now looked like the near future, and technology leaked in a bit. People were texting, but no one tried to just google "Who is John Galt?".
The third was half nature documentary and half narrated montage with stock footage thrown in. The scripts went from mediocre but OK in the first, to bad in the second to "so bad it's good" in the third.
This will be remembered as a laughable disaster any way you try to spin it.
Speaking of cast though, I was really curious to see Rob Morrow as Hank Rearden. Hank is my favorite character from the book, and I really like Morrow as an actor, but that seemed like comical miscasting to me. Fortunately or unfortunately, his part was cut to a few brief, non-speaking glimpses in the montage scenes - although he still gets "star" billing. I wonder how much he got paid for these, compared to the people who were actually in the movie.