Should part three of the Atlas Shrugged movie be a musical, in the tradition of Les Misérables?

I would not go see Part III as a musical. Disgusting idea. I am still waiting for Austin, TX, hotbed of philosophy and home of the University of Texas, to have a screening.

At first glance I’m not crazy about the idea (though I bet it would liven up Galt’s speech). I don’t object in principle to a musical based on the book, but since this may be the only movie version we will have for a while, I’d prefer that the trilogy maintain a consistent tone and style. But would I go see part 3 if it does turn out to be a musical? Sure, most likely. How could I resist?

Hell no!!! I agree completely. That’s a shovel ready job digging straight to hell!!!

I think a musical is a fine idea once the trilogy is completed, but there really needs to be symmetry between parts 1,2, and 3 right now. People have been waiting 50 years for a regular movie and they can wait a little longer for a musical.

When I first read this in The Daily Caller my Jaw dropped. This is an absolutely horrible idea. There isn’t an art form lower than the musical. It’s crass entertainment masquerading as higher art. It completely devalues the material.

John Aglialoro and this whole production have finally been able to rehabilitate their image since most people thought this film was going to suck. Now that it appears to be good, that single idiotic statement about making Part Three a musical could easily destroy the good will they have built up.

Words cannot express how angry I am that he even thought this would be a good idea, much less had the poor judgment to express it.

oh man, just as our terror subsides and we get comfortable with the Atlas Shrugged movie project, there he goes and scares us again

Imagine if Ayn Rand wrote the third part in the style of Mickey Spillane or Ian Fleming — authors she admired for their particular genre. While it may read well on its own, it would be jarring and unnatural to misdirect the narrative in such a way. She would not have approved of it because it would break the integrity a complete work of art must maintain — which is what a trilogy is, a complete sum, not three unrelated parts. I understand she is gone and the film rights currently belong to Aglialoro, but he must agree with her aesthetic judgment or else he wouldn’t have made the first movie.

I hope this was just an attempt to garner some publicity.

This is a very, very, VERY bad idea.

Producing “Atlas Shrugged” in three parts means that you have one story, but told in three installments. It is a single novel, and its elements must be of a piece — integrated into a smooth whole. Individuals who like Part I will have certain expectations about the next two installments: mainly, continuity from the beginning to the end. They’ll expect to see the same actors, approximately the same (or better) aesthetic quality, the same “world” setting, etc.

The one iron law of entertainment (and much else) is: NEVER thwart the audience’s expectations. To give the audience Part I in one medium (dramatic prose), then to completely change direction and suddenly transform the subsequent part or parts into another medium (a film musical), is frankly the worst artistic idea I’ve heard in years. For the viewer, it would be akin to reading a novel, really getting into it, then turning the page and suddenly seeing the rest of it rendered as a comic book. Or going to a beloved opera, then finding the third act curtain rise on a stage play without music. It would be the artistic equivalent of “bait and switch,” and the audience would have every right to be furious.

“Atlas Shrugged” is a single story; only for purposes of audience convenience is it being divided into three installments. But it is really ONE FILM, and that film must be of a piece. When all three installments are complete, many people will want to buy the boxed set. NOBODY will buy three separate chunks of the same story, but each told in a different format, medium, or style.

I trust that John Aglialoro, whom I know and greatly admire, will immediately forget this silly notion. And I hope he also will think carefully about publicly communicating any passing or preliminary brainstorms in the future, before he’s had the opportunity to reflect carefully on them and also get a lot of feedback. This one is already getting nothing but widespread ridicule, and it’s needlessly undercutting the hard-won good will that he’s earned for his achievement.

This is a very, very, VERY bad idea.

Producing “Atlas Shrugged” in three parts means that you have one story, but told in three installments. It is a single novel, and its elements must be of a piece — integrated into a smooth whole. Individuals who like Part I will have certain expectations about the next two installments: mainly, continuity from the beginning to the end. They’ll expect to see the same actors, approximately the same (or better) aesthetic quality, the same “world” setting, etc.

The one iron law of entertainment (and much else) is: NEVER thwart the audience’s expectations. To give the audience Part I in one medium (dramatic prose), then to completely change direction and suddenly transform the subsequent part or parts into another medium (a film musical), is frankly the worst artistic idea I’ve heard in years. For the viewer, it would be akin to reading a novel, really getting into it, then turning the page and suddenly seeing the rest of it rendered as a comic book. Or going to a beloved opera, then finding the third act curtain rise on a stage play without music. It would be the artistic equivalent of “bait and switch,” and the audience would have every right to be furious.

“Atlas Shrugged” is a single story; only for purposes of audience convenience is it being divided into three installments. But it is really ONE FILM, and that film must be of a piece. When all three installments are complete, many people will want to buy the boxed set. NOBODY will buy three separate chunks of the same story, but each told in a different format, medium, or style.

I trust that John Aglialoro, whom I know and greatly admire, will immediately forget this silly notion. And I hope he also will think carefully about publicly communicating any passing or preliminary brainstorms in the future, before he’s had the opportunity to reflect carefully on them and also get a lot of feedback. This one is already getting nothing but widespread ridicule, and it’s needlessly undercutting the hard-won good will that he’s earned for his achievement.

A good movie score can really make or break a film. Look at all the big name bands that have jumped on the Twilight movies soundtracks.

A musical for the final installment? Who are you, Charlie Sheen? You’re just talking crazy now!

Dear Mr. Aglialoro,

It never ceases to amaze me how those of you who do not like free market enterprise, which is no more than letting people choose what they want, never engage your opponents on a dialogue of facts or even stating a rational reason why you do not like something. Instead of using facts, stating that something is personal opinion when you don’t have facts, you resort to the sardonic, the condecending and even playground like name-calling.

Let me give you some advice. If even you don’t have facts, but at least calmly and rationally state why you don’t like something rather that to delve into belittlement, you not only might persuade someone, they just might show you respect.

Kevin Meyer

By the way, Mr. Aglialoro, if your comments were in any way serious, then it is time for you to step aside and turn over the chair to someone who could be serious about this, like Christopher Nolan.

No!