EXCLUSIVE: ‘Atlas Shrugged’ Producers Intend to Complete Trilogy; CNN & MSNBC Reject Their Ads
by John NolteLately, there have been duelling stories in the entertainment press about the future of ”Atlas Shrugged.” With disappointing box office returns, the producers have been asked if they will go ahead and complete the franchise and in one interview we’re being told there will be no trilogy and in another we’re being told that there will. To clear the air, I reached out via email and “Atlas” producers John Aglialoro and Harmon Kaslow were both good enough to respond with exclusive quotes that should help to calm fears of “Atlas” fans everywhere.
Most surprising, though, was the revelation that CNN, CNBC, and MSNBC are refusing to broadcast 15-second “Atlas” spots. What’s that about?
“I’m going to get a picture of Roger Ebert and Peter Travers and the rest of them so I can wake up in the morning and be reminded what we’re up against,” Aglialoro wrote in an email. “They’re revitalizing me with their outrageousness.” Aglialoro then went on to state that he had been “misunderstood” when he said that the critical drubbing the film took “influenced him to abandon the second and third films in the Atlas Shrugged franchise.” He confirmed that he has ”no intention to go on strike.”
That should come as very good news to the many, many people who obviously enjoyed the film and found it to be something special. Personally, I’ve never seen such polarized reviews before. The critics savaged it and yet everyone who sent a revew into us loved it. The most interesting thing I’ve noticed is that no one was on-the-fence about the film. No one said, “Yeah, it was okay.” People either passionately embraced Part 1 or passionately didn’t. You don’t see a lot of movies like that. So, for those of you who loved it…
“Make no mistake, we want to make Part 2 and Part 3 and we’re committed to finding a way to make it work,” Aglialoro wrote. “There’s a temptation to make the movies expecting to lose money, to say to heck with the critics and invest another $10 million and hope to make some of it back. But to do so would betray Ayn Rand’s principles. This has to be a profitable venture. The challenge is in finding a way to overcome the critics and the rest of the establishment, who are united against us. The most frustrating thing is knowing that there are people who are missing out on an opportunity to enjoy the experience of Atlas Shrugged on the big screen either because of what critics have said or because they just don’t know it’s in theaters because they haven’t heard about it.”
The producers also told me they are “moving ahead with the theatrical release because demand is still high in several markets – [we have the] highest per-theatre gross of movies currently playing in Nashville and Atlanta. We are also continuing with the word of mouth campaign because, as expected, the mainstream media have largely either ignored or attacked it.”
The most interesting development, however, is that in their effort to expand television advertising, MSNBC, CNN and CNBC “have all rejected a 15-second ad for ‘editorial’ reasons [with] no further explanation provided.”
“This unforeseen censorship effectively puts the brakes on our follow-up marketing efforts where we were trying to reach millions of people unaware of the movie being in theaters now,” Kaslow wrote. “We are continuing with the theatrical release because we have great word of mouth and awareness for the movie increases daily.”
You can find “Atlas Shrugged” theatres here and request your local theatre make it available here.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
140 Comments
"MSNBC, CNN and CNBC “have all rejected a 15-second ad for ‘editorial’ reasons [with] no further explanation provided.”
Well, I'll provide the explanation: it's called censorship.
(I'd like to call it another name but I'd have to confess it to my priest tomorrow which means I'd spend the rest of the day on my knees saying the Rosary.)
I absolutely and unequivocally LOVED this movie!
Great acting, perfect pacing and so relevant. I can't wait to see the rest of the story!!! Easily the best movie I'll see all year, unless Harry Potter Deathly Hallows pt 2 comes out, and then there'll be TWO good movies this year.
Wow, CNN, MSNBC, and CNBC actually rejected money? Actually, you know what? That's not really that surprising;their business plan has been in excelling in losing money for a long time now.
I am one of those middle of the road guys on Part 1, thoroughly enjoyed it, but did see its flaws also. I would still give it positive marks, but it could have been better with more time and talent. I'm hoping the completion of the trilogy brings that effect that the book had on me. My wondeful wife accompanied me to a show and she didn't have that 'epiphany' I did when I read the book. She doesn't disagree with the ideology, so the only thing lacking was the execution of the film. I'm hoping the next two provide that impact. But if they merely keep up the work they do with Part 1, I'd still be pleased with them.
I have seen this movie twice and I am very impressed with it. I had not had an opportunity to read Atlas Shrugged as yet but now I will make the time. The story was very compelling.
I listened on the radio to some liberal on Wilcow's show trying to disparage him for supporting subsidies for rich Oil companies. Subsidies right. They want to tell oil companies that expenses they incur to search for oil are no longer tax deductible. This is a tax increase.
Yet GE pays no income tax whatsoever and all we hear is praise from Obama and his Cultists. I am beginning more and more as I listen to the news to truly understand the meaning of the words "Who is John Galt?"
I would not call the decision by the idiotic channels censorship. It is their prerogative to air those advertisements they so choose, and refuse to air others.
In this case, they are being stubbornly stupid, but that is their loss. They certainly could use the revenue.
Look at it this way, one 15 sec spot on FNC will reach more people than an entire day of ads on MSPMS, CNN and CNBC combined.
So true… No one watches those other "networks," anyway…
For those interested, put together an essay on "Fast Five," and its genre impact and how it cuts thru the crappy Lib "villains," we've been subjected to lately…
http://moviecriticassassins.com/essays/can-fast-f...
Hmm, so it's not about bottom lines and money and profit. It's all about socialist leaning propaganda. Whodathunkit?
Possibly Aglialoro could raise money by selling discount vouchers. They would be good for a rebate on the share earned by the production company. The theater showing the film would keep its receipts, it would remit the movie fee to the producers, and they would send that part to anyone sending in the cancelled voucher.
This preserves the profit motive of the film while allowing supporters to pre-pay the production costs and get a discount when seeing the film.
From Box Office Mojo, I have learned this movie have only made $3.4 Millions. The production cost for the movie was 10 Million. From a financial standpoint, will the investors keep pouring in money to make 2nd and 3rd movie even though they are not going to see their investment return?
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&a...
That isn't too bad of an idea, as far as I can tell. But then I haven't become the producer that I set out to be, so I don't know if it's viable.
I think it's a good thing when they write rave reviews for crap movies like Brokeback Mountain, An Inconvenient Truth, and Fahrenheit 911. It's really highlights their liberal bias.
Saw it last weekend. I think they'll find a way to make the second one. Don't forget the DVD sales.
They wiil make it up in dvd sales , individualist, entrepreneurs and societies producers are too busy funding the pathetic entitlement class to drive a hundred miles to see it..
Kudos to John Aglialoro and Harmon Kaslow for seeing the forest through the trees.
"Most surprising, though, was the revelation that CNN, CNBC, and MSNBC are refusing to broadcast 15-second “Atlas” spots. What’s that about?"
Most surprising, Seriously?
Political sabotage at its best.
You gotta make Parts 2 and 3. Even if it's the same budget, it has to be complete to get the message in toto out to future generations. And those who already know it will be able to buy the box set.
There're several reasons AS hasn't been as viewed as often as most of here would like. And they've all been tallied in every post and comment section on BH since its release. And Aglialoro has put another one up with his observation about his shortfall on the marketing plan. Hey, that's just low-budget filmmaking. Like many no / low-budget films, he's likely to make up for it in world wide distribution and the ancillary markets.
The disfunctional news networks not running the ads? Color me surprised.
"Most surprising, though, was the revelation that CNN, CNBC, and MSNBC are refusing to broadcast 15-second “Atlas” spots. What’s that about?"
I don't think it surprised most of us here. It's about a continuation by the left of trying to silence any opinion other than their own.
That's OK. No one watches them anyway.
have the producers talked to rush? a 15 second spot on his show would reach lots of right minded people. but, i read the book after the movie, then saw the movie again, and liked the movie even more. i think some of the visuals show things that didn't make sense, until i read the book. but i can't wait for part 2, or 3. this movie will make most progressives heads explode.
Atlas Shrugged Part I is an unadulterated snore fest. Assuming the producers can make money on extending the franchise, the entirely accurate hostility or indifference to their first effort (it seems opinions break evenly there) may give them pause when considering the likely damage to their reputations. The free market has spoken! Long live the free market!
Does this mean that MSNBC, CNN and CNBC can be held responsible for all their advertisement?
No you did not. But thank you for reminding me of revenue coming from those other sourses. I totally forget about that. Now maybe (just maybe) the inestors will pour in more money if someone can convince them a lot of money can be pour in from those sourses you mentioned above.
could be. I think some lobby groups told those stations that they would ask companies pulling their ads if commercials from this movie was aired.
I'll say it! IT'S BULL$#!T! Pure and simple.
CNBCNNMSNBC don't want anything harming The O!
Air the spots on Fox and AM radio. No one who is going to see Atlas Shrugged has watched CNN, CNBC and MSNBC in years.
He said "surprising," not "shocking".
Somehow I doubt you actually viewed the film.
Mr. Nolte, you shouldn't be surprised about the networks refusing AS ads. Rand applied some logic and "foresaw" that kind of censorship in The Fountainhead and in AS.
Yeah, the free market has spoken–for a whole 13 days. Most indie films don't make squat in their first 13 days. Duh.
I commend the producers for their determination in seeing this project through. While it will probably lose money in the theatres, I think it will do quite well in DVD release. Especially if the three parts are packaged together. BTW, most movies don't make back their costs in the theatres.
Here's why I think it will do much better in DVD. It must have been a tremendous challenge to take the first 300-plus pages of the book and cut it down to 102 minutes. Even full novels half that long can't be made into movies without cutting things out. Theatres want movies to be under two hours so the can get two shows in one evening.
Throw back in the stuff that they had to cut in the DVD release and you'll have a much better movie that doesn't seem like it was so compressed.
what is a sourse?
also what is an inestor?
Most likely you are a graduate of a modern American High School your poor spelling and grammar is a dead giveaway. (…can be pour…?)
Your writing style reminds me of Obama before Ayers made his re-write.
Screw those networks. I thought you Hollywood types were supposed have an imagination? Over at Big Gov there is a grass roots "ad campaign" to get the word out using sticky notes. Why don't we do this for Atlas Shrugged? http://biggovernment.com/jmsimpson/2011/04/28/gas...
FO, Marxist. This isn't a "free market" problem, when the Marxists out there have the media so in their pocket that they can censor commercials for the movie. Rand knew your type, and this situation would not have surprised her at all. Oh, and by the way, did you notice that the book is now up to # 4 on the Amazon Best Seller list? Not bad for a 1957 novel that all the "critics" hated even back then. Think that might be an indicator of what kind of DVD sales there will be? Lots of folks in America are too busy WORKING to drive 100-200 miles to see a movie, but they will take a few minutes to order things off the internet….
Boring. ZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Boring. Heard that many time. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Oh those scoundrels at MSNBC & CNN – they're picking on us! Rejecting an ad – that's censorship for sure. Wait – Fox has rejected ads before, so it can't be censorship. Mr. Nolte – you do know that Fox has rejected ads in the past, don't you? So, what's with the righteous indignation?
Fox rejected an ad for a movie?
CNN, MSNBC, and CNBC rejecting the ads speaks volumes: They are running scared. They can attack the Tea Party, but they KNOW (was going to say 'in their heart of hearts' – they've NO hearts) the Sleeping Giant has awoken and they fear us. They SEE the sheeples finding and learning TRUTH and rejecting their ideologue of an "Esoteric Socialist Utopia". Let us not forget: TRUTH has NO Agenda.
What list are you looking at?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books
I like the philosophy of Ayn Rand (a lot…not this movie, though)….but facts are facts…the novel is #33.
Would it be censorship to reject an ad for a movie, but not censorship to reject some other ad? Is that your argument? Just Google Fox rejects ad -
Why such hostility to Atlas Shrugged? If it is as bad as the critics maintain it would die quietly. And yet most people who saw it -= liked it. And they are expanding to 1,000 theaters.
Something is strange.
You are spot-on!
Not a movie critic but surely the AS does not conform to the Hollywood 'cookie cutter' format of high standard on technical execution and high density of special effects. However, it engages viewers intelectually specially these viewers having strong opinion on current events. The cast of outsiders is just what the doctor ordered. Many of these low budget movies are destined to become cult classics, so who knows. The networks rejection to promote the film is just another example of them acting as a pretorian guard for the current administration. The movie stands as a stark antipode to continouus promotion of dependency on all levels emanating from Obama's dogma. Must see for anyone claiming to be a conservative. It is and it should be a manifesto. Hope to see Part II and Part III in the future.
Anyone who thinks showbiz is a "free market" needs a labotomy
It's all about controlling the message. Same thing that goes on in the MSM.
Aglialoro and Kaslow went off script, they must be punished!
http://blogs.forbes.com/marcbabej/2011/04/17/atla...
It was up there last week – not now, but even one week at that level is pretty good…..
So, when Galt eventually makes that speech, Aglialoro should make sure that it interrupts a broadcast featuring on-air personalities Rick…um, Olbermann and Keith …um, Sanchez.
I'll probably have to check it out.
Curiously I don't like Fountainhead. At least the movie. I couldn't reconcile the fact that an architect wasn't doing his job because he didn't like what his clients want. If I did that I'd be out of work in a hurry. I admit the… uh… shall we say "heavy" scenes between Cooper and Neal were fun.
Hopefully the book made more sense. I'll have to try it at some point.
Well said, Carolyn. Sadly, I believe most people do not know or understand WHY Ann Rand named her book "Atlas Shrugged" and how I wish the Movie Producers had included this as an intro to the movie. Is SO relevant to what we are dealing with today. 3rd paragraph – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged …speaks volumes, especially once one has watched the movie and KNOWS what "Atlas Shrugged" means.
Newmarket, the distributor of ''Death of a President'' — the poorly reviewed British pseudo-documentary that caused a furor for depicting the assassination of President Bush — has been fielding a platoon of public relations consultants to hype the fact that networks like Fox, CNN and National Public Radio refused to carry advertisements for it.
Sorry it took a few minutes to post this.
Great idea!!
Possibly we should find out who you are and where you live and make a movie about your assasination.
If it isn't obvious why Death of a President shouldn't have been made and especially advertised, you are a complete idiot.
Wow – zapped for 43p for making a truthful statement and asking a simple question. Fox has rejected ads – including ads for one movie that I can remember. Do you really think the Atlas Shrugged people wanted to give their scarce advertising dollars to MSNBC? This strategy of getting an ad rejected is a common public relations ploy.
Suicide. May their stockholders soon wake up to the squandering of their former "good will", and sue the pants off their operating boards.
I am not speaking favorably of the movie in any way. I'm just saying that networks, including Fox, sometimes reject ads.
War Machine, I agree you with the other two but how is Brokeback Mountain a liberal movie? The main characters aren't political, just closeted homosexual. It's just the universal forbidden love story, recast.
The movie's only message really is that you shouldn't beat people to death just because you don't like what they do in their bedroom… I don't think that's an exclusively liberal point of view.
keep hyping this flop . even the most conservative critic and pop culture crusader medved said it was bad .
gawd , you cons really got nothing to show for . its just sad
The problem is that pretty much everyone who wanted to pay today's ticket prices to see this movie saw it in the opening weekend.
It spite of the producer's seeming eagerness to get the movie out for Tax Day, some of the movie's failure comes from its timing. In this economy, we can't expect people to want to pay almost $20 (where I live) to see a movie about Rich People's Problems, can we? The average American sees less than 1 movie in the theater a year. Railroad and steel company business saga doesn't advertise well as escapist fun.
It's hard to compete with movie stars, special effects and 3D when that's what people want out of their movies.
They should complete the trilogy (or complete it with 1 sequel) but they need to be more savvy in their story development. My analysis of Part I is here: http://bit.ly/iDVDUh
While fascinating, the story is not inherently *CINEMATIC*. As such, it should have been developed as a mini-series. Would HBO have picked it up? Could the filmmakers retain control in that case? Would the Rand estate prevent them from making changes? I don't know.
What I do know is, as is, the non-Rand fans won't sit through it. Part I's box office shows that. So if the goal is to make mass converts, they're wasting time and money . But they need to finish, so my hope for the rest, the filmmakers prevail in correctly answering to the 3 basic story premise questions: who is the main character? What does she want? Why should we care? In trying to be faithful to the book, Part I failed to sell the answers to the audience. And consider what's coming: how will Galt's 100 page radio speech work cinematically? How is Dagny – presumably our main character – going to remain the prime mover of her story?
Give me a way to buy.
Libs are so afraid of this movie it's like they've been told to be! Which is probably the case.
I'd kind of like some proof over that "rejected ad" comment. t sounds highly unlikely and you have to ask who's got more to gain from this story: a media organisation that would make money selling an ad for a niche indie film; or a struggling novice producer who's so desperate for publicity he might whip up some fake controversy? He's already done a flip flop over the sequels – they're off! they're back on! – in 24 hours, it wouldn't surprise me if he just made that up – OR it turns out he wants to buy one 15 second ad and they sell them in blocks of 10 or something. John Nolte, could you do some investigation into this for us?
i'm guessing you got that one on the platinum plated blu-ray director/producer/1st &2nd grip autographed signature series.
No?
The film did $3.4 million in the first two weeks of its domestic run playing in fewer than 500 theatres. That may not be satisfying to the filmmakers, particularly if there has been a revenue drop as the number of theatres was increased. However, domestic theatrical release is only the first revenue source – after that, there are: overseas theatrical release, pay-per-view (pay cable, hotel chains, airlines, etc), DVD rentals and sales, which include re-releases with extended footage, director's cuts, etc.
Most $10 million dollar films earn out. The question is whether it will earn enough to pay for the next film or two without an additional funding source.
I liked the film, I thought many of the elements – the set design, the actors (particularly Grant Bowler) were excellent – but it will need a stronger screenplay.
I just started reading the book a little over a week ago, myself, though have as yet to see the film. Am looking forward to finishing the book before I see the movie. I bought the paperback, as I'm too slow of a reader to check it out of the library.
And DVD sales and rentals will likely be higher in this case given the appeal, the limited release (I know quite a few people who want to see this but can't because it isn't playing nearby), and, well, the coming election. The movie is going to have financial legs.
CNN am trusted 'n unbiased.
First the Kennedy mini-series, now "Atlas Shrugged" . . . . Did I wake up in the U.S. or the U.S.S.R.?
The producer's latest claim directly contradicts the claims he has made for weeks in various interviews (including interviews here at the Bigs). Why would someone making an indie type conservative film piss away money trying to sell the movie to Maddow viewers?
—
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/how-atlas-s...
We didn't take the needle-in-the-haystack approach by running a bunch of TV ads looking for the needles who might want to see the film," Kaslow said. "We turned that model on its head. When the needles looked for us, we advertised to them.
—- http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/hollywoodland/2...
By Hollywood standards, the marketing budget is tiny, so word-of-mouth from Tea Partiers sympathetic to the film’s message is crucial to its success.
————–
As I've observed before, at best political films tend to be seen only by people who share their politics (at worst, everyone ignores them since they are merely repeating what they already know).
It may be that Atlas Shrugged and Objectivism is not for everyman. The book is not an easy post-modern read. At well over a thousand pages of densely mixed philosophy and plot, characters and characterization, it takes some commitment to read and understand. It is not a mere novel and certainly not in the post-modern literary mode. The movie may be cliff-notes to the book. Imagine a movie of Karl Popper's Logic of Scientific Discovery. I'd watch it and enjoy it and praise it. Would Ebert?
This reminds me very much of the description of how Nathaniel Taggart built his railroad. Rand said the only thing he envied was the first person to say "The public be damned!"
I'll see the movie again. I'll buy it when it's released on DVD. I talk about it to people going to see movies, and I have been a fan of the book for 30 years. It has my support and the support of many more who wish to see the rest of the book immortalized on film.
Some how I think God would understand your true intentions.
Do you speak English?
How witty you are!
I saw it and liked it. The people that went with me had never read the book and are bumming they have to wait to see parts 2 and 3.
Not surprising that the lame stream media does not understand it's the message that counts.
Blaming the reviews is a straw man. The movie has the production value of a Hallmark movie. This wasn't a labor of love. It was a get rich quick scheme made by producers who had no business making a movie.
Hopefully, no one else watches this movie and a real filmmaker has a chance to do something with the material. Movies are supposed to entertain. If they can teach the audience something that’s even better. The market doesn’t lie. People aren’t going to see it.
Rejected their ads?
Isn't that censorship?
I don't think that is much of a problem, really.
Think about it. How many people who watch CNN and MSNBC would ever buy a ticket to watch the film?
Two, three maybe?
Their ad dollars are better spent elsewhere, somewhere in the real world.
I saw it Wednesday night & enjoyed it, though didn't think it was the best movie I've ever seen. You'd never think the budget was so thin, as the sets & locales were beautiful. The cast of unknowns (though featuring a lot of character actors who made me say "I know I've seen him before somewhere") were very good. The story dragged on in points, as was the case with the novel, and perhaps would have had more tension if I had no knowledge of the story going in, but all in all I'd recommend it & am hoping for parts II & III. On a side note, as a Flyers fan, it was cool to see Ed Snider's name in the credits as a producer. Take that, Jeffery "Inside Job" Lurie!
Thanks team parasite for clearing that up.
I'm surprised by the "chick flick by chick writer" comment. While the novel was written by a woman, the screenplay was written by two men, Aglioloro (sp) and a screenwriter whose prior film credits were small horror films. I had the opposite reaction -that it was not enough of a "chick flick", in that the moments with Dagny, particularly in signature scenes – the bracelet exchange at the party, the confrontation with the railroad union boss – were not nearly as strong in the writing or direction as they should have been. I think this was at the core of the film's pervasive weakness, because Dagny is really the "tentpole" character. The actress – Taylor Schilling – did a very good job with the character but could have used a bit more backup from the writers and director, IMHO.
My wife and I saw the movie last weekend at a 4:15 showing, to our surprise the theater was almost sold out, we had to sit in the cheap seats, on the third row far right. We liked it, though it had some problems with editing, however, they were successful getting this important story out. The parasite class will hate anything to do with this book, no worries, in the long run this movie will be a success II & III must be made.
That explains it… you slept during school. No wonder you can't spell or use proper grammar
Touche'
It's called private enterprise doing what it wants.
Oh how I love the commenters on this blog. CNN and co exercised their rights as agents of free and private enterprise by declining to air an advertisement on their network and people have the temerity to whine about censorship. Have you even read Atlas Shrugged?
I would guess a lot of people didn't see it (including me) because the closest theater that has it is 2 1/2 hours away. A lot of us live in rural areas and I'm sure that many (including me) are waiting eagerly for the DVD.
Why they didn't use the Randall Wallace version of the script is beyond me.
Why make it as a trilogy is also beyond me.
Its called capitalism and corporations are free do air what they want. One wonders, though, if advertising the movie through media that has a hard-left audience is casting seed upon the hard dirt.
I WANT ATTENTION!
I am a clueless newbie who had never read the book. I went to watch the movie because everyone made such a big deal about it. I enjoyed it very much, and immediately ran out to buy the book, which I am now reading.
I didn't realize until the film ended, that this would be a movie in parts. I will be very upset if we don't get the rest! I wish I was rich to help donate, if money is the issue.
As far a funding, is there a way to pre-order the DVD?
AND they need to keep in mind that people who watch BSNBC would never go to see "Atlas Shrugged" anyway.
So…where's your review, Nolte?
I have a feeling none of the libbie trolls commenting on this post have actually seen it. I saw it opening weekend and was impressed with how well they actually did bring the story to life, given their tiny budget. I will definitely buy it on dvd.
Dear Mrs. Aglialoro and Kaslow:
Sure, Ayn Rand would have wanted the venture to be about making money, but she would also have understood someone paying for an artist to make something to be looked at. Simply, the basis of her philosophy was that each man's work should stand, paid for by someone who'd earned their money, wanted what was offered, and contracted for it (Fountainhead?).
We want to see parts II and III made.
Send me my part of the bill. I'm already in for five tickets for part I, but divide it up, I'll take a share in parts II and III, and never expect a dime back, just so I can say I had a hand in making a masterpiece come to life.
bsmkchan, did you read the article? The answer to your question can be found within. Even though you already knew what you wanted to post before you came to Big Hollywood this morning, it always helps to read the articles thoroughly so you don't expose yourself as a talking points regurgitator.
Well I'd say the stations not running the ads would be proof. Have you seen the ads on those channels? Neither have I.
But this movie doesn't come anywhere near the offense that DotP did. It's not at all a parallel circumstance as evidenced by the fact that both Fox and CNN rejected the ads. The whole film was in very poor taste. Atlas Shrugged is a film with a non-violent ideology they disagree with. Very different thing.
Well if you've "heard that many time" then maybe you should take the hint and improve your English.
You must be logged in to post a comment.