The whole thing is filled with irony when you look at what happened over the next thirty years.
Fear, Loathing and Gumbo on the Campaign Trail '72
- Thread starter Drew
- Start date
- Status
The whole thing is filled with irony when you look at what happened over the next thirty years.
Has non proliferation become a dead letter?
I mean Taiwan, Japan, Rhodesia, South Africa and probably India are all Nuclear powers or reaching that status soon.
How many others are going to join in the nuclear race? South Korea? Vietnam? Libya? Egypt? Australia? Indonesia? Motherfucking Singapore?
I mean Taiwan, Japan, Rhodesia, South Africa and probably India are all Nuclear powers or reaching that status soon.
How many others are going to join in the nuclear race? South Korea? Vietnam? Libya? Egypt? Australia? Indonesia? Motherfucking Singapore?
With so many middle-income countries are acquiring nuclear arsenals, it would follow that more 3rd-world states would produce chemical weapons. I was thinking both Vietnams and Burma (not Myanmar in this TL) might, in response to the Chinese debacle.
Yes, well it worked out so well OTL too (Israel, South Africa, Pakistan, India, North Korea). Thus far ITTL we've got Israel (as OTL), Pakistan (as OTL), South Africa and Rhodesia as outlaw nations, China as the biggest outlaw crackpot of them all, and South Korea, Taiwan and Japan all in the shadow of the outlaw crackpot.
Non-proliferation is a troubled issue ITTL.
Not yet, but then they would have to have a very active first strike option because there wouldn't be much of a survivability factor there if they were targeted.
I don't and wouldn't give much for anyone who does. This could be expressed better, unless you know something about Singapore that they've managed to hush-up so far.
Yes, the race for WMD's is on, and this time no one needs to cook the books.
How about the Vatican? Maybe they'd call it the "Holy Handgrenade".
St. Plutonious of the Cathode Ray
I wasn't aware of all the early history of the story and the variations but I don't see that this wouldn't work ITTL in keeping with what I wrote earlier. The heroic Arthurian Epic might actually be more in keeping with the social mood of the times looking for past glory amidst modern uncertainty.
I think a Superman move would be revived somewhere along the line too, and we might see a Batman movie, less dark than Burton's OTL creations but better quality than the Adam West shtick.
Hmm, fantasy becoming popular again? I speculated earlier that the bad economy might make Dungeons and Dragons more popular in the 1970's, when it debuted, due to it's escapist value. It would also mesh well if Drew decided that, instead of working on The Shining (since Stephen King has been said earlier on to be less successful than in our timeline), he committed to a Lord of the Rings project, like I also suggested earlier. Since production would take longer than on The Shining, it could come out in 1982- basically being the Full Metal Jacket to Excalibur's Platoon, if you will (if we go by your idea, he'd have to obtain the rights from John Boorman first, which shouldn't be too difficult- you said yourself the movie never goes anywhere under Boorman's direction).
I figure CESK and Quest 3000 AD would each make around $100 million at the box office- really good in the short term, especially for the time, but nothing earth-shaking (I'd imagine this version of Excalibur would make $500 million or more). Though I really do believe 1978's Superman could also be very successful (it doesn't need to be axed for this to work, IMO, but we'll see what Drew says) and could lead to other superhero movies following on it's coattails.
Anyway, thanks for name-dropping me in the contribution! It's a really good idea in my opinion. I'd like to hear want Drew has to think about all of this (your post and mine).
I think the taste for fantasy will continue -- see my response to jmberry above - but let's not get too far ahead of ourselves as things
might change very quickly in the next few years.Also works that feature the successes of the past about World War II, Vietnam (TTL) will also have a place among movie audiences. Part of the next update I'll have to come up with an Oscar list for 1980.
The Star Wars animated project has also set the tone for more animated fare as well. I'm thinking it might have been a little more successful than first speculated. In the recession/depression it will generate sufficently impressive revenues to make studio executives focus on repreating that.
Deriving from that you may also find full length animated features from the DC and Marvel comics world.
Thanks for the answers, Drew!
I though, though, maybe it's time for the weird politics of the era to really start affecting what kinds of movies are being made. While Drew already dabbled in this concept when he invented the films Soles and, to a lesser extent, Gronk for the purposes of this timeline, I thought to myself, what political movement in America has benefited the most from the events of this timeline? Why, libertarianism, of course! And what's the favorite novel of libertarians! Why, Atlas Shrugged, of course! I had been playing with this concept recently, and decided to right it down over the past several days.
However, the way I thought it up, I decided to ask Drew for permission on one detail. Is it alright if we bump up the death of Ayn Rand from 1982 to 1977? Historically, she was VERY protective of her work where it regarded making film adaptations (it was reported that she regularly visited the set of The Fountainhead to make sure everything was to her liking) and even though it still espouses something like Objectivism, I'm not sure that she would accept this version of her novel while she's alive.
Should Drew accept my request there, here's my contribution for a 1980 film version of Atlas Shrugged. He of course has final say over what is canon in his timeline, and can choose to accept all, part, or none of this.
---
July 11, 1980
Atlas Shrugged, an action-drama film directed by Sam Peckinpah and loosely based on the novel by Ayn Rand, is released and distributed by United Artists.
Background and Production
A film adaptation of Atlas Shrugged was in development hell for the better part of a decade. In 1972, Albert S. Ruddy approached Rand to produce a cinematic adaptation, but Rand insisted on having final script approval, which Ruddy refused to give her, thus preventing a deal. A former Hollywood screenwriter herself, Rand had contemplated writing her own screenplay based on the novel, but died of lung cancer in 1977 before she could begin. She left her estate, including the film rights to Atlas, to her student Leonard Peikoff.
Meanwhile, Peckinpah’s physical condition had begun to deteriorate as the 1970’s progressed. While his most recent film, 1977’s Cross of Iron, had been a success [1], his abuse of alcohol and cocaine had worsened as a result of the stressful conditions on set. Described by those close to him as “an emotional wreck” during this time, he stumbled across a copy of Atlas Shrugged that he had received as a gift from a friend some years back. Immediately engrossed, he came to embrace the ideology espoused “with the same fervor as a convert accepts the Bible or the Koran”, as he would put it. Peckinpah found Objectivism very appealing, especially at that difficult point in his life, and suddenly decided that he wanted his next movie to be an adaptation of Atlas Shrugged. In late 1978, Peckinpah bought an option to produce the film, paying Peikoff $500,000 for full creative control.
Peckinpah convinced United Artists to back his production, and immediately went to work on a screenplay. Though the director wished to remain faithful to the basic tenants of Objectivism that Rand had taught, he realized that it would be impossible to tell the full story in a two-hour film, so he worked to condense and simplify the plot, merging and discarding many characters and deleting entire subplots in the interest of time and budgetary limitations. Among other changes, the time period was changed to definitely take place in the near future, rather than the ambiguous time frame of the novel. In addition, the studio had requested that Peckinpah “pep up” the rather dry story, so he took the liberty of changing the corporation run by the protagonist from a railroad company to a defense contractor, similar to Lockheed Corporation. Most of the action was transferred to Southern California, due to the strong presence of the defense industry in the state, aside from the extended battle scene at the beginning of the film.
United Artists granted Peckinpah a $15,000,000 budget to work on Atlas Shrugged, based on the success of Cross of Iron. Casting was completed by mid-1979, and filming began in August of that year. Principal photography wrapped up in January with the filming of the opening battle scene in the jungles of the Yucatan in Mexico. Peckinpah would supervise and assist in the editing of the film over the next several months.
Synopsis
The movie begins with an extended battle scene in the rainforests of an unidentified Latin American country. American soldiers with advanced body armor and small arms confront Native American guerillas. During the bloody sequence, two important things happen toward the end. The first is that a GI is shot and killed in slow motion. As he falls to the ground, the camera zooms in on his assault rifle, revealing that it was manufactured by Taggart Industries. Then, the camera pans over the soldier’s bloody corpse, before finally focusing on the helmet, painted crudely with the words “WHO IS JOHN GALT?”
Back in the United States, Taggart Industries CEO James Taggart (Kris Kristofferson) gives a speech to his corporation’s board of directors, explaining his desire to broaden the company’s horizons and start divisions to work on non-defense related industry. Leaving the meeting, he is met in his office by his sister, Dagny Taggart (Louise Fletcher), the “power behind the throne” of Taggart Industries. She harshly interrogates her brother on how everything went; it becomes obvious that she was the one who thought up the plan. During the conversation, she notes that since many corporate heads in America have been disappearing or retiring, with the ever-expanding government trying to fill in the void, an ideal time has come for a competent business, such as their own, to expand. Dagny then takes a walk through the run-down, futuristic version of Los Angeles. She passes by graffiti asking "WHO IS JOHN GALT?", which she regards for a moment before moving on, shrugging.
Later that night, Dagny meets with her lover, Rearden-Schwartz CEO Hank Rearden (Harrison Ford), who is in the aerospace business, with a defense division. During dinner, Hank confides to Dagny that he has a secret he wants to share with her. Later that night, they visit one of the factories he owns, where he shows her his “secret”: a completely automated aircraft, or “Warbird” as he has named it. Hank predicts that his ability to mass produce these machines will turn the tide of the “New Cold War” forever in America’s forever, as their will be no need to train tens of thousands of pilots to launch tens of thousands of Warbirds. Impressed by this, Dagny asks if the government would really be willing to make this investment, to which Hank sarcastically replies “Yeah, who’s John Galt?” They begin to kiss passionately, and the camera pans out to show that they are being spied on by a shady government agent. Dagny returns home later that night, only to find her brother dead and a SWAT team waiting for her. The scene ends with her being knocked out.
Our heroine comes to the next morning tied to a chair in a dark prison cell. Beside her is another unidentified individual in the same position, only with a bag over their head. A prison guard enters the room to remove said mask, revealing the other prisoner to be Hank Rearden. The guard begins to savagely beat Hank whilst questioning him in a harsh shout (though the audio was distorted in a way so that the audience can just barely not make out what he is saying). With Hank laying bloodied in the corner, the guard walks threateningly toward Dagny. Just before he can strike a blow, however, a voice on the intercom tells him to refrain. Obviously angry and disappointed, the guard slouches out of the room. For the next several minutes, Dagny and a barely conscious Hank discuss why they could possibly be in this sort of situation. Hank suggests that it could be because of all the lobbyists they had both hired to fight the draconian new government regulations on corporations.
They are interrupted by their captor, nefarious government “nationalization enforcer” Wesley Mouch (Jason Miller). He explains to them the reasons they are being held. The first and most important reason is that this is part of the slow process the new administration has been using to take control of the economy. The other corporate heads that Dagny had mentioned earlier in the film to have disappeared or “retired” are going through the same process as them. The administration is starting with the larger, powerful, and more ambitious businesses before working down the ladder to nationalize every business in America. Once they are gone, their businesses can be taken over by the government “for the greater good”. Rearden-Schwartz had been chosen as the next target specifically because of his Warbird program. The government has no interest in buying into the program, because such an “unfair” technological advantage would throw off the delicate balance of the New Cold War. Hearkening to the works of Orwell, the governments of all the superpowers are using the simmering guerilla conflicts and threat of war to squelch freedom at home. He ends the conversation by ominously telling them that their execution is scheduled in one hour. As Mouch opens the door to leave, though, he is killed by a shotgun blast to the head. Several armed men run into the run and free the two government captives. A firefight ensues as they proceed through the hallway, and they duck for cover behind a receptionist’s desk. When Dagny asks the man who appears to be their leader who he is, the man (Michael Biehn) replies “I’m John Galt. You?”
The final third of the movie is devoted to an extremely elaborate action/chase sequence of the dozen or so guerillas, with a now-armed Dagny and Hank in tow, trying to escape the government complex. They finally do, and escape by way of a truck that had been waiting in the nearby forest. This, of course, leads to an elaborate car chase scene on the highway. Concurrent to that, Galt (between taking shots at the pursuing vehicles) explains that he is a freedom fighter trying to fight the ever-expanding government. When asked by Dagny if he had freed them out of the goodness of his heart, Galt replies “Hell no, I’m not an altruist.” He says that did it so he could get their financial and military expertise for the resistance movement. When he asks if they are in, Dagny and Hank smirk at each other, and reply that they are. The film ends with a freeze-frame shot of Dagny firing at a pursuing helicopter with a bazooka.
Reception and Legacy
Critical reaction to Atlas Shrugged was decidedly negative. The film was criticized for being rather thin on the plot with too much focus on the action. Roger Ebert gave it one star out of a possible four, deriding it as being “the most fascist-oriented movie to see wide release since A Clockwork Orange”. However, even those who criticized the film praised Atlas Shrugged for its well-constructed action scenes, especially the opening battle sequence and the car chase scene.
The film fared much better with conservative reviewers, though. While doctrinaire Objectivists were mixed in their view of the film (Leonard Peikoff himself regretted letting Peckinpah have the rights to the film, calling it a “sillyfication of her (Ayn Rand’s) work”), politicians such as John Rarick, John Grady, and Barry Goldwater, Jr. praised it for spreading the message of smaller government and less regulation. Spiro Agnew wrought controversy for saying that Galt’s way of dealing with intrusive government was “morally plausible.” “Were it not for the gratuitous violence,” Agnew declared on his talk show, “I’d recommend that every family in America see this picture. As it is, I recommend it only for responsible adults.” Libertarian activists also adored the movie, to the point where the campaign of the Libertarian presidential candidate, Ronald C. Galtieri, even tried to use it as a promotional tool. Libertarian National Committee Chairman and Alaska Congressman Dick Randolph [2] would claim that the party received a noticeable spike in membership in the months following the release of the film.
Atlas Shrugged did well where it mattered, though. Grossing $110,000,000 at the box office, it became one of the highest grossing films of the year. Audiences generally responded positively to the action in the movie, and comparatively few actually took any sort of deeper message from the film, merely going in for the escapism (both film and political scholars would endlessly debate how much of an impact Atlas Shrugged really had on the 1980 presidential election). Sam Peckinpah’s career was revived by his work on this film, and it became the most financially successful film of his career. Peckinpah would also be nominated for the Academy Award for Best Film Editing, only the second Oscar nomination he had received up to that point. [3]
...
[1] In our timeline, it was a bomb, having to face tough competition from Star Wars. However, without the presence of that movie at the box office, and due to the fact that the tone of Cross of Iron fits very well with this timeline, it’s substantially more successful.
[2] Historically, Randolph became the first Libertarian state representative in history when elected in 1978, having previously been a Republican state legislator. In 1982, when he was the Alaska gubernatorial nominee for the LP, he garnered 15% of the vote. I figure that should Randolph have run for some higher office in 1978, there would be a very good chance he'd win with the current national environment, and due to the fact that Alaska has a strong libertarian bent, similar to Idaho or Montana.
[3] I literally just noticed Drew said the next update would also include info on the next Oscars. This isn't going to be a movie that would win, or even really be nominated, for any of the major categories, but I do think it would probably get a couple of technical nods. Again, this is Drew's decision, though.
---
Thoughts?
I though, though, maybe it's time for the weird politics of the era to really start affecting what kinds of movies are being made. While Drew already dabbled in this concept when he invented the films Soles and, to a lesser extent, Gronk for the purposes of this timeline, I thought to myself, what political movement in America has benefited the most from the events of this timeline? Why, libertarianism, of course! And what's the favorite novel of libertarians! Why, Atlas Shrugged, of course! I had been playing with this concept recently, and decided to right it down over the past several days.
However, the way I thought it up, I decided to ask Drew for permission on one detail. Is it alright if we bump up the death of Ayn Rand from 1982 to 1977? Historically, she was VERY protective of her work where it regarded making film adaptations (it was reported that she regularly visited the set of The Fountainhead to make sure everything was to her liking) and even though it still espouses something like Objectivism, I'm not sure that she would accept this version of her novel while she's alive.
Should Drew accept my request there, here's my contribution for a 1980 film version of Atlas Shrugged. He of course has final say over what is canon in his timeline, and can choose to accept all, part, or none of this.
---
July 11, 1980
Atlas Shrugged, an action-drama film directed by Sam Peckinpah and loosely based on the novel by Ayn Rand, is released and distributed by United Artists.
Background and Production
A film adaptation of Atlas Shrugged was in development hell for the better part of a decade. In 1972, Albert S. Ruddy approached Rand to produce a cinematic adaptation, but Rand insisted on having final script approval, which Ruddy refused to give her, thus preventing a deal. A former Hollywood screenwriter herself, Rand had contemplated writing her own screenplay based on the novel, but died of lung cancer in 1977 before she could begin. She left her estate, including the film rights to Atlas, to her student Leonard Peikoff.
Meanwhile, Peckinpah’s physical condition had begun to deteriorate as the 1970’s progressed. While his most recent film, 1977’s Cross of Iron, had been a success [1], his abuse of alcohol and cocaine had worsened as a result of the stressful conditions on set. Described by those close to him as “an emotional wreck” during this time, he stumbled across a copy of Atlas Shrugged that he had received as a gift from a friend some years back. Immediately engrossed, he came to embrace the ideology espoused “with the same fervor as a convert accepts the Bible or the Koran”, as he would put it. Peckinpah found Objectivism very appealing, especially at that difficult point in his life, and suddenly decided that he wanted his next movie to be an adaptation of Atlas Shrugged. In late 1978, Peckinpah bought an option to produce the film, paying Peikoff $500,000 for full creative control.
Peckinpah convinced United Artists to back his production, and immediately went to work on a screenplay. Though the director wished to remain faithful to the basic tenants of Objectivism that Rand had taught, he realized that it would be impossible to tell the full story in a two-hour film, so he worked to condense and simplify the plot, merging and discarding many characters and deleting entire subplots in the interest of time and budgetary limitations. Among other changes, the time period was changed to definitely take place in the near future, rather than the ambiguous time frame of the novel. In addition, the studio had requested that Peckinpah “pep up” the rather dry story, so he took the liberty of changing the corporation run by the protagonist from a railroad company to a defense contractor, similar to Lockheed Corporation. Most of the action was transferred to Southern California, due to the strong presence of the defense industry in the state, aside from the extended battle scene at the beginning of the film.
United Artists granted Peckinpah a $15,000,000 budget to work on Atlas Shrugged, based on the success of Cross of Iron. Casting was completed by mid-1979, and filming began in August of that year. Principal photography wrapped up in January with the filming of the opening battle scene in the jungles of the Yucatan in Mexico. Peckinpah would supervise and assist in the editing of the film over the next several months.
Synopsis
The movie begins with an extended battle scene in the rainforests of an unidentified Latin American country. American soldiers with advanced body armor and small arms confront Native American guerillas. During the bloody sequence, two important things happen toward the end. The first is that a GI is shot and killed in slow motion. As he falls to the ground, the camera zooms in on his assault rifle, revealing that it was manufactured by Taggart Industries. Then, the camera pans over the soldier’s bloody corpse, before finally focusing on the helmet, painted crudely with the words “WHO IS JOHN GALT?”
Back in the United States, Taggart Industries CEO James Taggart (Kris Kristofferson) gives a speech to his corporation’s board of directors, explaining his desire to broaden the company’s horizons and start divisions to work on non-defense related industry. Leaving the meeting, he is met in his office by his sister, Dagny Taggart (Louise Fletcher), the “power behind the throne” of Taggart Industries. She harshly interrogates her brother on how everything went; it becomes obvious that she was the one who thought up the plan. During the conversation, she notes that since many corporate heads in America have been disappearing or retiring, with the ever-expanding government trying to fill in the void, an ideal time has come for a competent business, such as their own, to expand. Dagny then takes a walk through the run-down, futuristic version of Los Angeles. She passes by graffiti asking "WHO IS JOHN GALT?", which she regards for a moment before moving on, shrugging.
Later that night, Dagny meets with her lover, Rearden-Schwartz CEO Hank Rearden (Harrison Ford), who is in the aerospace business, with a defense division. During dinner, Hank confides to Dagny that he has a secret he wants to share with her. Later that night, they visit one of the factories he owns, where he shows her his “secret”: a completely automated aircraft, or “Warbird” as he has named it. Hank predicts that his ability to mass produce these machines will turn the tide of the “New Cold War” forever in America’s forever, as their will be no need to train tens of thousands of pilots to launch tens of thousands of Warbirds. Impressed by this, Dagny asks if the government would really be willing to make this investment, to which Hank sarcastically replies “Yeah, who’s John Galt?” They begin to kiss passionately, and the camera pans out to show that they are being spied on by a shady government agent. Dagny returns home later that night, only to find her brother dead and a SWAT team waiting for her. The scene ends with her being knocked out.
Our heroine comes to the next morning tied to a chair in a dark prison cell. Beside her is another unidentified individual in the same position, only with a bag over their head. A prison guard enters the room to remove said mask, revealing the other prisoner to be Hank Rearden. The guard begins to savagely beat Hank whilst questioning him in a harsh shout (though the audio was distorted in a way so that the audience can just barely not make out what he is saying). With Hank laying bloodied in the corner, the guard walks threateningly toward Dagny. Just before he can strike a blow, however, a voice on the intercom tells him to refrain. Obviously angry and disappointed, the guard slouches out of the room. For the next several minutes, Dagny and a barely conscious Hank discuss why they could possibly be in this sort of situation. Hank suggests that it could be because of all the lobbyists they had both hired to fight the draconian new government regulations on corporations.
They are interrupted by their captor, nefarious government “nationalization enforcer” Wesley Mouch (Jason Miller). He explains to them the reasons they are being held. The first and most important reason is that this is part of the slow process the new administration has been using to take control of the economy. The other corporate heads that Dagny had mentioned earlier in the film to have disappeared or “retired” are going through the same process as them. The administration is starting with the larger, powerful, and more ambitious businesses before working down the ladder to nationalize every business in America. Once they are gone, their businesses can be taken over by the government “for the greater good”. Rearden-Schwartz had been chosen as the next target specifically because of his Warbird program. The government has no interest in buying into the program, because such an “unfair” technological advantage would throw off the delicate balance of the New Cold War. Hearkening to the works of Orwell, the governments of all the superpowers are using the simmering guerilla conflicts and threat of war to squelch freedom at home. He ends the conversation by ominously telling them that their execution is scheduled in one hour. As Mouch opens the door to leave, though, he is killed by a shotgun blast to the head. Several armed men run into the run and free the two government captives. A firefight ensues as they proceed through the hallway, and they duck for cover behind a receptionist’s desk. When Dagny asks the man who appears to be their leader who he is, the man (Michael Biehn) replies “I’m John Galt. You?”
The final third of the movie is devoted to an extremely elaborate action/chase sequence of the dozen or so guerillas, with a now-armed Dagny and Hank in tow, trying to escape the government complex. They finally do, and escape by way of a truck that had been waiting in the nearby forest. This, of course, leads to an elaborate car chase scene on the highway. Concurrent to that, Galt (between taking shots at the pursuing vehicles) explains that he is a freedom fighter trying to fight the ever-expanding government. When asked by Dagny if he had freed them out of the goodness of his heart, Galt replies “Hell no, I’m not an altruist.” He says that did it so he could get their financial and military expertise for the resistance movement. When he asks if they are in, Dagny and Hank smirk at each other, and reply that they are. The film ends with a freeze-frame shot of Dagny firing at a pursuing helicopter with a bazooka.
Reception and Legacy
Critical reaction to Atlas Shrugged was decidedly negative. The film was criticized for being rather thin on the plot with too much focus on the action. Roger Ebert gave it one star out of a possible four, deriding it as being “the most fascist-oriented movie to see wide release since A Clockwork Orange”. However, even those who criticized the film praised Atlas Shrugged for its well-constructed action scenes, especially the opening battle sequence and the car chase scene.
The film fared much better with conservative reviewers, though. While doctrinaire Objectivists were mixed in their view of the film (Leonard Peikoff himself regretted letting Peckinpah have the rights to the film, calling it a “sillyfication of her (Ayn Rand’s) work”), politicians such as John Rarick, John Grady, and Barry Goldwater, Jr. praised it for spreading the message of smaller government and less regulation. Spiro Agnew wrought controversy for saying that Galt’s way of dealing with intrusive government was “morally plausible.” “Were it not for the gratuitous violence,” Agnew declared on his talk show, “I’d recommend that every family in America see this picture. As it is, I recommend it only for responsible adults.” Libertarian activists also adored the movie, to the point where the campaign of the Libertarian presidential candidate, Ronald C. Galtieri, even tried to use it as a promotional tool. Libertarian National Committee Chairman and Alaska Congressman Dick Randolph [2] would claim that the party received a noticeable spike in membership in the months following the release of the film.
Atlas Shrugged did well where it mattered, though. Grossing $110,000,000 at the box office, it became one of the highest grossing films of the year. Audiences generally responded positively to the action in the movie, and comparatively few actually took any sort of deeper message from the film, merely going in for the escapism (both film and political scholars would endlessly debate how much of an impact Atlas Shrugged really had on the 1980 presidential election). Sam Peckinpah’s career was revived by his work on this film, and it became the most financially successful film of his career. Peckinpah would also be nominated for the Academy Award for Best Film Editing, only the second Oscar nomination he had received up to that point. [3]
...
[1] In our timeline, it was a bomb, having to face tough competition from Star Wars. However, without the presence of that movie at the box office, and due to the fact that the tone of Cross of Iron fits very well with this timeline, it’s substantially more successful.
[2] Historically, Randolph became the first Libertarian state representative in history when elected in 1978, having previously been a Republican state legislator. In 1982, when he was the Alaska gubernatorial nominee for the LP, he garnered 15% of the vote. I figure that should Randolph have run for some higher office in 1978, there would be a very good chance he'd win with the current national environment, and due to the fact that Alaska has a strong libertarian bent, similar to Idaho or Montana.
[3] I literally just noticed Drew said the next update would also include info on the next Oscars. This isn't going to be a movie that would win, or even really be nominated, for any of the major categories, but I do think it would probably get a couple of technical nods. Again, this is Drew's decision, though.
---
Thoughts?
Last edited:
I'm okay with this. The release date is three days before the Republican National Convention - a showdown between Rummy and the Gipper.
Died from Lung Cancer in 1977.
Okay. One change I will make is that Dick Randolph (Lib-AK) is the Alaska at large Congressman rather than the Governor, one of the 4 Libertarians in the House.
This would be a 1980 movie (based on release) so wouldn't show-up for nominations until the 53rd Academy Awards in 1981.
I like Cross of Iron and think it even more applicable ITTL.
Alright, thanks Drew! Made the necessary edit regarding Randolph.
And I see, the movies for your Oscar update will be the best of 1979?
Did you guys know someone added a section on this to John McKeithen's wikipedia entry?
I don't think the Wiki people would approve if they knew, though. This is, while very good, not a book or anything.
Spengler
Banned
Drew thande just pointed me to a song that really seems like it could work well with this timeline. I am just wondering if you could see it fitting?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXnanjdSHPA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXnanjdSHPA
- Status