This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Actually, the fact that I don't know most of these actors is refreshing. The source material isn't going to benefit from Tom Cruise and Julia Roberts.
its about a moving company
I wouldn't. It's 1000 pages. To sum it up, entrepreneurs are good, government intervention/charity is bad, and the answer to the question "who is John Galt," is less exciting than you'd expect.
No. It's really, really long and not that good.
I can see flocks of Tea Partiers going and eating it up.
Probably. But I think others might be repulsed.
Maybe. However, I wonder if the message will be toned down enough to be more suitable to the masses.
That would make the world's Irony Meters go haywire.
Agreed. I hope they put more money into making a good story than hiring a marquee cast or CGI.
It has an intended effect?It won't change anyone's stance anymore than starting a thread here arguing the merits of Rand's beliefs will. People who agree or disagree with her will continue to do so.Perhaps, just perhaps, it will generate a few more fans but I doubt many of the 'non-producers' she derides will be flocking to see a drama based on train companies.
I'm going to go out on a huge limb here and guess that the people behind this movie are promoting objectivism.
Please tell me that this was intentional.
No, I honestly think it's likely to convey a message more suitable to the conservative masses. Do you think I'm wrong about that? I realize it would have been funnier the other way, though!
No. Have to do with where choo-choo go.
I don't need a marquee cast, just a talented cast (a subtle, but important distinction). I was not impressed from the snippets in the trailer.
It's funny to see the absolute rancor Ayn Rand inspires for some people.
It's far too hard to tell from a bunch of out of context clips spliced together, effectively, at random.A well written story can make up for a lot of acting and production flaws.
It's funny and sad zed. I am on the fence about Rand, I agree with so much of her philosophy but I accept that if enacted to it's fullest potential it would fail miserably (unless you simply started exterminating non-producers, which seems like a failure if that's what you have to do to make it happen). But I agree that bringing everything down to an average in the interest of 'fairness' limits everyone.There is a balance that we are trying to achieve (needs to be achieved) but finding it is a tremendous and possibly futile struggle.It's funny to see the absolute rancor Ayn Rand inspires for some people.
Fair enough. Although the backstory of the production does not bode well...From Jdoggy's link above:
I don't think this is rancor, it's more about the fact that you're saying this massive 1,000 page book needs to be read to understand the movie. You don't need to read LOTR or To Kill a Mockingbird to enjoy the movies, and both books are far superior.It's funny to see the absolute rancor Ayn Rand inspires for some people.
Her books are intended as a platform to espouse her philosophy. And much of the dialog between the characters are really well-crafted essays. It would be impossible to capture that full (or even half that) "dialog" in the books into a screenplay for sheer time considerations. I recall the movie version of the Fountainhead did an OK job of it... but that story was much shorter and limited in scope than Atlas Shrugged.ETA: Yes, you are technically right... you do not need to read the book to "understand" or "enjoy" the movie. But my point is that almost all of what made the book great will be lost in the film version.I don't think this is rancor, it's more about the fact that you're saying this massive 1,000 page book needs to be read to understand the movie. You don't need to read LOTR or To Kill a Mockingbird to enjoy the movies, and both books are far superior.It's funny to see the absolute rancor Ayn Rand inspires for some people.
Logical thinking shouldn't be complex. That's the point. And the scope of Atlas Shrugged, like it or not, was broader than just free market economics. It was about all elements of society... (yes) government, economics, but also love, religion, family and individual values.Matthias said:It does. It's preachy, simplistic, and repetitive. I gutted out reading Atlas Shrugged by skimming over the, "Oh, Ayn is getting on the soapbox with the same 30-page sermon again" parts. But there's nothing particularly complex about her ideology: markets -> good/fair; government -> bad/unjust. Everything else is finding a different way of trying to say this same thing. And as all absolutist ideologies it's impractical in the real world. But Rand doesn't concern herself with exploring where this may be the case or how to adjust. Instead she just hammers, hammers, hammers the same point again. There may be a difference between substance-free and single-substance-continually-repeated but if there is, it's not big enough or interesting enough for me to try to tease out.
I'm going to buy a bunch of homeless people tickets and watch hilarity ensue.
This post fully recognizes my point from earlier that this movie won't convert anyone. Those who support Rand will continue to do so and those that don't will also continue to do so.I doubt many who know little about her will go see a drama about trains in 2011.Matthias said:
I would think that any real academic works which address the depth of logical thinking and decision making would be very complex, just like the human mind. There's a reason every other work recognized as a philosophical classic is far more complex: those works acknowledge the complexity of the matters they are approaching, as opposed to Rand's refusal to acknowledge that any viewpoints not in complete accordance with her own might have any validity.
I am pretty sure that Rand is widely accepted as a complex and critical thinker.The fact that she raises so much controversy when discussing her work 50+ years after the fact supports that and suggests that we will continue to do so long into the future.That all may change but I think an outright unilateral rejection of her beliefs is unlikely.
If that is the case, I got a great title for it:Atlas Shrugged 2: The Phantom Audience
I don't think that's true. I don't know of many college philosophy classes that discuss her at all, let alone in the terms used to describe those more commonly acknowledged as philosophical luminaries.
Holy crap
