saintfool
Dead sexy
i was going to rail against hollywood, its need to churn out sequels and bastardize literary classics for the sake of making a quick buck but that wasn't nearly as much fun.Talking trash about an Ayn Rand movie. Dork alert!
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
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!
Atlas Shrugged, Part 1 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter jdoggydogg
- Start date
NCCommish
Footballguy
Plus it wouldn't apply here since this isn't even in the same zip code as a classic.i was going to rail against hollywood, its need to churn out sequels and bastardize literary classics for the sake of making a quick buck but that wasn't nearly as much fun.Talking trash about an Ayn Rand movie. Dork alert!
jdoggydogg
Footballguy
Rand is no Shakespeare, but I'm fairly certain her work would get classified with the classics - at least on tier 2.Plus it wouldn't apply here since this isn't even in the same zip code as a classic.i was going to rail against hollywood, its need to churn out sequels and bastardize literary classics for the sake of making a quick buck but that wasn't nearly as much fun.Talking trash about an Ayn Rand movie. Dork alert!
pantagrapher
Footballguy
By whom?Rand is no Shakespeare, but I'm fairly certain her work would get classified with the classics - at least on tier 2.Plus it wouldn't apply here since this isn't even in the same zip code as a classic.i was going to rail against hollywood, its need to churn out sequels and bastardize literary classics for the sake of making a quick buck but that wasn't nearly as much fun.Talking trash about an Ayn Rand movie. Dork alert!
jdoggydogg
Footballguy
Isn't Rand read in college and high school along with other famous works?I don't have an opinion either way. I just assumed...By whom?Rand is no Shakespeare, but I'm fairly certain her work would get classified with the classics - at least on tier 2.Plus it wouldn't apply here since this isn't even in the same zip code as a classic.i was going to rail against hollywood, its need to churn out sequels and bastardize literary classics for the sake of making a quick buck but that wasn't nearly as much fun.Talking trash about an Ayn Rand movie. Dork alert!
http://www.englishcompanion.com/Readings/booklists/loclist.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/30/technology/forget-joyce-bring-on-ayn-rand.htmlBy whom?Rand is no Shakespeare, but I'm fairly certain her work would get classified with the classics - at least on tier 2.Plus it wouldn't apply here since this isn't even in the same zip code as a classic.i was going to rail against hollywood, its need to churn out sequels and bastardize literary classics for the sake of making a quick buck but that wasn't nearly as much fun.Talking trash about an Ayn Rand movie. Dork alert!
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
From a literary perspective, Rand's books rank at Tier 53.Rand is no Shakespeare, but I'm fairly certain her work would get classified with the classics - at least on tier 2.Plus it wouldn't apply here since this isn't even in the same zip code as a classic.i was going to rail against hollywood, its need to churn out sequels and bastardize literary classics for the sake of making a quick buck but that wasn't nearly as much fun.Talking trash about an Ayn Rand movie. Dork alert!
pantagrapher
Footballguy
reader poll winners ≠ classicsI'd like to see maybe a syllabus or something from a legitimate literature program.If it belongs anywhere, it's in a history of pop philosophy or poli-sci classroom.http://www.englishcompanion.com/Readings/booklists/loclist.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/30/technology/forget-joyce-bring-on-ayn-rand.htmlBy whom?Rand is no Shakespeare, but I'm fairly certain her work would get classified with the classics - at least on tier 2.Plus it wouldn't apply here since this isn't even in the same zip code as a classic.i was going to rail against hollywood, its need to churn out sequels and bastardize literary classics for the sake of making a quick buck but that wasn't nearly as much fun.Talking trash about an Ayn Rand movie. Dork alert!
Lutherman2112
Footballguy
I wish the Rand fans would just "go Galt" once and for all.
Why can't they just pull all their resources together and...nevermind.
Why can't they just pull all their resources together and...nevermind.
El Floppo
Footballguy
fwiw- I read Rand in college. But not her novels- I still enjoyed those to a point minus the ham-fisted hammerblow-to-the-head objectivist preaching... good, trashy page-turners- put Fabio on the cover and that's basically what you're getting.reader poll winners ≠ classicsI'd like to see maybe a syllabus or something from a legitimate literature program.If it belongs anywhere, it's in a history of pop philosophy or poli-sci classroom.http://www.englishcompanion.com/Readings/booklists/loclist.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/30/technology/forget-joyce-bring-on-ayn-rand.htmlBy whom?Rand is no Shakespeare, but I'm fairly certain her work would get classified with the classics - at least on tier 2.Plus it wouldn't apply here since this isn't even in the same zip code as a classic.i was going to rail against hollywood, its need to churn out sequels and bastardize literary classics for the sake of making a quick buck but that wasn't nearly as much fun.Talking trash about an Ayn Rand movie. Dork alert!
El Floppo
Footballguy
Several? Besides Fountainhead and Atlas... is there another that could be mentioned as "classic"?
Several = more than one.
NCCommish
Footballguy
Several = more than two which are a couple.
El Floppo
Footballguy
or 2.b.I was going to say this should get it's own thread rather than hijack this one... but this is one is hijack worthy, so wtf.
does anybody else use "several" instead of "couple" when they want to talk about two of something? I never have, despite 2.a.
And I forgot about Anthem- the forgetting, by definition, means I don't think of it being at the same level as the other two... several... pair. oh #### it.
dickey moe
Fingerpicker
As Rick Perry would say, "Oops."
mlball77
Footballguy
Haven't read the book, and honestly didn't know all too much about it...
Watched the DVD this weekend. It kept me interested, so I give it credit there, but the whole production had an odd feel to it. Not necessarily a cheesy, low-budget feel, but something felt odd/off to me. It could've been the dialogue or maybe just the man in the shadows/John Galt. Not sure.
I'd be interested to watch part II and III if they are made.
Watched the DVD this weekend. It kept me interested, so I give it credit there, but the whole production had an odd feel to it. Not necessarily a cheesy, low-budget feel, but something felt odd/off to me. It could've been the dialogue or maybe just the man in the shadows/John Galt. Not sure.
I'd be interested to watch part II and III if they are made.
Try reading the book, guy.
OC Zed
Footballguy
I didn't like the screenplay adaptation - I thought they left out too much of the good dialogue in the book and what was presented just was not done justice. There were a few odd casting choices too, although you probably wouldn't see that if you hadn't read the book. But I agree with you... the shadowy John Galt figure was also handled poorly in this first installment.
mlball77
Footballguy
Are you saying this as a positive review for the book or negative?Anyhow, I am considering picking up the book. Don't have a ton of time for reading these days... but if it's a page-turner I might be able to power through it.
mlball77
Footballguy
Super long? Difficult reading? Both?
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
It is not a good book. But you should read it if the movie interested you.
Chaka
Footballguy
Very long. I found it difficult to get into but after about 100 pages I definitely wanted to know how it turns out. She goes off on a lot of soap box speeches which have polarized people all over the world. You will find many people in here who despise her because of her philosophy and many others who insist we should implement them to achieve her model of society.In a nutshell she believes, in a very uncompromising fashion, that people should sink or swim based upon nothing more than their merits. If they swim all of society benefits, if they sink #### 'em.I think it is very much worth a read because, love it or hate it, she offers an interesting viewpoint.
OC Zed
Footballguy
It is super long, but not necessarily difficult reading (compared to say Faulkner or Joyce). But you do have to approach it more like a philosophical treatise than a fictional story. I find her writing to be incredibly self-empowering and uplifting. Personally, I thought "The Fountainhead" is probably a more enjoyable and quicker read (although more limited in scope) than "Atlas Shrugged."
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
I actually gave the exact opposite advice to my wife before she started reading it. I found the book very enjoyable, but not because of the philosophy. I found that I had very strong feelings about certain characters and how they spoke or acted. Lots of people have very strong opinions about Rand and I think they let that enter the story. I tried to avoid that.Different strokes.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
Oof
I loved all Rand's novels when I was in high school. Should I see these movies or just retain the distantly fond memories I have of reading the books?
I loved all Rand's novels when I was in high school. Should I see these movies or just retain the distantly fond memories I have of reading the books?
Biabreakable
Footballguy
If you have fond memories of anything it would likely be best to leave well enough alone. But in this case I think you should see the movies because I do not think this is something you should be having fond memories about. But that is just me.
jonessed
Footballguy
Wait... what? You are upset that someone liked a book you don't like so you want to suggest they do something that might take that enjoyment away? What would the purpose of that be outside of appeasing your own self-centeredness?If you didn't like the book why did you finish it?
Last edited by a moderator:
Biabreakable
Footballguy
I was actually trying to say that we all might remember things in a more rosy hue and that revisiting such memories (particularly seeing a movie yet comparing that to ones own memory) in most cases will be a disappointment. But then after thinking about it in this case, a novel that intends to fill the reader with the ideas of objectivism and a inflated sense of ones worth compared to others really makes me question why anyone would remember that with fondness? And if they do remember it fondly then perhaps they should re-evaluate why that is? Because I do not consider the philosophy of selfishness to be something that one should be getting a warm fuzzy feeling about.ETA- I read the book because it is one of the novels my mother had. Of all of the books in her collection this one bothered me more than any of the others. To me it is pure selfish egoism which is the opposite of how I try to live my life.
Last edited by a moderator:
jonessed
Footballguy
Some of literatures best stories are about mankind's flaws or potential flaws and espouse a variety of viewpoints one may not agree with. That's how you learn and grow. I read The Golden Compass when the movie came out. It was a great book. It didn't turn me into an atheist. I've read Lenin out of curiosity and found it interesting. Are you going to run around trying to convince people that they shouldn't enjoy Macbeth?If someone enjoys a book more power to them. Why would I hope to take away that enjoyment? Your position makes no sense whatsoever.
Last edited by a moderator:
Biabreakable
Footballguy
Well reading a book critically is very different than fond memories or reading something in the past isn't it?So in what I am saying is that if one does have fond memories because of this book that maybe they should re-evaluate why they have a fondness for it, in a critical way.The movie is likely to ruin such nostalgia either way.
Atlas Shrugged is an enjoyable novel, at least in parts. There's nothing wrong with enjoying it.
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
I think that's true. It would have made a pretty good 300 page book. 1100 was stupidly long.
I think if you just skip John Galt's speech, that cuts it down from 1100 pages to about 300.
pantagrapher
Footballguy
cstu
Footballguy
:blowsout:
OC Zed
Footballguy
I finally got around to watching the Part II movie tonight. In comparison to Part I, I thought the second film had much better direction in terms of pace and plot development (based on my recollection of Part I). I really hated, however, the casting switches for Dagny Taggert and Hank Reardon. They were the bright spots of the first film and their replacements just aren't fit for these parts. The actors chosen for James Taggert and Wesly Mouch though nailed their roles.
My other gripe is that a couple of the important speeches in the book - specifically, Francisco's money speech during James Taggert's wedding and Hank Rearden's speech at his trial were shortened. Those were the two best parts of the book (John Galt's speech at the end of the book would have been better if more concise).
Overall, it's still worth watching if you really enjoyed the book and it left me wanting to see how Part Three shapes up.
My other gripe is that a couple of the important speeches in the book - specifically, Francisco's money speech during James Taggert's wedding and Hank Rearden's speech at his trial were shortened. Those were the two best parts of the book (John Galt's speech at the end of the book would have been better if more concise).
Overall, it's still worth watching if you really enjoyed the book and it left me wanting to see how Part Three shapes up.