PDA

View Full Version : Atlas Shrugged Movie




KEEF
10-27-2011, 06:59 PM
Hey all,

I've been waiting for it to finally come out on DVD. Amazon.com has its release date Nov. 8. You can preorder it now.

Atlas Shrugged Part 1 Starring Edi Gathegi and Taylor Schilling (Nov 8, 2011)
(20 customer reviews)
DVD
Buy new: $22.98 $16.99

Available for Pre-order. This item will be released on November 8, 2011.
Pre-order Price Guarantee. See Details

iamse7en
10-27-2011, 07:26 PM
Been waiting for this one. IMDb users weren't impressed. Neither were critics. :) I'll get it off teh torrents.

NIU Students for Liberty
10-27-2011, 08:20 PM
It's crap so don't waste your money. Aside from the cheap CGI (I understand the movie had a low budget but still), the dialogue is clunky and the libertarian messages in the film are far from subtle (to the point where they beat you over the head with it). I never read the book so I'm not sure how accurately the film portrays it, but it was an overall bore fest.

Sola_Fide
10-27-2011, 08:24 PM
I attended the premier here in Louisville. It was a crowded theatre but I got the sense that people weren't impressed. I did hear some conversations about Rand Paul going on though.

Jtorsella
10-27-2011, 08:39 PM
It's crap so don't waste your money. Aside from the cheap CGI (I understand the movie had a low budget but still), the dialogue is clunky and the libertarian messages in the film are far from subtle (to the point where they beat you over the head with it). I never read the book so I'm not sure how accurately the film portrays it, but it was an overall bore fest.
I've read the book and it is great. Don't want to see the movie, though. Might spoil my impression of the book. I've read that they are doubling the budget and getting some bigger names for part two.

helmuth_hubener
10-27-2011, 09:38 PM
Even if it is bad, I want to see it anyway. The critics hated the book, too.

Carehn
10-27-2011, 09:47 PM
The movie gets it right in one way...

In the book (That you should read) Dagny listens to this dudes music all the time and she really likes this one song. Then she goes to a party full of saps, the kind of saps that our destroying this country today, be it the voter, lobbyist, other nameless shit heads and she finds a group of them listening to the song she loves. Buts its been all twisted and chopped with new age crap. Its symbolic of how they are twisting and chopping the rational world into bits of crap. And she storms out - I think..

Well that part is not in the movie but I learned how Dagny felt at that point in the book when i was circled by tea party people shouting about bumper sticker moments at the movie of this book that is like my favorite and watched as they all loved this story that had been twisted and chopped up. Made me sick. Ayn Rand would kick some ass if she only new.

Napolitanic Wars
10-27-2011, 10:02 PM
On a side note, I wanted to download the movie when it came out from a download site. There were 2 search results: one for the audiobook, one for the Stossel special. Now there are 15 results: half for the audiobook, mostly half for the E-book, and one for the Stossel special. :D

Crystallas
10-27-2011, 10:05 PM
The movie was okay. Making an adaptation is awfully hard to do when it comes to Atlas Shrugged. And yes, if you don't read the book and skip to the movie(lazy intelligence), the movie will not seem very good.

Anyhow, I never believed the book to be a top 10 libertarian book, but I am glad it introduced a lot of people into a different form of thinking. It's still a great book, nonetheless, except part 1 is the weakest part of the book! LOL So you really can't bite into the concept with just part 1. Part 2 should be leaps and bounds better.

heavenlyboy34
10-27-2011, 10:14 PM
The movie gets it right in one way...

In the book (That you should read) Dagny listens to this dudes music all the time and she really likes this one song. Then she goes to a party full of saps, the kind of saps that our destroying this country today, be it the voter, lobbyist, other nameless shit heads and she finds a group of them listening to the song she loves. Buts its been all twisted and chopped with new age crap. Its symbolic of how they are twisting and chopping the rational world into bits of crap. And she storms out - I think..

Well that part is not in the movie but I learned how Dagny felt at that point in the book when i was circled by tea party people shouting about bumper sticker moments at the movie of this book that is like my favorite and watched as they all loved this story that had been twisted and chopped up. Made me sick. Ayn Rand would kick some ass if she only new.
Strange they would omit that scene-it would be easy enough to put into a movie. :p (I haven't seen it yet...I'm several chapters into the book now) Seriously, I don't think that book will ever be made into a decent movie. So much is lost without the narrative and so forth.

JohnRego
10-27-2011, 10:19 PM
I hate the way Ayn Rand idealizes these people. As if they were gods among men. Capitalists are just people like any other people, acting on incentives. They are to be commended for being ahead of the game, but everything is really just an iteration on another product before it. If they didn't do it, somebody else would have, but perhaps 3 months later than them.

Also, Boooo objectivism. Hurray subjective value theory.

pure
10-27-2011, 10:20 PM
Loved the novel. Movie was atrocious.

Carehn
10-27-2011, 10:36 PM
When you get to John Galts speech put the book down and take a brake. The next time you pic it up have three hours to burn and read the speech in its hole. The book seems to get really good in part 2 if i remember.

low preference guy
10-27-2011, 10:37 PM
When you get to John Galts speech put the book down and take a brake. The next time you pic it up have three hours to burn and read the speech in its hole. The book seems to get really good in part 2 if i remember.
i liked the book but i think i skipped the speech and it was still worth it

helmuth_hubener
10-27-2011, 10:38 PM
In the book (That you should read) Dagny listens to this dudes music all the time and she really likes this one song. Then she goes to a party full of saps, the kind of saps that our destroying this country today, be it the voter, lobbyist, other nameless shit heads and she finds a group of them listening to the song she loves. Buts its been all twisted and chopped with new age crap. Its symbolic of how they are twisting and chopping the rational world into bits of crap. And she storms out - I think..You've got it, but she doesn't storm out, she has to stick around to hear Francisco's Money speech.

this story that had been twisted and chopped up. Made me sick.Cut some slack. Really this is way too big of a book for a movie. Most movies cover the events of less than a dozen days. Those days may not be continguous (though they are more often than you think [think about all the random movies you've seen and you'll be surprised how many cover less than a week. Star Wars: A New Hope could have all happened in one 48 hour period!]), they may skip around, but there's only so many total days we see, only so many events. Really big stories like this are more suited to a serial form. Atlas Shrugged would make a much better serial -- miniseries or even full TV series -- than a movie. At least they did split it up into a trilogy, but still, it's a challenging story to fit into the movie format.

Carehn
10-27-2011, 10:45 PM
I hate the way Ayn Rand idealizes these people. As if they were gods among men. Capitalists are just people like any other people, acting on incentives. They are to be commended for being ahead of the game, but everything is really just an iteration on another product before it. If they didn't do it, somebody else would have, but perhaps 3 months later than them.

Also, Boooo objectivism. Hurray subjective value theory.

You should read the book romantic manifesto. She talks about art.

Rand liked romanticism the best in righting and art. She wrote that way.It has something to do with her philosophy. She believed art was to focus on the heights of ideas, and what could be. She found it to be poor art to focus on details that had nothing to do with the overall structure of the idea or statement the artist was trying to make. and that statement can tell you a lot about the philosophy of the artist and possibly the society he lives in. Like art about death or destruction or blood guts that sort of thing can tell you a bit about the person. Or a book about swindling business men and the undeserving plight of the poor.

Her philosophy led her to understand that man must purse her own happiness to be moral and for her that was righting books about champions not sob story's. Because her philosophy also led her to understand that idealizing anything but would be some kind of mental problem. I don't know.

Just read romantic manifesto.

low preference guy
10-27-2011, 10:51 PM
You should read the book romantic manifesto. She talks about art.

[...]

I like your non-confrontational style. I don't know how I would've replied to that...

helmuth_hubener
10-27-2011, 10:57 PM
If they didn't do it, somebody else would have, but perhaps 3 months later than them. Individual highly creative men are much more important in my view than in this view you present. There are certain inventions that may never have been made except for the contribution of one man. Certain technological paths which would not have been followed. Technology is not one simple progression; there's lots of forks in the road. Without Tesla, we'd all quite possibly be using DC motors rather than AC motors. Someone may have come up with the brushless motor eventually, 50 years later, but we would have been far down another technological path and it would have been a curiousity -- a headline one day on Yahoo and then forgotten. It was really very unique thinking that came up with this motor that conventional wisdom said was impossible. It's possible no one would have ever invented it. Without Henry Ford, perhaps we'd all be driving hovercraft instead of cars. Without Philo Farnsworth, perhaps we would have had highly precise mechanical TVs, because really, who else is going to come up with the convoluted vacuum tube idea that he did? Without John Galt, perhaps we still wouldn't have static electricity motors. Individuals matter. Individuals change things.

TheTyke
10-27-2011, 11:08 PM
I just absolutely loved the way the movie poked a finger in the eye of the way Hollywood movies are always done. Every conventional "lesson of life" that they all teach was delightfully and hilarious mocked. I didn't approve of the lack of morality, but otherwise it did have a really good message. It actually made me very emotional at some points. It was a really refreshing experience and I'm looking forward to seeing the rest of it.

That said, I haven't read the book yet... so I came into it with no expectations.

Cap
10-28-2011, 03:21 AM
Looking forward to it Keef. +rep

Elwar
10-28-2011, 05:39 AM
I liked it. I did not want it to end.

Then it was back to reality.

William R
10-28-2011, 06:27 AM
I enjoyed the movie!! They filmed it in three weeks with less than ten million.

G-Wohl
10-28-2011, 09:09 AM
It's crap so don't waste your money. Aside from the cheap CGI (I understand the movie had a low budget but still), the dialogue is clunky and the libertarian messages in the film are far from subtle (to the point where they beat you over the head with it). I never read the book so I'm not sure how accurately the film portrays it, but it was an overall bore fest.

OK, first of all, Ayn Rand is not a libertarian and vehemently despised libertarianism (for good reason). Second, Atlas Shrugged was written in the romanticist literary style, so the characters reciting long philosophical speeches is to be expected. The film, though I'm sure it is awful, probably was faithful to the novel in that regard.

In any event, it should be made known that Objectivism and libertarianism are not compatible. Objectivism is a wholly integrated philosophical system which libertarianism contradicts in many meaningful ways.

Kludge
10-28-2011, 09:17 AM
OK, first of all, Ayn Rand is not a libertarian and vehemently despised libertarianism (for good reason). Second, Atlas Shrugged was written in the romanticist literary style, so the characters reciting long philosophical speeches is to be expected. The film, though I'm sure it is awful, probably was faithful to the novel in that regard.

In any event, it should be made known that Objectivism and libertarianism are not compatible. Objectivism is a wholly integrated philosophical system which libertarianism contradicts in many meaningful ways.
I'd be interested in hearing more of why the two aren't compatible, assuming libertarianism is not synonymous with anarchism, but is instead a broad umbrella-term for those who favor minimal, no, or non-compulsory government.

G-Wohl
10-28-2011, 09:56 AM
I'd be interested in hearing more of why the two aren't compatible, assuming libertarianism is not synonymous with anarchism, but is instead a broad umbrella-term for those who favor minimal, no, or non-compulsory government.

It's the basis for the two viewpoints that make them incompatible with one another. Libertarianism assumes a political ideology lacking in a philosophical (meaning: ethical) basis. They see politics as being removed from ethics, which is why religious people, atheists, and KKK members can all be considered - legitimately - libertarians.

Objectivism, on the other hand, presupposes many things that are a necessary precursor to the establishment of the capitalist philosophy. It is strictly in favor of free market capitalism, meaning that the government is separated from the economy like it is with the church. Rand proposes a government of only the police, the courts, and the military, with only voluntary funding.

To get there, one has to have the epistemological understanding of Rand's concept formation theories. That is also hinged on the metaphysical understanding of objective reality (which results in the necessity that one does not believe in a god or is religious in any way, shape, or form), and then, of course, the ethical notion that man should be a self-interested, rational human being. Only then can we arrive at the conclusions that Rand does.

So, in order to have the political theories of Rand, you also need to accept the other philosophical ideas. What would be particularly in question within this community is the belief in god. Objectivists are atheists and pro-choice, and it is impossible to justify Rand's capitalism without accepting these ideas first.

heavenlyboy34
10-28-2011, 10:10 AM
It's the basis for the two viewpoints that make them incompatible with one another. Libertarianism assumes a political ideology lacking in a philosophical (meaning: ethical) basis. They see politics as being removed from ethics, which is why religious people, atheists, and KKK members can all be considered - legitimately - libertarians.

Objectivism, on the other hand, presupposes many things that are a necessary precursor to the establishment of the capitalist philosophy. It is strictly in favor of free market capitalism, meaning that the government is separated from the economy like it is with the church. Rand proposes a government of only the police, the courts, and the military, with only voluntary funding.

To get there, one has to have the epistemological understanding of Rand's concept formation theories. That is also hinged on the metaphysical understanding of objective reality (which results in the necessity that one does not believe in a god or is religious in any way, shape, or form), and then, of course, the ethical notion that man should be a self-interested, rational human being. Only then can we arrive at the conclusions that Rand does.

So, in order to have the political theories of Rand, you also need to accept the other philosophical ideas. What would be particularly in question within this community is the belief in god. Objectivists are atheists and pro-choice, and it is impossible to justify Rand's capitalism without accepting these ideas first.
Patently false. There are different views of ethics and morality among various libertarians, but they (morality and ethics) are important to libertarianism. Rothbard's "Ethics Of Liberty", for example, would be of interest to you.

Xenophage
10-28-2011, 10:15 AM
Magnificent book, worst movie of all time. OF ALL TIME.

Xenophage
10-28-2011, 10:21 AM
Patently false. There are different views of ethics and morality among various libertarians, but they (morality and ethics) are important to libertarianism. Rothbard's "Ethics Of Liberty", for example, would be of interest to you.

You just confirmed his point, "there are different views of ethics and morality among various libertarians." Libertarianism isn't a moral philosophy, it's just a political one, BECAUSE you can be a "libertarian" for all kinds of ethical reasons. You can be a consequentialist, a Christian, a Rothbardian, an OBJECTIVIST!, whatever. Some of these things don't actually do a very good job at logically concluding libertarianism from an ethical standpoint, and some of them I would argue hurt libertarianism, but there you have it.

G-Wohl
10-28-2011, 10:30 AM
Patently false. There are different views of ethics and morality among various libertarians, but they (morality and ethics) are important to libertarianism. Rothbard's "Ethics Of Liberty", for example, would be of interest to you.

Right. That's one ethical take on a system that, by definition, needs no overarching ethical backbone for the adherence to its principles. Please don't call something that I say 'patently' false unless it is, indeed, entirely false in an obvious way.

You actually proved my point by positing that there are different views of ethics and morality among various libertarians. I think that this is true, and this is precisely where Objectivism differs. It has one set of values that must be accepted before politics are even a question. Rand was correct to say that the country suffers from a principally philosophical problem, and not a political one - a change towards an Objectivist morality would, by definition, mean a change toward an Objectivist society (i.e. capitalism).

heavenlyboy34
10-28-2011, 11:06 AM
You just confirmed his point, "there are different views of ethics and morality among various libertarians." Libertarianism isn't a moral philosophy, it's just a political one, BECAUSE you can be a "libertarian" for all kinds of ethical reasons. You can be a consequentialist, a Christian, a Rothbardian, an OBJECTIVIST!, whatever. Some of these things don't actually do a very good job at logically concluding libertarianism from an ethical standpoint, and some of them I would argue hurt libertarianism, but there you have it.
He said " They see politics as being removed from ethics," My point was he was incorrect in that. Sorry, I should have been clearer. I just woke up, and am still somewhat foggy.

helmuth_hubener
10-28-2011, 03:38 PM
You just confirmed his point... You [a libertarian] can be... an OBJECTIVIST! You just contradicted his point. The point: Libertarianism and Objectivism are not compatible. The contradiction: A libertarian can be an Objectivist.

Your contradiction is true. His original point was false. There are libertarians who are Objectivists. There are Objectivists who are libertarians. The philosophies of these objectivist-libertarians is not incoherent or inherently self-contradictory. Thus, Objectivism is compatible with libertarianism. Libertarianism does not contradict Objectivism. Objectivism covers more philosophical area, but the political part of it is libertarian. No contradiction.

Jtorsella
10-28-2011, 03:44 PM
You just contradicted his point. The point: Libertarianism and Objectivism are not compatible. The contradiction: A libertarian can be an Objectivist.

Your contradiction is true. His original point was false. There are libertarians who are Objectivists. There are Objectivists who are libertarians. The philosophies of these objectivist-libertarians is not incoherent or inherently self-contradictory. Thus, Objectivism is compatible with libertarianism. Libertarianism does not contradict Objectivism. Objectivism covers more philosophical area, but the political part of it is libertarian. No contradiction.
This.
I am a leaning objectivist and a libertarian.

JohnGalt1225
10-28-2011, 04:40 PM
Loved the book, the movie was pretty good. My wife really loved it.

cindy25
10-28-2011, 07:56 PM
being released now

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6779781/Atlas.Shrugged.Part.1.LIMITED.2011.BDRip.XviD-Counterfeit

JohnRego
10-28-2011, 10:05 PM
Individual highly creative men are much more important in my view than in this view you present. There are certain inventions that may never have been made except for the contribution of one man. Certain technological paths which would not have been followed. Technology is not one simple progression; there's lots of forks in the road. Without Tesla, we'd all quite possibly be using DC motors rather than AC motors. Someone may have come up with the brushless motor eventually, 50 years later, but we would have been far down another technological path and it would have been a curiousity -- a headline one day on Yahoo and then forgotten. It was really very unique thinking that came up with this motor that conventional wisdom said was impossible. It's possible no one would have ever invented it. Without Henry Ford, perhaps we'd all be driving hovercraft instead of cars. Without Philo Farnsworth, perhaps we would have had highly precise mechanical TVs, because really, who else is going to come up with the convoluted vacuum tube idea that he did? Without John Galt, perhaps we still wouldn't have static electricity motors. Individuals matter. Individuals change things.

For AC, look up Galileo Ferraris, Lucien Gaulard, and John Dixon Gibbs.
For the cathode ray tube television, look up Vladimir Zworykin, Kalman Tihanyi and Alan Archibald Campbell-Sinton.
Ford only made it affordable, something any other capitalist would have clearly been attempting.

You look through out history, and you find that Calculus was being independently developed by two people in different countries at the exact same time. It's entirely possible that Gunnar Nordstrom could have followed the same path Einstein did once the evidence showed his theory of gravitation wrong. Over and over again, you see inventions happening at the same time, and one person just barely beats the other out by doing it first, and then nobody remembers the guys who didn't quite get there in time. They were just first. Individuals only change things just barely before they were about to be changed by someone else. Idea's evolve and build on each other, and each invention has to come about at the right time.

The only person I can think of who might be considered as mattering is Aristotle, and that's only because there were so few people on the earth at that time, and even fewer who had time enough to even think about that kind of thing. And now with officially 7 Billion people on this planet, it's getting harder and harder to be first.

You are not unique. But don't let that stop you. I want to go down in history books too.

Rael
10-28-2011, 10:29 PM
They should have made it into a 3 hour single film. I don't want to watch only 1/3 of the story

low preference guy
10-28-2011, 10:36 PM
They should have made it into a 3 hour single film. I don't want to watch only 1/3 of the story

what you can do is wait until the second and third part are done and then watch one after the other

cindy25
10-28-2011, 10:41 PM
what you can do is wait until the second and third part are done and then watch one after the other

you are assuming that they will be made

helmuth_hubener
10-29-2011, 01:11 AM
For AC, look up Galileo Ferraris, Lucien Gaulard, and John Dixon Gibbs.
For the cathode ray tube television, look up Vladimir Zworykin, Kalman Tihanyi and Alan Archibald Campbell-Sinton.
Ford only made it affordable, something any other capitalist would have clearly been attempting. Hmm, I didn't know about any of these people. Well, I'm still not sure that in every case they were doing the same work and having the same ideas and that everything would have turned out just the same in the absence of the men I mentioned. In Ford's case, another capitalist may have made something else affordable. Maybe an electric car initially instead of gas.

Let's take some more examples, and see if you can shoot these down, too.

What if Steve Jobs had gone into aviation instead of computing? We might have flying cars instead of iPhones today.
What if Murray Rothbard had gone into physics instead of economics, politics, and history? We might have little backyard nuclear reactors instead of Man, Economy, and State. If he hadn't written that, who would have? And if they would have, why didn't they -- just because he already had?
What if Thomas Edison hadn't ever lived? I can't tell you that the major stuff wouldn't have come about in one form or another, because they probably would have: audio recording and playback, and electric light. But it wouldn't have necessarily come about in the same form. Electric lights might have been more expensive and longer-lasting (as they were before Edison made his contribution), audio recording may have used a somewhat different method. And a lot of the more minor stuff might never have been invented at all.

I do want to go down in history books, I do think that I have a unique contribution to make, and so I kind of almost have to think that there have been many people in the past who have made unique contributions. If both Newton and Liebniz had died of childhood diseases, I think it may have been another 50 years before someone came along to accomplish what they did. I guess I just have a very old-fashioned outlook in this regard, a heroic view of history.

JohnRego
10-29-2011, 02:13 AM
Sorry, I don't have the time to shoot down each one. But let me see if I can explain how it works.

It's a bit like evolution. Markets have niche's. And trying to find and fill those niche's is exactly what capitalists are driven to do, it's how they make profits. The Bigger the unfilled niche, the more likely it is that it will be filled, because many different people are trying to make the largest amount of profit by filling those large niches. Saying that an invention wouldn't exist if it weren't for an individual is a bit like saying that puddle wouldn't exist if the first drop from the cloud didn't fall there. Another drop would have fallen there first, and not much later.

The market wouldn't be the wonderful engine it is if this was not the case. We wouldn't have things like Moore's Law if this were not the case. Idea's building on idea's is the only way to prosperity. Ask yourself "why was it somebody in the western world that created the light bulb? Why wasn't it someone in Africa?" These things are created not because we have special people, but because we have a better system which allows people to do so. They aren't super heroes.

As for economics, Murry Rothbard admits himself that in his ideal world, his own work wouldn't exist, as it's a waste of time since there would be no need for economists.

JohnRego
10-29-2011, 06:26 PM
Another thing is Failure is just as important to invention as anything else. Failure eliminates possibilities so that the next person doesn't go down the wrong path. Inventors who succeed owe a massive amount of gratitude to those before them who failed and pointed them away from dead ends. Those failures point to a correct path, and that path is FAR more important than any individual.

Kludge
11-19-2011, 06:30 PM
I watched the movie tonight. I thought it was an alright film, but more importantly, focused on one particular point in Rand's novel I loved and never found enough of for satisfaction.

The difference between Rand and the majority of political talk is that everyone's always talking about money. How can we best facilitate people making money? The movie implies it, but what they pretty explicitly talk about is why successful people get pissed off at government. It isn't about earning less money in a bureaucratic corporatist nightmare of a society -- it's about doing what you want. The characters in the book who leave with Galt are willing to abandon what they've built, which they realize keeps the assholes of society afloat.

I never really recognized it except in Rand's "We The Living." Through their actions, those who leave US society are effectively stating they'd rather lose practically everything they have in a society they hate than continue working around assholes and their government. It's a very powerful action, and the movie made their message very clear. It's not about the characters' money as much as it's about their dignity. The last scene with the burning oil fields is fantastic.

kylejack
11-19-2011, 06:56 PM
The book was great and the movie was terrible. All the acting was horribly wooden.

helmuth_hubener
11-19-2011, 11:32 PM
I was not a big fan of the movie. I thought it was watered down. For example, when Wyatt is yelling at her, Dagny tries to interrupt him and excuse herself. The real Dagny would never do that. That was the whole point of the original scene, if anyone recalls the book. She sits there and takes it and tells him he's absolutely right. The point was she'll prove herself to him by her actions, not her excuses like all the weaselly characters around her.

Anyway, I fell asleep about 2/3rds of the way through, so I'll have to watch it again. Maybe I'll like it more the second time.

I watched The Fountainhead the other day and WOW! There is a movie that's not watered down. It's amazing how much of the hard-hitting philosophical points of the book are jammed in there, yet it's not a long philosophical lecture; the plot moves along nicely. This movie is wonderful.

heavenlyboy34
11-19-2011, 11:43 PM
I'm sad to hear "Atlas" was so watered down. :( I guess I'll wait till it's on DVD or teh webbernet to see it.

Xenophage
11-20-2011, 02:06 AM
He said " They see politics as being removed from ethics," My point was he was incorrect in that. Sorry, I should have been clearer. I just woke up, and am still somewhat foggy.

Oh, right, I agree.

I never minded any kind of libertarian, personally!

Xenophage
11-20-2011, 02:08 AM
OK, first of all, Ayn Rand is not a libertarian and vehemently despised libertarianism (for good reason). Second, Atlas Shrugged was written in the romanticist literary style, so the characters reciting long philosophical speeches is to be expected. The film, though I'm sure it is awful, probably was faithful to the novel in that regard.

In any event, it should be made known that Objectivism and libertarianism are not compatible. Objectivism is a wholly integrated philosophical system which libertarianism contradicts in many meaningful ways.

Objectivism and libertarianism are completely compatible. I consider myself both....

They agree politically. Libertarianism doesn't care how you came to it. How are they incompatible?

Xenophage
11-20-2011, 02:09 AM
I'm sad to hear "Atlas" was so watered down. :( I guess I'll wait till it's on DVD or teh webbernet to see it.

It sucks dude. It was lame.

cindy25
11-20-2011, 04:28 AM
I'm sad to hear "Atlas" was so watered down. :( I guess I'll wait till it's on DVD or teh webbernet to see it.

its been on torrent for about a month

movie is ok but could have been a lot better; should have been a TV miniseries, on the level of Shogun or Taipan.

Keith and stuff
11-20-2011, 04:43 AM
The Fountainhead is black and white, so no one cares about it :( It doesn't matter if it isn't watered down, it is black and white so it doesn't matter.

helmuth_hubener
11-21-2011, 04:53 PM
The Fountainhead is black and white, so no one cares about it :( It doesn't matter if it isn't watered down, it is black and white so it doesn't matter.Where's Ted Turner? Plus, if he had the technology way back in the 80s or whatever, surely it's available for just anyone by now, as a free download on download.com or something, right? Someone colorize it! This movie deserves to be seen!

Xenophage
11-22-2011, 02:51 PM
Where's Ted Turner? Plus, if he had the technology way back in the 80s or whatever, surely it's available for just anyone by now, as a free download on download.com or something, right? Someone colorize it! This movie deserves to be seen!

I thought it was a great movie. Rand wasn't totally happy with it, and Gary Cooper later lamented that he wasn't sure how to play the main character until years later, but frankly I thought it was great. The most pro-individual movie ever made, in fact.

Kludge
11-22-2011, 04:26 PM
I was not a big fan of the movie. I thought it was watered down. For example, when Wyatt is yelling at her, Dagny tries to interrupt him and excuse herself. The real Dagny would never do that. That was the whole point of the original scene, if anyone recalls the book. She sits there and takes it and tells him he's absolutely right. The point was she'll prove herself to him by her actions, not her excuses like all the weaselly characters around her.

Anyway, I fell asleep about 2/3rds of the way through, so I'll have to watch it again. Maybe I'll like it more the second time.

I watched The Fountainhead the other day and WOW! There is a movie that's not watered down. It's amazing how much of the hard-hitting philosophical points of the book are jammed in there, yet it's not a long philosophical lecture; the plot moves along nicely. This movie is wonderful.
It's funny. I was glad to have a distraction when I was watching Atlas Shrugged (the movie being the distraction), but I ended up doing something else halfway through Fountainhead. Atlas Shrugged definitely wasn't a great movie (between the obnoxiously blatant Dell logo placement and the strange editing when someone went missing, it was hard to immerse into), but it did make me feel a little more sympathetic toward Rand. Could just be changes I've had since reading her books. Fwiw, I quit reading Atlas Shrugged around halfway through and read the entirety of Fountainhead.

Wesker1982
11-22-2011, 06:16 PM
I quit reading Atlas Shrugged around halfway through and read the entirety of Fountainhead.

The movie encouraged me to start reading it. I am on chapter 7 right now. It is ok but it seems kind of slow. Does it pick up at all in the next couple hundred pages?

To anyone else who has read it, is there anything to gain from it if you are already a hardcore libertarian? Just wondering because I have a long reading list of things I actually want to study (economics).

ClayTrainor
11-22-2011, 06:18 PM
Stefans review of the movie.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypbH5l1J4Nk

Jtorsella
11-22-2011, 06:28 PM
The movie encouraged me to start reading it. I am on chapter 7 right now. It is ok but it seems kind of slow. Does it pick up at all in the next couple hundred pages?

To anyone else who has read it, is there anything to gain from it if you are already a hardcore libertarian? Just wondering because I have a long reading list of things I actually want to study (economics).
Absolutely. I read it as a minarchist and came out of it having an ENTIRELY different view on life.
Have you gotten to the money speech yet? It gets great after that.

helmuth_hubener
11-23-2011, 07:44 AM
To anyone else who has read it, is there anything to gain from it if you are already a hardcore libertarian? Just wondering because I have a long reading list of things I actually want to study (economics).I first read it in 10th grade, and I felt the same way, I remember. "Isn't anyone ever going to *do* anything?" But that's called "breathtaking in its suspense", at least on the advertising on the cover. And the second time I read it, it did feel more like suspense than lack of action.

The points that Rand makes in the book, that she uses the suspense to hold your attention for, are not mainly political points. They are philosophical points, about her view of right living. Thats what this book is all about. I personally think it is worthwhile. It definitely will not teach you anything new about political philosophy if you are already a libertarian. But it has many interesting ideas about life in general, about topics outside the realm of politics.

I hope that helps!

TroySmith
11-23-2011, 08:10 AM
The movie encouraged me to start reading it. I am on chapter 7 right now. It is ok but it seems kind of slow. Does it pick up at all in the next couple hundred pages?

To anyone else who has read it, is there anything to gain from it if you are already a hardcore libertarian? Just wondering because I have a long reading list of things I actually want to study (economics).

Yes. As much as I love Rothbard, Hayek, and reading history....there is Ayn Rand and there is everyone else. Atlas Shrugged just absolutely destroys collectivism at its very core. A lot of people who criticize rand are people who really haven't read her work and have just seen the youtube clip where she is negative towards Iran (or Iraq). Of course, even here they distort her message. She was arguing that since we were the ones who built there oil industry for them, they had no right to nationalize it. She equated it with theft. She really was pretty much a non-interventionist, but believed we had the right to protect what she believed was our property. But, I digress. The holidays are a great time to start reading the book!

Xenophage
11-23-2011, 04:46 PM
Yes. As much as I love Rothbard, Hayek, and reading history....there is Ayn Rand and there is everyone else. Atlas Shrugged just absolutely destroys collectivism at its very core. A lot of people who criticize rand are people who really haven't read her work and have just seen the youtube clip where she is negative towards Iran (or Iraq). Of course, even here they distort her message. She was arguing that since we were the ones who built there oil industry for them, they had no right to nationalize it. She equated it with theft. She really was pretty much a non-interventionist, but believed we had the right to protect what she believed was our property. But, I digress. The holidays are a great time to start reading the book!

It was theft. The complete failure of the American government at the time to protect American property from foreign aggression was shameful.

Contrast that to our current military adventurism that serves no purpose whatsoever!

When we had a moral reason to attack Iraq, we didn't. When we lacked a moral reason, we went in with guns blazing. Hooray, America.

Rand never advocated military aggression. She did, however, advocate a strong defense, and a non-compromising attitude towards the infringement of the rights of Americans.

Xenophage
11-23-2011, 04:48 PM
The movie encouraged me to start reading it. I am on chapter 7 right now. It is ok but it seems kind of slow. Does it pick up at all in the next couple hundred pages?

To anyone else who has read it, is there anything to gain from it if you are already a hardcore libertarian? Just wondering because I have a long reading list of things I actually want to study (economics).

There isn't anything more worth reading, and to answer your question: yes, it starts slow, but by part 2 of the novel, you're hooked.

low preference guy
11-23-2011, 05:50 PM
It was theft. The complete failure of the American government at the time to protect American property from foreign aggression was shameful.

I disagree here. I think the American government should protect the property of Americans in America. If somebody goes to Venezuela or Iran or Cuba and tries to buy something and then gets cheated, it's not something I should fix with my taxes. If you want to protect the property of Americans in every part of the world, you'll have to take over the government of every country.