Atlas Shrugged
Much to my surprise, the matinee at which I saw “Atlas Shrugged, Part I” drew a pretty sizable crowd, considering that it was a beautiful day and life is short. The intended audience for this film is apparently larger than I thought, and I’ll confess that I suspect I’m not among it. I have not read the arboricidal tome on which it is based, nor anything else by Ayn Rand. Beyond that, there’s the project’s troubled back-story itself.
For the uninitiated: John Aglialoro (who received both producer and co-writer credit), one of the ten richest executives in the country, bought the rights to the book almost two decades ago, envisioning it as a star-studded blockbuster, but when that never came together and his rights were about to lapse he rushed this no-star version into production. Now generally, movies made just to beat a rights deadline don’t turn out all that stellar, but hell, if you find just the right director, you can then replace him two weeks before shooting with the fifth-billed guy from “One Tree Hill,” and who knows, miracles could happen.
So just to nutshell it: rushed into production, directed by an actor, starring no-name actors, and adapted by a non-writer cadre from a novel by a sociopath. What could go wrong?
Actually, here’s a correction: adapted from the first-third of a novel by Rand. Apparently, Aglialoro envisioned his baby as being spread out over three or four films rather than–as any sane person would have envisioned such a long, low-budget, talky and uncinematic niche project–as a basic cable network series. So one could argue that it’s not entirely fair to even assess the film’s story, or lack thereof, since technically we’re really only to the quarter-mark at this point, and perhaps we should withhold judgment until the trilogy or quadrilogy is completed and can be judged in its entirety. On the other hand, the likelihood of Part II being made is about on par with that of the “Remo Williams” adventure being given a reboot.
“Atlas Shrugged” is a difficult film to summarize, partly because it’s hard to follow all the plotlines and relationships and, because it’s all so dull and flaccid, harder still to care.
It’s 2016. Not in the real universe, but in some alternate one where oil has become so scarce that trains have become the prominent form of mass transportation, and everyone is forced to speak in complete, stilted sentences. Dagny Taggart (Taylor Schilling, who clearly trained for months to shed all excess personality), runs a big railroad company that has just made a deal with a steel company owned by Hank Rearden (Grant Bowler, think Tim Daly, only more jacked and less interesting) who has just invented a new form of steel that is twice as strong but half the weight of ordinary steel, which naturally has many people dubious of it. It’s like the Sweet n’ Low of steel. Rearden is married to a horrible woman with even more horrible friends and relatives, as evidenced by this scene (released, I guess, in hopes of stirring up buzz, if you can believe that), in which Hank is roundly jeered for giving his wife a bracelet made from his new-fangled steel. (“The intention is pure selfishness it seems to me,” one character quips. “ Another man would have given his wife a diamond bracelet if he wanted to give her a gift. For her pleasure, not his.”
Anyway. So Dagny and Hank become friendly and exchange a lot of longing looks as the new railways are installed (seriously, this is a movie about the installation of new railways), and meanwhile some bad guys are trying to stop him, for some reason, and they are played by Michael Lerner and Jon Polito, who I’d like to think spent time between takes fondly reminiscing about their “Barton Fink” days as they get good and drunk to kill the pain of the present. Lerner plays a character named “Wesley Mouch”, and oops, I just spoiled the best thing in the movie. Other villains include Hank’s brother Phillip, whose great sin (again, watch the clip) is mooching money from his brother for a liberal cause, and there’s Dagny’s brother James, who wants to increase profits by––horror of horrors––trading favors with the villainous government, who keeps passing nonsensical laws like ones that prevent anyone from owning more than one company at a time. To which the owners respond by brainstorming for loopholes, lighting up cigars and laughing until their stomachs hurt. No! That’s what you’d think they’d do. But keep in mind, this is the alternate universe, where all laws are strictly obeyed, and the real villain is that damned Evil Government, which just can’t stop shoving its oppressive boot in White Billionaire’s face.
And beyond this, there’s Francisco D’Arconia, a former lover of Dagny’s, who…well, this is where I should perhaps confess that I spent a significant portion of the film having no idea what was going on. Part of the problem is that most of the scenes consist of people chatting in offices and lounges and living rooms, while most of the actual “story” plays out in the form of montages of TV news clips and close-ups of headlines. My favorite: “Ragnar the Pirate strikes again!” (Randophiles, I’ve just got to know: Do we eventually meet Ragnar the Pirate? If not, why not? Why isn’t he the main character? Even I would have ve read an 1,100 page-book about Ragnar the Pirate.).
So D’Arconia does, I think, something oil-related to piss off Dagny and Hank, and then promptly disappears from the movie, as do several other characters after running into a mysterious figure (and by “mysterious” I mean, he always moves in such a way that the camera can’t quite see his face, which is devilishly clever) named John Galt. Even those of you unfamiliar with the book have undoubtedly heard the catch-phrase, “Who is John Galt?” Well, basically, John Galt is a dude whose M.O. is to approach a successful businessman and introduce himself as “someone who knows what it’s like to work for himself and not let others feed off the profits of his energy.” He’s kind of like the Shadow, if the Shadow talked too much. So he approaches these people, and then a screen graphic appears to inform us that they’ve gone missing. Who is he and what’s with all the screen graphics?
Rest assured, Part I does not answer any of this, unless you count the end credits listing of the director himself, Paul Johansson, as playing the role. But there’s the plot for you: railways being replaced, successful businessmen being kidnapped, government sticking it to The Man, and in the course of all this tumult two incredibly bland people falling in love. And yes, there’s a love scene, if you can call it that, but by the time we get there, the movie has already shot its wad on its emotional climax, which is when Dagny and Hank take the inaugural ride on the new railway. Seriously, this is the tear-jerking high point, by far, of the entire one hundred minutes: two people sit, staring blankly forward, riding a train, as the music soars–I’m not making this up.
Does all this sound kind of boring? If so, I must apologize, for in fact, it’s stupifyingly boring, to such a degree that it’s almost fascinating. It’s not merely a matter of not being entertained by it, it’s sitting there wondering who could possibly be entertained by something so limp and lifeless and static, other than the book’s rabid fans who’ve been idly wondering what Dagny Taggart would look like in real life (Answer: Like an icier Cheryl Ladd). Rarely has there been a film where so much is going on, yet so little happens. And yet, at the screening I attended, the film’s conclusion (SPOILER ALERT: “End of Part I”) drew a hearty round of applause. Apparently, the theme of “Atlas Shrugged” still resonates to this day, the theme being (as articulated by Dagny): “What is it with the altruism? It’s not charitable, and it’s not fair!”
Indeed! Totally not fair. Effing altruism. Bringing me to a final note to the producers: If you do manage to get Part II off the ground, a) Good luck with that; and b) you might want to think about trading up in casting for the leads. My suggestions, take ’em or leave ’em…
news via inbox
Nulla turp dis cursus. Integer liberos euismod pretium faucibua
93 Comments
Comments are closed.
A lot of blah, blah, blah, honestly I couldn't get through it all. But I just have one question???? Mr. ARTHUR TIERSKY, who the hell are you and what do you do?? Speaking of no names, I have no idea who you are???
A lot of blah, blah, blah, honestly I couldn't get through it all. But I just have one question???? Mr. ARTHUR TIERSKY, who the hell are you and what do you do?? Speaking of no names, I have no idea who you are???
A lot of blah, blah, blah, honestly I couldn't get through it all. But I just have one question???? Mr. ARTHUR TIERSKY, who the hell are you and what do you do?? Speaking of no names, I have no idea who you are???
To your surprise, the matinee showing of "Atlas Shrugged, Part I" drew a sizable crowd. Not to mine, since it seems to strike a chilling resemblance to the policies of our current government. Not surprising at all since 2010 has shown that them American people are finally waking up!!
To your surprise, the matinee showing of "Atlas Shrugged, Part I" drew a sizable crowd. Not to mine, since it seems to strike a chilling resemblance to the policies of our current government. Not surprising at all since 2010 has shown that them American people are finally waking up!!
To your surprise, the matinee showing of "Atlas Shrugged, Part I" drew a sizable crowd. Not to mine, since it seems to strike a chilling resemblance to the policies of our current government. Not surprising at all since 2010 has shown that them American people are finally waking up!!
If you have read the book, you will enjoy the movie. I look forward to part 2.
If you have read the book, you will enjoy the movie. I look forward to part 2.
If you have read the book, you will enjoy the movie. I look forward to part 2.
What a great summary from someone obviously too dim to understand what one is watching.
You were board because it was over you head, just as a child is board when his parents watch an adult program he does not understand.
The humorous part is that you have a public forum here in which to spout your ignorance. I enjoyed watching your display.
What a great summary from someone obviously too dim to understand what one is watching.
You were board because it was over you head, just as a child is board when his parents watch an adult program he does not understand.
The humorous part is that you have a public forum here in which to spout your ignorance. I enjoyed watching your display.
What a great summary from someone obviously too dim to understand what one is watching.
You were board because it was over you head, just as a child is board when his parents watch an adult program he does not understand.
The humorous part is that you have a public forum here in which to spout your ignorance. I enjoyed watching your display.
"the matinee at which I saw 'Atlas Shrugged, Part I' drew a pretty sizable crowd"
The only useful information in this entire display of literary and infantile blustering.
"the matinee at which I saw 'Atlas Shrugged, Part I' drew a pretty sizable crowd"
The only useful information in this entire display of literary and infantile blustering.
"the matinee at which I saw 'Atlas Shrugged, Part I' drew a pretty sizable crowd"
The only useful information in this entire display of literary and infantile blustering.
http://alinaderzad.blogspot.com/2011/04/miracles-do-happen-dont-they.html #atlasshrugged Hack review by no name critic. If u can't produce/direct, crtique. ROTFLMAO
http://alinaderzad.blogspot.com/2011/04/miracles-do-happen-dont-they.html #atlasshrugged Hack review by no name critic. If u can't produce/direct, crtique. ROTFLMAO
http://alinaderzad.blogspot.com/2011/04/miracles-do-happen-dont-they.html #atlasshrugged Hack review by no name critic. If u can't produce/direct, crtique. ROTFLMAO
Folks, I'm happy to have a substantive discussion of the film. By all means, if you disagree with me, formulate a rebuttal with regard to the film. Merely hurling insults at me accomplishes little beyond proving that you have nothing to say in defense of the film.
Oh, and "Anonymous" who challenged me on who I am? Um…You do see the irony there, right?
Folks, I'm happy to have a substantive discussion of the film. By all means, if you disagree with me, formulate a rebuttal with regard to the film. Merely hurling insults at me accomplishes little beyond proving that you have nothing to say in defense of the film.
Oh, and "Anonymous" who challenged me on who I am? Um…You do see the irony there, right?
Folks, I'm happy to have a substantive discussion of the film. By all means, if you disagree with me, formulate a rebuttal with regard to the film. Merely hurling insults at me accomplishes little beyond proving that you have nothing to say in defense of the film.
Oh, and "Anonymous" who challenged me on who I am? Um…You do see the irony there, right?
Ayn Rand would spit on the Koch Brothers and Glenn Beck. They are the type of parasites she hated so much.
Ayn Rand would spit on the Koch Brothers and Glenn Beck. They are the type of parasites she hated so much.
Ayn Rand would spit on the Koch Brothers and Glenn Beck. They are the type of parasites she hated so much.
>>Not to mine, since it seems to strike a chilling resemblance to the policies of our current government.
Okay, I'll bite. How does it do that, exactly? What's the resemblance I'm not seeing? Have any laws passed that limit the owning of companies or prevent anybody from making as much money as they damn well please? What specifically reminded you of our current government? Serious question.
The man who co-wrote and financed this film, for example, is one of the 10 wealthiest CEO's in the country. I'm guessing he lives pretty comfortably and apparently has enough spare change that he can throw away $10 million on a niche movie about trains just because the option was about to run out.
What exactly does he have to complain about?
>>Not to mine, since it seems to strike a chilling resemblance to the policies of our current government.
Okay, I'll bite. How does it do that, exactly? What's the resemblance I'm not seeing? Have any laws passed that limit the owning of companies or prevent anybody from making as much money as they damn well please? What specifically reminded you of our current government? Serious question.
The man who co-wrote and financed this film, for example, is one of the 10 wealthiest CEO's in the country. I'm guessing he lives pretty comfortably and apparently has enough spare change that he can throw away $10 million on a niche movie about trains just because the option was about to run out.
What exactly does he have to complain about?
>>Not to mine, since it seems to strike a chilling resemblance to the policies of our current government.
Okay, I'll bite. How does it do that, exactly? What's the resemblance I'm not seeing? Have any laws passed that limit the owning of companies or prevent anybody from making as much money as they damn well please? What specifically reminded you of our current government? Serious question.
The man who co-wrote and financed this film, for example, is one of the 10 wealthiest CEO's in the country. I'm guessing he lives pretty comfortably and apparently has enough spare change that he can throw away $10 million on a niche movie about trains just because the option was about to run out.
What exactly does he have to complain about?
Incidentally, folks, apparently my last line got chopped off, which was a link to a Youtube video of Glenn Beck and Michele Bachmann. But I guess you get the gist.
Incidentally, folks, apparently my last line got chopped off, which was a link to a Youtube video of Glenn Beck and Michele Bachmann. But I guess you get the gist.
Incidentally, folks, apparently my last line got chopped off, which was a link to a Youtube video of Glenn Beck and Michele Bachmann. But I guess you get the gist.
i am a person who has read all of rand's novels (and really liked some of them) and an avid movie watcher with a fairly high tolerance for crap.
having said that, i am with tiersky all the way.
this book was never movie material. there were many times during my reading of it where i wondered why i was bothering. i was often bored (not "board") by the ramblings of these cardboard characters, many of whom i was supposed to care about but who were so callous and idiotic, i really just wanted to meet in person so i could punch them in the face – although that suggests more passion than any of these folks could actually incite.
i can't wait to see the movie, if only so i can agree with tiersky more, because the trailers suggest that his review is spot on.
and by the by, a movie should be able to stand on its own – i'm not a fan of installment movies, nor do i think you should have to have read the book in order to have a fair idea of wtf is going on.
i am a person who has read all of rand's novels (and really liked some of them) and an avid movie watcher with a fairly high tolerance for crap.
having said that, i am with tiersky all the way.
this book was never movie material. there were many times during my reading of it where i wondered why i was bothering. i was often bored (not "board") by the ramblings of these cardboard characters, many of whom i was supposed to care about but who were so callous and idiotic, i really just wanted to meet in person so i could punch them in the face – although that suggests more passion than any of these folks could actually incite.
i can't wait to see the movie, if only so i can agree with tiersky more, because the trailers suggest that his review is spot on.
and by the by, a movie should be able to stand on its own – i'm not a fan of installment movies, nor do i think you should have to have read the book in order to have a fair idea of wtf is going on.
i am a person who has read all of rand's novels (and really liked some of them) and an avid movie watcher with a fairly high tolerance for crap.
having said that, i am with tiersky all the way.
this book was never movie material. there were many times during my reading of it where i wondered why i was bothering. i was often bored (not "board") by the ramblings of these cardboard characters, many of whom i was supposed to care about but who were so callous and idiotic, i really just wanted to meet in person so i could punch them in the face – although that suggests more passion than any of these folks could actually incite.
i can't wait to see the movie, if only so i can agree with tiersky more, because the trailers suggest that his review is spot on.
and by the by, a movie should be able to stand on its own – i'm not a fan of installment movies, nor do i think you should have to have read the book in order to have a fair idea of wtf is going on.
I think it's time for the famous quote (possibly by John Rogers although if anyone else has a prior source I would love to know about it).
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
I think it's time for the famous quote (possibly by John Rogers although if anyone else has a prior source I would love to know about it).
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
I think it's time for the famous quote (possibly by John Rogers although if anyone else has a prior source I would love to know about it).
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
You did not like it, and did not get it. Rotten Tomatoes shows a 7% rating by critics. The audience at your show applauded, and 85% of audiences liked it on Rotten Tomatoes.
I would like to point you to one of Ayn Rand's famous quotes, "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."
This movie is not directed to teens or fans of eye candy. This is a serious movie, aimed at an audience that is not typical for a Hollywood movie. My brother is going to see this movie at the theater. He has not been to a movie theater in 20 years, and believes that Hollywood does not make movies he likes.
I loved this movie, and have seen it 3 times now.
You did not like it, and did not get it. Rotten Tomatoes shows a 7% rating by critics. The audience at your show applauded, and 85% of audiences liked it on Rotten Tomatoes.
I would like to point you to one of Ayn Rand's famous quotes, "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."
This movie is not directed to teens or fans of eye candy. This is a serious movie, aimed at an audience that is not typical for a Hollywood movie. My brother is going to see this movie at the theater. He has not been to a movie theater in 20 years, and believes that Hollywood does not make movies he likes.
I loved this movie, and have seen it 3 times now.
You did not like it, and did not get it. Rotten Tomatoes shows a 7% rating by critics. The audience at your show applauded, and 85% of audiences liked it on Rotten Tomatoes.
I would like to point you to one of Ayn Rand's famous quotes, "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."
This movie is not directed to teens or fans of eye candy. This is a serious movie, aimed at an audience that is not typical for a Hollywood movie. My brother is going to see this movie at the theater. He has not been to a movie theater in 20 years, and believes that Hollywood does not make movies he likes.
I loved this movie, and have seen it 3 times now.
>>You did not like it, and did not get it.
Let's suppose for a moment that you're correct, I didn't "get" it. Okay, I'll bite. Explain it to me. What didn't I get?
>>Rotten Tomatoes shows a 7% rating by critics. The audience at your show applauded, and 85% of audiences liked it on Rotten Tomatoes.
Here's what that suggests to me:
a) Since "critics" is a diverse group of people that cross all barriers of gender, religion, politics, age, intelligence and race, clearly hatred of this movie is not limited to any one group.
b) Since this movie is aimed at a very particular group of people (basically Tea Baggers, Randoids, and self-pitying tycoons) so specifically that pretty much they and ONLY they (aside from the critics, who HAVE to) are going to see it, and since it caters to them so shamelessly, the 85% figure is neither shocking nor does it signify anything deeper than when you kiss an audience's ass, they applaud.
>>I would like to point you to one of Ayn Rand's famous quotes, "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."
Yeah? So? And? Ayn Rand was a terrible writer and crazy coot who defended serial murder, but even if none of that were true, what's that got to do with how awful this movie was?
>>This movie is not directed to teens or fans of eye candy. This is a serious movie, aimed at an audience that is not typical for a Hollywood movie.
Agreed, for the most part. See above.
>>My brother is going to see this movie at the theater. He has not been to a movie theater in 20 years, and believes that Hollywood does not make movies he likes.
I guarantee him, it will be the best movie he's seen in a theater in 20 years. For the rest of us who actually see enough movies to have standards for them, it's pretty weak tea.
>>I loved this movie, and have seen it 3 times now.
Goody for you. I issued the challenge several days ago for anyone out there who disagrees with me to try to make points OF ACTUAL SUBSTANCE in defense of the movie, and I the silence remains deafening. Explain to me what you loved about it and what I didn't "get" about it, and perhaps we can have a serious conversation about it. Not counting on it, but take your best shot.
Whenever you're ready.
>>You did not like it, and did not get it.
Let's suppose for a moment that you're correct, I didn't "get" it. Okay, I'll bite. Explain it to me. What didn't I get?
>>Rotten Tomatoes shows a 7% rating by critics. The audience at your show applauded, and 85% of audiences liked it on Rotten Tomatoes.
Here's what that suggests to me:
a) Since "critics" is a diverse group of people that cross all barriers of gender, religion, politics, age, intelligence and race, clearly hatred of this movie is not limited to any one group.
b) Since this movie is aimed at a very particular group of people (basically Tea Baggers, Randoids, and self-pitying tycoons) so specifically that pretty much they and ONLY they (aside from the critics, who HAVE to) are going to see it, and since it caters to them so shamelessly, the 85% figure is neither shocking nor does it signify anything deeper than when you kiss an audience's ass, they applaud.
>>I would like to point you to one of Ayn Rand's famous quotes, "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."
Yeah? So? And? Ayn Rand was a terrible writer and crazy coot who defended serial murder, but even if none of that were true, what's that got to do with how awful this movie was?
>>This movie is not directed to teens or fans of eye candy. This is a serious movie, aimed at an audience that is not typical for a Hollywood movie.
Agreed, for the most part. See above.
>>My brother is going to see this movie at the theater. He has not been to a movie theater in 20 years, and believes that Hollywood does not make movies he likes.
I guarantee him, it will be the best movie he's seen in a theater in 20 years. For the rest of us who actually see enough movies to have standards for them, it's pretty weak tea.
>>I loved this movie, and have seen it 3 times now.
Goody for you. I issued the challenge several days ago for anyone out there who disagrees with me to try to make points OF ACTUAL SUBSTANCE in defense of the movie, and I the silence remains deafening. Explain to me what you loved about it and what I didn't "get" about it, and perhaps we can have a serious conversation about it. Not counting on it, but take your best shot.
Whenever you're ready.
>>You did not like it, and did not get it.
Let's suppose for a moment that you're correct, I didn't "get" it. Okay, I'll bite. Explain it to me. What didn't I get?
>>Rotten Tomatoes shows a 7% rating by critics. The audience at your show applauded, and 85% of audiences liked it on Rotten Tomatoes.
Here's what that suggests to me:
a) Since "critics" is a diverse group of people that cross all barriers of gender, religion, politics, age, intelligence and race, clearly hatred of this movie is not limited to any one group.
b) Since this movie is aimed at a very particular group of people (basically Tea Baggers, Randoids, and self-pitying tycoons) so specifically that pretty much they and ONLY they (aside from the critics, who HAVE to) are going to see it, and since it caters to them so shamelessly, the 85% figure is neither shocking nor does it signify anything deeper than when you kiss an audience's ass, they applaud.
>>I would like to point you to one of Ayn Rand's famous quotes, "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."
Yeah? So? And? Ayn Rand was a terrible writer and crazy coot who defended serial murder, but even if none of that were true, what's that got to do with how awful this movie was?
>>This movie is not directed to teens or fans of eye candy. This is a serious movie, aimed at an audience that is not typical for a Hollywood movie.
Agreed, for the most part. See above.
>>My brother is going to see this movie at the theater. He has not been to a movie theater in 20 years, and believes that Hollywood does not make movies he likes.
I guarantee him, it will be the best movie he's seen in a theater in 20 years. For the rest of us who actually see enough movies to have standards for them, it's pretty weak tea.
>>I loved this movie, and have seen it 3 times now.
Goody for you. I issued the challenge several days ago for anyone out there who disagrees with me to try to make points OF ACTUAL SUBSTANCE in defense of the movie, and I the silence remains deafening. Explain to me what you loved about it and what I didn't "get" about it, and perhaps we can have a serious conversation about it. Not counting on it, but take your best shot.
Whenever you're ready.
I find it completely irrelevant for this piece to turn onto a bashing of Rand. A "sociopath"? For somebody who has not read Atlas or any of Rand's work I find it hard to believe you have any basis of knowledge to make these judgments. As for the movie, fine, it could have been better. But until you have any sort of knowledge on what Rand stood for, I advise you keep those ignorant remarks to yourself.
I find it completely irrelevant for this piece to turn onto a bashing of Rand. A "sociopath"? For somebody who has not read Atlas or any of Rand's work I find it hard to believe you have any basis of knowledge to make these judgments. As for the movie, fine, it could have been better. But until you have any sort of knowledge on what Rand stood for, I advise you keep those ignorant remarks to yourself.
I find it completely irrelevant for this piece to turn onto a bashing of Rand. A "sociopath"? For somebody who has not read Atlas or any of Rand's work I find it hard to believe you have any basis of knowledge to make these judgments. As for the movie, fine, it could have been better. But until you have any sort of knowledge on what Rand stood for, I advise you keep those ignorant remarks to yourself.
>>I find it completely irrelevant for this piece to turn onto a bashing of Rand. A "sociopath"? For somebody who has not read Atlas or any of Rand's work I find it hard to believe you have any basis of knowledge to make these judgments.
First off, the piece didn't "turn into a bashing of Rand." I called her a sociopath early on, in passing, then moved on to the film and stayed there.
And it's true, I haven't read her books, as life is short, but I am familiar with her biography and her philosophy, and there is no shortage of writings about her and her work, and it's difficult to avoid the sociopath conclusion with regard to someone who worships a remorseless serial killer. This piece covers it pretty well:
http://www.alternet.org/books/145819/ayn_rand,_hugely_popular_author_and_inspiration_to_right-wing_leaders,_was_a_big_admirer_of_serial_killers
"What did Rand admire so much about Hickman? His sociopathic qualities: "Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should," she wrote, gushing that Hickman had "no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel 'other people.'"
Hope that answers that. And thank you for being diplomatic and having an actual point to make. Still looking forward to someone doing so with regards to the movie.
Anyone?
>>I find it completely irrelevant for this piece to turn onto a bashing of Rand. A "sociopath"? For somebody who has not read Atlas or any of Rand's work I find it hard to believe you have any basis of knowledge to make these judgments.
First off, the piece didn't "turn into a bashing of Rand." I called her a sociopath early on, in passing, then moved on to the film and stayed there.
And it's true, I haven't read her books, as life is short, but I am familiar with her biography and her philosophy, and there is no shortage of writings about her and her work, and it's difficult to avoid the sociopath conclusion with regard to someone who worships a remorseless serial killer. This piece covers it pretty well:
http://www.alternet.org/books/145819/ayn_rand,_hugely_popular_author_and_inspiration_to_right-wing_leaders,_was_a_big_admirer_of_serial_killers
"What did Rand admire so much about Hickman? His sociopathic qualities: "Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should," she wrote, gushing that Hickman had "no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel 'other people.'"
Hope that answers that. And thank you for being diplomatic and having an actual point to make. Still looking forward to someone doing so with regards to the movie.
Anyone?
>>I find it completely irrelevant for this piece to turn onto a bashing of Rand. A "sociopath"? For somebody who has not read Atlas or any of Rand's work I find it hard to believe you have any basis of knowledge to make these judgments.
First off, the piece didn't "turn into a bashing of Rand." I called her a sociopath early on, in passing, then moved on to the film and stayed there.
And it's true, I haven't read her books, as life is short, but I am familiar with her biography and her philosophy, and there is no shortage of writings about her and her work, and it's difficult to avoid the sociopath conclusion with regard to someone who worships a remorseless serial killer. This piece covers it pretty well:
http://www.alternet.org/books/145819/ayn_rand,_hugely_popular_author_and_inspiration_to_right-wing_leaders,_was_a_big_admirer_of_serial_killers
"What did Rand admire so much about Hickman? His sociopathic qualities: "Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should," she wrote, gushing that Hickman had "no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel 'other people.'"
Hope that answers that. And thank you for being diplomatic and having an actual point to make. Still looking forward to someone doing so with regards to the movie.
Anyone?
"Since "critics" is a diverse group of people that cross all barriers of gender, religion, politics, age, intelligence and race, clearly hatred of this movie is not limited to any one group."
LMAO
"Since "critics" is a diverse group of people that cross all barriers of gender, religion, politics, age, intelligence and race, clearly hatred of this movie is not limited to any one group."
LMAO
"Since "critics" is a diverse group of people that cross all barriers of gender, religion, politics, age, intelligence and race, clearly hatred of this movie is not limited to any one group."
LMAO
Thank you so much for sharing that link to a completely non-bias, objective view on Rand. In no way do I find that article irrelevant and narrow-minded. Thank you for showing me Rand's true colors. Clearly what she wrote in her fiction and nonfiction do not reflect the person she was. This article is the true reflection. Wow. You really just changed my view of her.
Thank you so much for sharing that link to a completely non-bias, objective view on Rand. In no way do I find that article irrelevant and narrow-minded. Thank you for showing me Rand's true colors. Clearly what she wrote in her fiction and nonfiction do not reflect the person she was. This article is the true reflection. Wow. You really just changed my view of her.
Thank you so much for sharing that link to a completely non-bias, objective view on Rand. In no way do I find that article irrelevant and narrow-minded. Thank you for showing me Rand's true colors. Clearly what she wrote in her fiction and nonfiction do not reflect the person she was. This article is the true reflection. Wow. You really just changed my view of her.
>>LMAO
Because you disagree, or because it's a funny line?
If the former, what's to disagree with? You genuinely think critics are a homogeneous bunch? In what sense? I can't imagine how any group that has room for Elvis Mitchell, Kyle Smith, Kim Morgan and Rex Reed (just for starters) could be considered homogeneous, but if you believe this, make your case. I'll be right here.
If the latter…Thanks. Nice to hear.
>>LMAO
Because you disagree, or because it's a funny line?
If the former, what's to disagree with? You genuinely think critics are a homogeneous bunch? In what sense? I can't imagine how any group that has room for Elvis Mitchell, Kyle Smith, Kim Morgan and Rex Reed (just for starters) could be considered homogeneous, but if you believe this, make your case. I'll be right here.
If the latter…Thanks. Nice to hear.
>>LMAO
Because you disagree, or because it's a funny line?
If the former, what's to disagree with? You genuinely think critics are a homogeneous bunch? In what sense? I can't imagine how any group that has room for Elvis Mitchell, Kyle Smith, Kim Morgan and Rex Reed (just for starters) could be considered homogeneous, but if you believe this, make your case. I'll be right here.
If the latter…Thanks. Nice to hear.
>>Clearly what she wrote in her fiction and nonfiction do not reflect the person she was. This article is the true reflection. Wow. You really just changed my view of her.
Nik, did you even bother to read the article? Because it was ABOUT what she wrote in her non-fiction, specifically that she wrote drooling praise of a man who kidnapped, murdered and dismembered a 12-year-old girl. Specifically praised him for his not feeling anything for other people because they don't exist to him. If she wasn't a sociopath, she was doing a brilliant impression of one.
So article aside, did she write that or not? And what else is one to think? And in any case, it's a minor part of the review, it's one line. Her sociopathy is pretty hard to deny, but it's a tangential issue in any case, so feel free to try to convince me I'm wrong about that, but a) Good luck with that, and b) Can't ANYBODY defend this movie on points? I'm still right here.
>>Clearly what she wrote in her fiction and nonfiction do not reflect the person she was. This article is the true reflection. Wow. You really just changed my view of her.
Nik, did you even bother to read the article? Because it was ABOUT what she wrote in her non-fiction, specifically that she wrote drooling praise of a man who kidnapped, murdered and dismembered a 12-year-old girl. Specifically praised him for his not feeling anything for other people because they don't exist to him. If she wasn't a sociopath, she was doing a brilliant impression of one.
So article aside, did she write that or not? And what else is one to think? And in any case, it's a minor part of the review, it's one line. Her sociopathy is pretty hard to deny, but it's a tangential issue in any case, so feel free to try to convince me I'm wrong about that, but a) Good luck with that, and b) Can't ANYBODY defend this movie on points? I'm still right here.
>>Clearly what she wrote in her fiction and nonfiction do not reflect the person she was. This article is the true reflection. Wow. You really just changed my view of her.
Nik, did you even bother to read the article? Because it was ABOUT what she wrote in her non-fiction, specifically that she wrote drooling praise of a man who kidnapped, murdered and dismembered a 12-year-old girl. Specifically praised him for his not feeling anything for other people because they don't exist to him. If she wasn't a sociopath, she was doing a brilliant impression of one.
So article aside, did she write that or not? And what else is one to think? And in any case, it's a minor part of the review, it's one line. Her sociopathy is pretty hard to deny, but it's a tangential issue in any case, so feel free to try to convince me I'm wrong about that, but a) Good luck with that, and b) Can't ANYBODY defend this movie on points? I'm still right here.
Ames purports to quote Rand but supplies scathing characterizations to Rand's innocuous take on Hickman. Reading Rand's notes about Hickman in their original context may leave one with an entirely different conclusion. I can turn any Hitler biographer into a fanboy by quoting, out of context, the inevitable description of der Fuhrer's kindness to his dog Blondi.
Arthur T refers to Tea Party backers as "Teabaggers." That's a rude and derogatory term that comes, we're told, from something homosexuals do to each other. At least that's what I read. Perhaps our friend Arthur has more familiarity with it than most of us, seeing how he so freely uses the term in labeling a good group of people who care about their country.
Ames purports to quote Rand but supplies scathing characterizations to Rand's innocuous take on Hickman. Reading Rand's notes about Hickman in their original context may leave one with an entirely different conclusion. I can turn any Hitler biographer into a fanboy by quoting, out of context, the inevitable description of der Fuhrer's kindness to his dog Blondi.
Arthur T refers to Tea Party backers as "Teabaggers." That's a rude and derogatory term that comes, we're told, from something homosexuals do to each other. At least that's what I read. Perhaps our friend Arthur has more familiarity with it than most of us, seeing how he so freely uses the term in labeling a good group of people who care about their country.
Ames purports to quote Rand but supplies scathing characterizations to Rand's innocuous take on Hickman. Reading Rand's notes about Hickman in their original context may leave one with an entirely different conclusion. I can turn any Hitler biographer into a fanboy by quoting, out of context, the inevitable description of der Fuhrer's kindness to his dog Blondi.
Arthur T refers to Tea Party backers as "Teabaggers." That's a rude and derogatory term that comes, we're told, from something homosexuals do to each other. At least that's what I read. Perhaps our friend Arthur has more familiarity with it than most of us, seeing how he so freely uses the term in labeling a good group of people who care about their country.
>>Ames purports to quote Rand but supplies scathing characterizations to Rand's innocuous take on Hickman.
You're kidding, right?
Okay, I'll bite. What is Rand's "innocuous take on Hickman" that could possibly contain those quotes? Or the ones in her journals that are further quoted at length in this article…
http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm
And there are dozens more where that came from. Hell, even this DEFENDER of Rand…
http://www.therightguyshow.com/2010/09/ayn-rand-william-hickman-and-other.html
…admits that she had an "infatuation" with him, and all he can say in her defense is, "We all do stupid things." (Uh, yeah, I've done plenty of stupid things. But infatuation with child-killers? Not among them.)
So are they ALL just, you know…WHOOSH? Serious question. What was her attitude toward Hickman if not the admiration that all those excerpts positively seethe with?
>>Reading Rand's notes about Hickman in their original context may leave one with an entirely different conclusion.
All ears here. What conclusion would that be?
>>I can turn any Hitler biographer into a fanboy by quoting, out of context, the inevitable description of der Fuhrer's kindness to his dog Blondi.
Perhaps, but you wouldn't, because it would take about two seconds for someone else to humiliate you with proof that you've done just that, so…Knock yourself out. I'll be right here.
>>Perhaps our friend Arthur has more familiarity with it than most of us,
Ha! Zing! That's rich! Intimating that I'm gay. What could possibly undermine me more? Except I'm not the one creating blogs like this:
http://teabagobama.blogspot.com/
Or holding up signs like this:
http://www.sabinabecker.com/images/teabag-the-freeper.jpg
So understand, as admittedly juvenile as applying the term that way is…you guys kinda bring it on yourselves, you know?
>>seeing how he so freely uses the term in labeling a good group of people who care about their country.
Right, they care so much about their country that they only got organized a couple years ago when a black Democrat became President.
You know what? Here's an idea: Spare me the nauseating phony jingoism and defend the movie with a substantive point, like exactly NO ONE here has yet done.
Doesn't that strike anyone as odd? All these angry defenders of the movie coming out of the woodwork to tear my head off, and none of them can make a single actual point in favor of the movie? You'd rather get on me for saying "sociopath" and "Tea Bagger"?
Gee, it's almost as if the movie sucks, and there's no defense for it. What else is one to think?
>>Ames purports to quote Rand but supplies scathing characterizations to Rand's innocuous take on Hickman.
You're kidding, right?
Okay, I'll bite. What is Rand's "innocuous take on Hickman" that could possibly contain those quotes? Or the ones in her journals that are further quoted at length in this article…
http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm
And there are dozens more where that came from. Hell, even this DEFENDER of Rand…
http://www.therightguyshow.com/2010/09/ayn-rand-william-hickman-and-other.html
…admits that she had an "infatuation" with him, and all he can say in her defense is, "We all do stupid things." (Uh, yeah, I've done plenty of stupid things. But infatuation with child-killers? Not among them.)
So are they ALL just, you know…WHOOSH? Serious question. What was her attitude toward Hickman if not the admiration that all those excerpts positively seethe with?
>>Reading Rand's notes about Hickman in their original context may leave one with an entirely different conclusion.
All ears here. What conclusion would that be?
>>I can turn any Hitler biographer into a fanboy by quoting, out of context, the inevitable description of der Fuhrer's kindness to his dog Blondi.
Perhaps, but you wouldn't, because it would take about two seconds for someone else to humiliate you with proof that you've done just that, so…Knock yourself out. I'll be right here.
>>Perhaps our friend Arthur has more familiarity with it than most of us,
Ha! Zing! That's rich! Intimating that I'm gay. What could possibly undermine me more? Except I'm not the one creating blogs like this:
http://teabagobama.blogspot.com/
Or holding up signs like this:
http://www.sabinabecker.com/images/teabag-the-freeper.jpg
So understand, as admittedly juvenile as applying the term that way is…you guys kinda bring it on yourselves, you know?
>>seeing how he so freely uses the term in labeling a good group of people who care about their country.
Right, they care so much about their country that they only got organized a couple years ago when a black Democrat became President.
You know what? Here's an idea: Spare me the nauseating phony jingoism and defend the movie with a substantive point, like exactly NO ONE here has yet done.
Doesn't that strike anyone as odd? All these angry defenders of the movie coming out of the woodwork to tear my head off, and none of them can make a single actual point in favor of the movie? You'd rather get on me for saying "sociopath" and "Tea Bagger"?
Gee, it's almost as if the movie sucks, and there's no defense for it. What else is one to think?
>>Ames purports to quote Rand but supplies scathing characterizations to Rand's innocuous take on Hickman.
You're kidding, right?
Okay, I'll bite. What is Rand's "innocuous take on Hickman" that could possibly contain those quotes? Or the ones in her journals that are further quoted at length in this article…
http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm
And there are dozens more where that came from. Hell, even this DEFENDER of Rand…
http://www.therightguyshow.com/2010/09/ayn-rand-william-hickman-and-other.html
…admits that she had an "infatuation" with him, and all he can say in her defense is, "We all do stupid things." (Uh, yeah, I've done plenty of stupid things. But infatuation with child-killers? Not among them.)
So are they ALL just, you know…WHOOSH? Serious question. What was her attitude toward Hickman if not the admiration that all those excerpts positively seethe with?
>>Reading Rand's notes about Hickman in their original context may leave one with an entirely different conclusion.
All ears here. What conclusion would that be?
>>I can turn any Hitler biographer into a fanboy by quoting, out of context, the inevitable description of der Fuhrer's kindness to his dog Blondi.
Perhaps, but you wouldn't, because it would take about two seconds for someone else to humiliate you with proof that you've done just that, so…Knock yourself out. I'll be right here.
>>Perhaps our friend Arthur has more familiarity with it than most of us,
Ha! Zing! That's rich! Intimating that I'm gay. What could possibly undermine me more? Except I'm not the one creating blogs like this:
http://teabagobama.blogspot.com/
Or holding up signs like this:
http://www.sabinabecker.com/images/teabag-the-freeper.jpg
So understand, as admittedly juvenile as applying the term that way is…you guys kinda bring it on yourselves, you know?
>>seeing how he so freely uses the term in labeling a good group of people who care about their country.
Right, they care so much about their country that they only got organized a couple years ago when a black Democrat became President.
You know what? Here's an idea: Spare me the nauseating phony jingoism and defend the movie with a substantive point, like exactly NO ONE here has yet done.
Doesn't that strike anyone as odd? All these angry defenders of the movie coming out of the woodwork to tear my head off, and none of them can make a single actual point in favor of the movie? You'd rather get on me for saying "sociopath" and "Tea Bagger"?
Gee, it's almost as if the movie sucks, and there's no defense for it. What else is one to think?
A credible critic of any work of art would have at least read the book before panning the movie. You've only seen the first third of the book/movie, and you don't even know the characters, much less the plot.
Bad form, bad critque, badly done.
A credible critic of any work of art would have at least read the book before panning the movie. You've only seen the first third of the book/movie, and you don't even know the characters, much less the plot.
Bad form, bad critque, badly done.
A credible critic of any work of art would have at least read the book before panning the movie. You've only seen the first third of the book/movie, and you don't even know the characters, much less the plot.
Bad form, bad critque, badly done.
>>A credible critic of any work of art would have at least read the book before panning the movie.
Sorry, no, the exact OPPOSITE is true. A movie should to stand on its own. If you need to read the book in order to appreciate the film, then the film is a failure. It's not even a film, in that case, really, it's just a companion piece to the book.
Honestly, no offense, but you couldn't possibly be more wrong. I could probably name 100 novel adaptations off the top of my head that stand alone as great movies whether one has read the source novel or not. Ever heard of "The Godfather"?
>>You've only seen the first third of the book/movie, and you don't even know the characters, much less the plot.
Which is entirely the movie's fault, not mine.
I genuinely can't imagine a better summation of what's wrong with this movie than yours. Congratulations, and thank you.
>>A credible critic of any work of art would have at least read the book before panning the movie.
Sorry, no, the exact OPPOSITE is true. A movie should to stand on its own. If you need to read the book in order to appreciate the film, then the film is a failure. It's not even a film, in that case, really, it's just a companion piece to the book.
Honestly, no offense, but you couldn't possibly be more wrong. I could probably name 100 novel adaptations off the top of my head that stand alone as great movies whether one has read the source novel or not. Ever heard of "The Godfather"?
>>You've only seen the first third of the book/movie, and you don't even know the characters, much less the plot.
Which is entirely the movie's fault, not mine.
I genuinely can't imagine a better summation of what's wrong with this movie than yours. Congratulations, and thank you.
>>A credible critic of any work of art would have at least read the book before panning the movie.
Sorry, no, the exact OPPOSITE is true. A movie should to stand on its own. If you need to read the book in order to appreciate the film, then the film is a failure. It's not even a film, in that case, really, it's just a companion piece to the book.
Honestly, no offense, but you couldn't possibly be more wrong. I could probably name 100 novel adaptations off the top of my head that stand alone as great movies whether one has read the source novel or not. Ever heard of "The Godfather"?
>>You've only seen the first third of the book/movie, and you don't even know the characters, much less the plot.
Which is entirely the movie's fault, not mine.
I genuinely can't imagine a better summation of what's wrong with this movie than yours. Congratulations, and thank you.
Uh….the Teabaggers coined that phrase for THEMSELVES without knowing the pop-culture references to it, most likely because they have absolutely no clue what is going on in the world today. Once they started to figure out, they changed it. I was actually surprised at how long it took for them to catch on to the joke. Guys can teabag girls as well, so it never was a strictly gay term. There should be a Godwins law for when someone accuses another of being gay…
Uh….the Teabaggers coined that phrase for THEMSELVES without knowing the pop-culture references to it, most likely because they have absolutely no clue what is going on in the world today. Once they started to figure out, they changed it. I was actually surprised at how long it took for them to catch on to the joke. Guys can teabag girls as well, so it never was a strictly gay term. There should be a Godwins law for when someone accuses another of being gay…
Uh….the Teabaggers coined that phrase for THEMSELVES without knowing the pop-culture references to it, most likely because they have absolutely no clue what is going on in the world today. Once they started to figure out, they changed it. I was actually surprised at how long it took for them to catch on to the joke. Guys can teabag girls as well, so it never was a strictly gay term. There should be a Godwins law for when someone accuses another of being gay…
Arthur T wants to have a substantive discussion of a movie about a book he has never read???
What hubris!!!
And then Arthur T delivers an AD HOMINEM attack on "Anonymous" for not releasing his real name!!!
Clear that there will be no substantive discussion here even if you do release your real name.
No name #2
Arthur T wants to have a substantive discussion of a movie about a book he has never read???
What hubris!!!
And then Arthur T delivers an AD HOMINEM attack on "Anonymous" for not releasing his real name!!!
Clear that there will be no substantive discussion here even if you do release your real name.
No name #2
Arthur T wants to have a substantive discussion of a movie about a book he has never read???
What hubris!!!
And then Arthur T delivers an AD HOMINEM attack on "Anonymous" for not releasing his real name!!!
Clear that there will be no substantive discussion here even if you do release your real name.
No name #2
>>Arthur T wants to have a substantive discussion of a movie about a book he has never read???
What hubris!!!
Um, no. I don't want to discuss the book at all. I'm waiting for someone to make a substantive point about THE MOVIE.
Once more, and I'll type slow this time: THE BOOK HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. THE MOVIE SHOULD STAND ON ITS OWN. LIKE THE GODFATHER AND GONE WITH THE WIND AND SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION AND ABOUT A BILLION OTHERS.
Seriously, it's not that complicated, people. It goes like this: If you need to have read the book to appreciate the movie, then the movie is a failure. End of story.
Put it this way: Let's suppose some sort of disaster wiped out all the books in the world. If what you're saying about this film is true, then as soon as everyone who had ever read the book was dead, no one would ever be able to appreciate the film again.
Whereas, "The Godfather" would still be loved and appreciated for the masterpiece it is. As would hundreds of other great adaptations.
Get it now?
>>And then Arthur T delivers an AD HOMINEM attack on "Anonymous" for not releasing his real name!!!
How did I deliver an ad hominem to anyone? I made a joke about the irony of a guy who is getting one someone's case for not recognizing his name declines to use his own name, or even a pseudonym.
Do you even know what "ad hominem" means? It's when you make an argument against the PERSON instead of what they're saying. I can't imagine a more perfect example of this than a guy dismissing a critic's opinion because he's never heard of him. So it's really a double irony. So it's doubly funny.
>>Clear that there will be no substantive discussion here even if you do release your real name.
Apparently not. We're approaching 30 comments, and STILL NOT A SINGLE SUBSTANTIVE POINT IN DEFENSE OF THE MOVIE.
Seriously, that really doesn't strike anyone as odd? There's gotta be over a dozen of you now, and not one of you can say a single thing in favor of the movie? It's all "You haven't read the book" and "I've never heard of you" and "Don't call us Teabaggers"? That's all you got?
It's almost as if the movie just totally sucks or something.
>>Arthur T wants to have a substantive discussion of a movie about a book he has never read???
What hubris!!!
Um, no. I don't want to discuss the book at all. I'm waiting for someone to make a substantive point about THE MOVIE.
Once more, and I'll type slow this time: THE BOOK HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. THE MOVIE SHOULD STAND ON ITS OWN. LIKE THE GODFATHER AND GONE WITH THE WIND AND SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION AND ABOUT A BILLION OTHERS.
Seriously, it's not that complicated, people. It goes like this: If you need to have read the book to appreciate the movie, then the movie is a failure. End of story.
Put it this way: Let's suppose some sort of disaster wiped out all the books in the world. If what you're saying about this film is true, then as soon as everyone who had ever read the book was dead, no one would ever be able to appreciate the film again.
Whereas, "The Godfather" would still be loved and appreciated for the masterpiece it is. As would hundreds of other great adaptations.
Get it now?
>>And then Arthur T delivers an AD HOMINEM attack on "Anonymous" for not releasing his real name!!!
How did I deliver an ad hominem to anyone? I made a joke about the irony of a guy who is getting one someone's case for not recognizing his name declines to use his own name, or even a pseudonym.
Do you even know what "ad hominem" means? It's when you make an argument against the PERSON instead of what they're saying. I can't imagine a more perfect example of this than a guy dismissing a critic's opinion because he's never heard of him. So it's really a double irony. So it's doubly funny.
>>Clear that there will be no substantive discussion here even if you do release your real name.
Apparently not. We're approaching 30 comments, and STILL NOT A SINGLE SUBSTANTIVE POINT IN DEFENSE OF THE MOVIE.
Seriously, that really doesn't strike anyone as odd? There's gotta be over a dozen of you now, and not one of you can say a single thing in favor of the movie? It's all "You haven't read the book" and "I've never heard of you" and "Don't call us Teabaggers"? That's all you got?
It's almost as if the movie just totally sucks or something.
>>Arthur T wants to have a substantive discussion of a movie about a book he has never read???
What hubris!!!
Um, no. I don't want to discuss the book at all. I'm waiting for someone to make a substantive point about THE MOVIE.
Once more, and I'll type slow this time: THE BOOK HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. THE MOVIE SHOULD STAND ON ITS OWN. LIKE THE GODFATHER AND GONE WITH THE WIND AND SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION AND ABOUT A BILLION OTHERS.
Seriously, it's not that complicated, people. It goes like this: If you need to have read the book to appreciate the movie, then the movie is a failure. End of story.
Put it this way: Let's suppose some sort of disaster wiped out all the books in the world. If what you're saying about this film is true, then as soon as everyone who had ever read the book was dead, no one would ever be able to appreciate the film again.
Whereas, "The Godfather" would still be loved and appreciated for the masterpiece it is. As would hundreds of other great adaptations.
Get it now?
>>And then Arthur T delivers an AD HOMINEM attack on "Anonymous" for not releasing his real name!!!
How did I deliver an ad hominem to anyone? I made a joke about the irony of a guy who is getting one someone's case for not recognizing his name declines to use his own name, or even a pseudonym.
Do you even know what "ad hominem" means? It's when you make an argument against the PERSON instead of what they're saying. I can't imagine a more perfect example of this than a guy dismissing a critic's opinion because he's never heard of him. So it's really a double irony. So it's doubly funny.
>>Clear that there will be no substantive discussion here even if you do release your real name.
Apparently not. We're approaching 30 comments, and STILL NOT A SINGLE SUBSTANTIVE POINT IN DEFENSE OF THE MOVIE.
Seriously, that really doesn't strike anyone as odd? There's gotta be over a dozen of you now, and not one of you can say a single thing in favor of the movie? It's all "You haven't read the book" and "I've never heard of you" and "Don't call us Teabaggers"? That's all you got?
It's almost as if the movie just totally sucks or something.
Apparently, even the producer is ceding failure http://mobile.avclub.com/articles/atlas-shrugged-producer-threatens-to-go-galt-over,55181/?mobile=true
Apparently, even the producer is ceding failure http://mobile.avclub.com/articles/atlas-shrugged-producer-threatens-to-go-galt-over,55181/?mobile=true
Apparently, even the producer is ceding failure http://mobile.avclub.com/articles/atlas-shrugged-producer-threatens-to-go-galt-over,55181/?mobile=true
I've read the book and seen the movie. The book was great because of the ideas, not the writing. The movie was good because it was faithful to the ideas. If you haven't read the book, you may have a hard time understanding the movie. If you lack intelligence, you will not understand the book or the movie. There are plenty of car crash, shoot um up, and random mayhem movies that you would enjoy, as they can stand on their own.
I've read the book and seen the movie. The book was great because of the ideas, not the writing. The movie was good because it was faithful to the ideas. If you haven't read the book, you may have a hard time understanding the movie. If you lack intelligence, you will not understand the book or the movie. There are plenty of car crash, shoot um up, and random mayhem movies that you would enjoy, as they can stand on their own.
I've read the book and seen the movie. The book was great because of the ideas, not the writing. The movie was good because it was faithful to the ideas. If you haven't read the book, you may have a hard time understanding the movie. If you lack intelligence, you will not understand the book or the movie. There are plenty of car crash, shoot um up, and random mayhem movies that you would enjoy, as they can stand on their own.
Having read the book several times and seen the movie twice, I thought the movie did a fine job of holding true to the book.
For example, Dagny is referred to by James Taggart as not having feelings or "being human". This is a major theme of the book, in that, those who expect you to have feelings also expect you to abandon all reason.
I will admit that if you have not read the book that you will not have much appreciation for the movie. I took my nephew to see it (he has not read the book) and I spent the entire drive home explaining to him the concepts of the book that were being expressed in the movie.
I think the movie would have donne a much better job of "standing on its own" if it had been set in the proper timeline. But I understand the budget contraints that the producer faced in making the movie (he saved a lot of money not having to develop sets to fit the proper timeline).
Furthermore, please consider that the movie had no advertising as to its release. I have seen at least 10 promos for Furious Five in the last week or so yet did not see one promo for Atlas Shrugged in the weeks leading up to the film's release. I would not even have known it was in release had a friend not told me it was in the theaters. Looking at theater averages for the initial weekend, Atlas was only beaten by Rio.
Having read the book several times and seen the movie twice, I thought the movie did a fine job of holding true to the book.
For example, Dagny is referred to by James Taggart as not having feelings or "being human". This is a major theme of the book, in that, those who expect you to have feelings also expect you to abandon all reason.
I will admit that if you have not read the book that you will not have much appreciation for the movie. I took my nephew to see it (he has not read the book) and I spent the entire drive home explaining to him the concepts of the book that were being expressed in the movie.
I think the movie would have donne a much better job of "standing on its own" if it had been set in the proper timeline. But I understand the budget contraints that the producer faced in making the movie (he saved a lot of money not having to develop sets to fit the proper timeline).
Furthermore, please consider that the movie had no advertising as to its release. I have seen at least 10 promos for Furious Five in the last week or so yet did not see one promo for Atlas Shrugged in the weeks leading up to the film's release. I would not even have known it was in release had a friend not told me it was in the theaters. Looking at theater averages for the initial weekend, Atlas was only beaten by Rio.
Having read the book several times and seen the movie twice, I thought the movie did a fine job of holding true to the book.
For example, Dagny is referred to by James Taggart as not having feelings or "being human". This is a major theme of the book, in that, those who expect you to have feelings also expect you to abandon all reason.
I will admit that if you have not read the book that you will not have much appreciation for the movie. I took my nephew to see it (he has not read the book) and I spent the entire drive home explaining to him the concepts of the book that were being expressed in the movie.
I think the movie would have donne a much better job of "standing on its own" if it had been set in the proper timeline. But I understand the budget contraints that the producer faced in making the movie (he saved a lot of money not having to develop sets to fit the proper timeline).
Furthermore, please consider that the movie had no advertising as to its release. I have seen at least 10 promos for Furious Five in the last week or so yet did not see one promo for Atlas Shrugged in the weeks leading up to the film's release. I would not even have known it was in release had a friend not told me it was in the theaters. Looking at theater averages for the initial weekend, Atlas was only beaten by Rio.
I don't know if someone already said this (I didn't want to read all the comments), but you do eventually meet Ragnar the pirate in the book. He never becomes that major of a character though.
>>Anyone else see the similarity between Arthur Tiersky and the Atlas Shrugged character Bertram Scudder?
Apparently not, since the character isn't in the film, and barely any of the commenters have even seen the film anyway. So I Wiki'd and got…
"Bertram Scudder is an editorial writer for the magazine The Future. He typically bashes business and businessmen, but he never says anything specific in his articles, relying on innuendo, sneers, and denunciation."
Okay, and since I'M actually the only one here who has anything specific to say about the film, and I've now requested at least five times for one of its defenders to actually make a single substantive point about it and gotten absolute bupkis in response, I'm gonna have to say…
Um, no?
Look, who among the intelligentsia would waste time debating the movie with one who admits he didn’t understand it, couldn’t follow it, and therefore didn’t like it? Your review is poorly written, you employ invective to no end, and from all appearances, your motivation for seeing the movie at all was to write this “review.” It appears you decided before you saw the movie that you didn’t like it. You freely admit you’re unqualified to review the movie; didn’t pay attention, don’t really understand what the movie is about, or anything about the underlying subject. You reviewed it anyway. And your review reads as follows: “I dint get it, so I dint like it. It was real…complicated and stuff, with lots of people, and too much talking and stuff. I got bored, so I thought about what color to paint my nails when I get home.” I added the part about painting your nails, just to continue the analogy, you know. You didn’t mention painting your nails in the review. You don’t have to re-read it. I don’t want to be the cause of anyone having to read that a second time.
If you had never seen a game, and all you knew of baseball was someone told you that a guy throws a ball at you at a hundred miles an hour, you have to hit the ball, and run around in a circle, and it’s no fun and no good, then would a movie about baseball be easy to understand; easy to follow? Do you think one would then be able to debate the merits of baseball or of the movie? Do you think a review of that movie by someone who doesn’t understand baseball could have much value? You’re in much the same situation. You’ve been told some things about Rand and Objectivism, and you accept them as Gospel. You could actually read some of her work and make a qualified judgement. I suppose it would be too much to expect that you would come prepared for the job you accepted.
Let me say it again: you didn’t follow the movie, you don’t understand the subject, and your wandering mind didn’t help you learn anything about the subject. At any rate, you went into the movie actively wanting to not learn anything. You wanted to dislike the movie. You wanted to dislike it because you dislike what others have told you about Rand and Objectivism. Your bias is obvious from your first sentence. You lack the foundation to understand the movie on a fundamental level. You do not lack the wherewithal to change that; just go to the library and check out any Rand book. The Fountainhead is rather short, with very few big words. You won’t do that. You already know everything you need to know. You don’t want to go cluttering up your mind with facts. Now, you do understand this is what you’ve stated, correct?
Your writing…please, just stop. Perhaps if you read your work before you published it you’d do a little better. Five sentences begin with the word “So.” Avoid constructions such as: “Anyway.” That’s not a sentence, and while I know you’re using it to effect, the effect is juvenile. Try being a bit less snide, or, well, maybe not snide at all. Finally, if you don’t understand a movie, it is best not to open your mouth and let everyone know, especially in a review of said movie. Makes one appear stupid. Sorry. I’m not saying you’re stupid, just that the devices you employed in this review, your lack of preparation, and your admission you don’t understand the material make it seem so. I’m hopeful you’ll see the distinction, though you missed the one between “I don’t understand it,” and “It’s bad.”