DragonMaci

I quite like this guy, especially for his opening speech and for him saying he doesn't answer to the state. It is sad that you see fewer people defend themselves in such a way.

No doubt Mr V. was a crackpot, with a lot of theories which can be discredited by a six year old with half a brain. However, as pointed out, not everyone on the team buys into those (largely) insane ideas. Nor is PC and its EU derivative worthy of dismissing just because some adherents do not always recognize crazy theories when they see them. I do not yet know a great deal about PC, however I do think it is interesting and promising enough to at least merit some investigation. Is there much that is very conclusive? Not as far as I am aware of, but I have to respect people like Thornhill for at least knowing that *something* is wrong with modern cosmology and for trying to "fix" it, even if I am so far unsure if they are necceasirly going in the right direction.

What, an intelligent movie based on a complicated and intelligent plot / theme? One without explosions / car chases / shooting / scenes of people sitting around in bars drinking every five minutes? I dont think Hollywood would go for that

As for "keeping it a period piece" - that is unnecessary. It is not a period piece. Despite the fact that trains and other sort of out-dated things are central to the plot / show up, it is not really a period piece. In fact, it is a "timeless piece" that Ayn Rand said should be read as though it was something that could happen sometime in the future relative to the reader ( say five or ten years down the track ). I think the movie would be best to try to stick to this, even if it means modernizing the movie somewhat. After all, making it a period piece makes it seem less relevant today than to whatever period it was meant to be set in. If there was to be a good movie, it should seem to be something that could be happen in the future, not something that might have happened fifty years ago or something.

Trying to avoid getting sued for any Grandfather Paradoxes?

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Yeah, obviously both are also relational concepts, but which interference fails as a result?



Right. It seems to come from confusion between time and distance. Distance relates to an area to which travel is relavent. Time is a relationship between events and "travel" through time makes no sense at all....

Well, that is all fine and dandy, but I dont think anyone should need *physics* to tell them that time travel is impossible , or at least not more than the most basic physics combined with metaphysics. Trust them to find a way to make this point that is about 50 times more compicated than it needs to be...

Yeah, it is a negative vibe; there's nothing bad about that per se. Although, it is true, kind of an unusual place to post fiction like this here. "Negative" writing I can appreciate (such as writing about a variety of characters in Atlas Shrugged), but not exactly much of something expected to be popular on an Objectivism forum.

Well, while I grant that there might be some valid reason(s) to write a story from a negative point of view, presuming one has a specific purpose for doing so ( or of course presuming that this reflects ones "sense of life" or such), that is not the primary thing which bothers me in this instance. No, what bothers me the most is the actual subject matter and how it is used. And the possible implications of one choosing to use it in this fashion.

I certainly do have to wonder what the purpose of posting such a peice here of all places might be. Even if negative peices like this are not something I would usually enjoy, or have ever really found any pleasure in. Though having said that, a lot of my favorite fiction has some really "dark" scenes, though nothing of this nature as far as I recall.

Your point being what exactly?



True, she did create those characters and obviously I would not accuse her of needing any help. However, that is because as nasty as those characters are, it is all to serve an obvious message and might I add in order to convey a sense of life which indicates a very healthy state of mind (along with a good understanding of evil and less healthy states of mind).

However, I can see no such "defense" (for lack of a better word at this point) for you doing what you have done here, which is really almost entirely a different matter to the manner in which Rand used the villians which you mentioned. While there may be reasons to write this stuff which may not give me reasons to worry (which is why I said you MIGHT need help, to allow such possibilities), I really cannot imagine what they might be. This is certainly stuff which is highly disturbing, and if I could see that it served some valid purpose (even if this purpose was not immediately obvious), I might be less inclined to think that you are simply trying to serve some valid purpose, and that this stuff is merely in aid of helping you make that point, as in the case of what Rand did (and what one of the other authors I mentioned does when he uses incredibly "dark" and "gory" scenes in his work, even though his work has a wonderful sense of life.

In any case, nothing she wrote is half as macabre or nasty as this seems to be at face value.