Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Just curious if this has been hashed over or not-- I was thinking today how interesting it was that the movie was about success (Forrest succeeding basically because he was too dim to understand the concept of 'you can't do that'), and it became successful, and the strange paradox is that the liberals loved it. Or am I completely wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't remember the movie all that well, except that I enjoyed it. I thought the point was that Gump was a success due to his virtues (such as honesty and bravery), and overcame his mental disability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't remember it well either, but I think liberals may have loved it because Gump was successful by accident and by chance, not because he worked hard and applied intelligence.

From Forrest Gump on Wikipedia:

Forrest also donates funds to a church and a medical center, citing his mother's philosophy that "there's only so much fortune a man really needs, and the rest is just for showing off".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't think he worked hard? Or applied intelligence, however much he had?

I do agree with the general jist that some liked the good movie for bad reasons, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't think he worked hard? Or applied intelligence, however much he had?

I guess he probably did, though I don't remember too well.

So it seems like the theme of the movie might be "If you work really hard and try your best (and are a good person), you deserve to have success and wealth - but in general, the reverse is what actually happens."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't remember it well either, but I think liberals may have loved it because Gump was successful by accident and by chance, not because he worked hard and applied intelligence.

This is why I have not yet seen the movie. Is this assessment inaccurate, or are there other compensating virtues to this movie?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is this assessment inaccurate, or are there other compensating virtues to this movie?

I know the question wasn't directed to me (at least the first part :confused: ) but - watch it if you're interested. From what I remember, there are a lot of heartwarming parts. Plus, Gump interacts with a bunch of famous people (presidents, etc.) and that's pretty cool.

As far as modern American culture, it's canon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't remember it well either, but I think liberals may have loved it because Gump was successful by accident and by chance, not because he worked hard and applied intelligence.

Actually that is one of the things about the movie that bother me. A fair few of his successes relied on a fair bit of luck, however without the hard work and integrity etc, he would not have gotten where he did.

Some of the sentiments expressed by his mother disturb me also, and the situation with Jenny implying child abuse ruins one forever regardless also, however there is enough good stuff for me to think the movie has some merit at least, while not being a huge hit to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but in general, the reverse is what actually happens."
I wouldn't say this last part is part of the theme.

I have not yet seen the movie.
!!! You must be the only one :lol: I highly, highly recommend it, but those are just my tastes.

Actually that is one of the things about the movie that bother me. A fair few of his successes relied on a fair bit of luck
I would say the "accident/luck" assessment is misleading (and a "not working hard" assessment to be incorrect.) Gump certainly worked hard, had a strong will, etc. and a person could just as well say Bill Gates's success was an accident. Either of them might not have been as successful if chance had been different. But they'd be successful nonetheless.

As far as modern American culture, it's canon.
Most definitely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is why I have not yet seen the movie. Is this assessment inaccurate, or are there other compensating virtues to this movie?

A little of both. Yes, you could look at the movie that way. But really, I think that the theme of the movie is that a moral man can lead a happy life, even if he isn't smart. Gump does the right thing and they definitely make a point of it.

It will be worth your time to see it, definitely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would say the "accident/luck" assessment is misleading (and a "not working hard" assessment to be incorrect.) Gump certainly worked hard, had a strong will, etc. and a person could just as well say Bill Gates's success was an accident. Either of them might not have been as successful if chance had been different. But they'd be successful nonetheless.

Yes, you might be right there, it might well be that the luck part is not meant to be as strongly implied as I seem to beleive.

I would be very hestitant in calling Bill Gates success "luck" though, it was mosty brillance in creating a much desired product and some prudent business deals right from the start that got him where he is. I do not see it being a matter of "luck"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would be very hestitant in calling Bill Gates success "luck" though, it was mosty brillance in creating a much desired product and some prudent business deals right from the start that got him where he is. I do not see it being a matter of "luck"

I've read he came close to missing out on the IBM PC DOS, which was MS's breakthrough product. It seems someone else's system was being considered, but circumstances (I dislike the word "luck") favored Gates.

Of course, had Gates not been a brilliant man capable of producing an operating system to satisfy IBM, all the "luck" in the world would not have put him anywhere close to where he is today. So even if the IBM story si true, it doesn't mean MS gained dominance in the market through "luck."

For one thing, before the Internet exploded the PC market, there was some competition, especially before Windows became widespread. Hell, even IBM eventually dumped MS DOS in favor of its own O/S 5 software (which was a bust). Today you can get any number of versions of Linux for free or for very little money (I paid $10 for one), but the vast majority of people still keep Windows, and Office, and Internet Explorer (I prefer Firefox), and Outlook Express (Eudora for me).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, granted circumstances went his way a few times t hat otherwise would have made things a lot harder for him, however that really what I would say is "lucky' though. Possibly he would have found some other way to do well, if not as well, I cannot sure for sure.

Lol, now back on topic!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I haven't seen it either. Must get down to it. I've always imagined it as a non-comic version of "Being There".
Well, now I'm the newbie. I'd never heard of Being There, but it sounds very interesting after a googling (I imagine it's more different from Forrest Gump than you might expect, though.) I'm going to go get this and check it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've read he came close to missing out on the IBM PC DOS, which was MS's breakthrough product. It seems someone else's system was being considered, but circumstances (I dislike the word "luck") favored Gates.
Old and obscure thread, but I figure I'll add this here instead of starting a new one.

Kindall, the guy who wrote CP/M often claimed that QDOS copied his work, and then Gates bought QDOS to make PC-DOS, etc. In the end, Gates became the richest man in the world and Kindall didn't. Recently, someone compared code to see if he could find traces that would show QDOS code had been copied from CP/M's code; he concluded that no such signs exist. This article has more details. Not exhaustive or definitive, but a few more clues about the role of luck vs. skill in this particular case.

Edited by softwareNerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...