Grant
-
Posts
154 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Grant
-
-
Do we know that for sure?
It is as equally plausible that she did it because their names came up and she decided to follow the prophesy as she always did - on faith that it is the right thing to do. One of the guys shortly before that said something similar to: The hell with prophesy. She decided to stick with it.
What made you think otherwise?
If she trusted in the code, she'd have killed Wesley too (or let the black guy kill him) instead of handing him the gun to go after Sloan.
Edit:
Actually, I may be wrong. I forgot that Sloan MADE Wesley a target. Let me think about this one.
-
Has this movie been approved/sanctioned by Leonard Peikoff? Does it have the full official backing of the Ayn Rand Institute? Has it been/will it be screened for everyone there? I never go in for stuff otherwise.
So, I see the movie WANTED got a bad rep on the front page of Objectivism Online, courtesy of Greg Perkins from NoodleFood.
The review:
We went to see the new Angelina Jolie flick, Wanted, the other night. Having watched the trailers, and noting that 75% or so of 150+ reviews were coming out positive, our expectation was of basically mindless summer action in a slick package.We got all that: the production values were excellent, and the acting was just fine -- most of all, the action sequences were extremely stylish and fantastically unrealistic, though a bit over the top on gore at times. All of this is what you would expect. It's the "message" that is so horrid.
*** MILD SPOLIAGE ALERT ***
The movie started out pretty quirky and random, and I was fine with cutting it slack even while Tammy was alternately squirming with boredom and revulsion at gory stuff as we waited for things to unfold. Soon enough, we got to see the main protagonist -- someone we are supposed like -- struggle briefly with and then accept the idea of killing innocent people on nothing more than blind faith in a mysterious, unseen and unfathomable authority saying they must be killed now to prevent never-specified future harms. Yes, the movie presents the issue that clearly, and then basically endorses the cold-blooded murder of innocents on faith. Our jaws dropped.
Oh, but it gets worse. Even after the danger of such blind faith and obedience was demonstrated to be problematic in the course of the plot, a second important character who we are to sympathize with and enjoy the action of goes and deliberately acts on such faith in the face of that demonstration -- and in a gigantically self-sacrificial manner! Our eyes boggled.
As if all that isn't horrid enough to be whacked in the face with, the movie underscores it by closing with a direct challenge addressed to the audience, along the lines of "see how I took splendid control of my life -- well, what have you done lately?"
We stood up and shuffled out, numb at the Columbine-level insanity of it's message... and of so many people thinking it is just fine, if not great.
Having just seen this movie for the 2nd time - and loved it just as much this time round - I must disagree with Mr. Perkins.
While certain points of his are valid, for the most part, he seems to have missed the point of the movie.
It is difficult to point out his flaws without giving too much of the movie away.
The movie in no way endorses murdering innocents on faith. In fact, quite the opposite. This is why, in the end, when the system (of faith) is shown to be flawed, Jolie decides to murder everyone in the group (as well as herself) for their horrific crimes.
I'm not sure which character he's referring to who was self-sacrificial? Is he referring to Jolie going after Wesley (who was going after Cross)? If so, she did it because it was her job (and purpose) and she was willing to risk her life for it.
Beyond the unrealistic physics, I truly enjoyed this movie.
I never realised before how amazingly sexy Angelina Jolie really is. She oozes confidence, strength, sex-appeal and feminity. I look forward to her playing Dagny (if it ever materializes).
Freeman and McAvoy were great too.
-
Grant,
I just checked the logs. The problem you're experiencing is not a result of browser or speed. I have seen this particular error when someone tried to connect to chat using an "accelerator" ...e.g. Google's accelerator. Do you have one running? If so, shut it down and try again.
Nope. Nothing of the sort running. Maybe it's on my ISP's side? :-/
-
Damn it. Window closes immediately every time.
-
After having just seen WANTED, I'm keen to see Angelina as a heroine in every movie.
Talk about an incredible woman. She left me in absolute awe.
-
Very unimpressive.
-
Okay--I was able to get in by using Internet Explorer 6.0 instead of Firefox 1.0. Now that I've upgraded Firefox to 3.0 it works as well (bye bye, IE). But for the last few days I have been getting lot of Connection Status: 0 messages--though it seems to work again in just a couple of seconds. But one time last night three of us got kicked out simultaneously.
Doesn't seem to work for me. I'm using FF3 and have tried IE6.
-
...and now it appears I cannot get into chat. At least, I see the screen but no dialog in it.
I've never been able to access the chat.
I'm getting the error: (01:12:47) ChatBot: Error: Connection status: 302
-
I don't like it. Could definitely be better.
(I'm a web designer)
-
Ok, I just finished watching a trailer for a movie called The Day The Earth Stood Still, which in essence appears to be about an alien invasion that attemps to destroy the world.
The movie looks like a visual extravaganza, but it got me thinking, what is up with this massive influx of human-genocide movies of late? Why has Hollywood become so obsessed with the end of the world?
The Happening, I Am Legend, Cloverfield, etc etc.
There are so many of them lately.
My guess is that Hollywood is appealing to a general negative view of the world at present and playing on these emotions.
Is anyone able to properly explain why this seems to be happening?
-
If you want to see a *really* environmentalist movie, go see The Happening and contrast the two. Wall-e is NOT environmentalist because it is pro-man: pro-ideals, pro-love, pro-struggle . . . pro just about anything that is human. It is anti-passivity, anti-abandonment, anti-ignorance. One of the best lines in the movie (in my opinion) is when the Auto-Pilot tells the captain "You will survive." when the captain wants to go back to earth, and the captain says: "I don't want to survive. I want to live!"
Judging art requires an ability to identify central, unifying elements and think in terms of essentials. Background is just background.
Haha, The Happening...AWFUL movie.
And not only from a philosophical standpoint. Just plain awful.
-
http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2008/06/18/angel...-lifetime-film/
Jolie told MTV News that Vadim Perelman, who was thought to be lined up to direct, was never and is not now officially attached to the project.What in the hell? Then what were all those interviews with Vadim about?
Apparently he even has a signed contract says "Director".
This has all gotten a bit strange.
-
This one is bugging me.
Let us say for a moment that, hypothetically, we could, with the introduction of a new technology, over a few generations, consume every resource available to us on this planet for massive short term benefit but leaving nothing behind of value when the benefit itself was consumed.
With no responsibility to the future, why would we not do that? Assuming that our own generation will die before all the resources are gone, and assuming that we act rationally to each other, with no duty to the future at all (and yes, I know how bad the concept of duty is - its word that fits here though), why would we not consume at a massively increased rate?
Because firstly, you'll find it pretty darn hard to consume all the resources. For instance, if you try consume all the trees, companies who make money off selling wood, paper etc will plant more to increase the supply. Same goes for every other resource. If for instance water becomes scarce, we'll find a way to turn sea water into fresh water.
How will we ever get to the stage where we consume and there's nothing left? If we get to the point where we find there's only maybe 50 years worth left of a certain resource, we'll either find a new way to create more of the resource or find an alternative resource.
If anything, with the introduction of new technology, we'll improve our efficiency when it comes to the use of resources.
-
Earlier today on the ever-popular digg.com, I saw someone present this question as a statement.
Given I was slightly bored at the time, I decided to write a little argument for myself, challenging the logic of such a ridiculous statement.
I'm sure someone somewhere along the lines has already presented the same (or a similar) argument as it's a fairly simple one, but none the less, here's what I came up with.
If there are any flaws or loopholes in my argument, I'd appreciate it if someone could point them out. I like to be challenged.
Do we have any responsibility towards future generations?
To proclaim that you somehow have a responsibility towards future generations is to imply that they are of value to you. After all, how can you feel a responsibility towards that which is of no value to you? And if you believe that men who may exist in hundreds of years are of value to you, how can you value that which does not exist? Is it rational for a girl to love the daughter or son she may give birth to one day? Is it rational for a woman to love her unborn child’s children? Is it rational for an artist to love an artwork he has not yet created? No. Love, which is to value, is a tangible emotion that cannot be applied to the intangible.
There are those who would rather sacrifice their own well-being for the sake of the non-existing, because it is their belief that they have an inherent responsibility to ensure a better world for future generations. I suggest they re-evaluate their premises as this is a fatal philosophical flaw. When men live for the sake of the non-existing, they sacrifice that which is of the utmost value – their lives – for a non-value.
-
http://www.joblo.com/gore-directs-bioshock
So, for those of you who do not know, they're making a movie of the successful video game, Bioshock.
Gore Verbinski, the same director who directed Pirates of the Caribbean, will be directing.
Bioshock for those of you who do not know challenges Atlas Shrugged.
Read more here
So, with the Atlas movie going into production soon, and Bioshock having picked its director, we may see 2 opposing (yet very similar) movies released simultaneously or near to each other.
Something tells me, given the nature of Hollywood, Bioshock will probably end up being more successful (and well made) than Atlas.
Share your thoughts (if you have any).
-
-
So I messaged We The Living to ask them if they got their name from the book.
Here's the response I got:
Hey man,
Kinda a delayed response, but you're absolutely right-- the name is from Rand's book.
Out of all of her works, we thought it was the best choice for a band name
-
10/10
Great plot. Great acting. Orgasimic special effects. Islamic terrorists get there ass handed to them by an American Industrialist. One line in the movie has the bad guy saying "You think, just because YOU have an idea that it's YOURs? You don't own ideas. And too think what the world would be missing out on because you decided to be selfish with yours"
But, if you do go see it. STAY FOR THE ENDING AFTER THE CREDITS!!! You will want to see it. It's like the icing on the cake.
I saw it last night. Iron Man is my new favorite superhero.
Best superhero movie I've ever seen and the ultimate Objectivist superhero movie at that.
The movie was philosophically sound. Literally felt like the Fountainhead gone Sci-fi.
And yeh, that line from Obadiah stuck with me too, even though you slightly misquoted it
I didn't see the bit after the credits though
But I intend on going again. -
By "ending," I didn't mean the last 30 seconds when he sees his hallucinations one more time before walking out of the building. I think the scene I just posted qualifies as part of the ending.
Whoops, I clicked on Kendall's video by mistake. My bad
-
I love the scene because his improvement on Smith's theory is basically 'rational self interest'.
And it's just a brilliant scene
nothing beats the endinghttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LolfbOn75-c...feature=related
is that the right scene you pasted? it's not the ending.
-
-
Ok, I know what the objectivist stance on animal rights are. None.
But then why should a baby have rights?
The mind of a baby doesn't differ significantly from that of an animal. i.e. it hasn't developed reason or free-will.
Am interested to hear what Objectivism's stance on this is.
Thanks
-
Thanks guys.
That helped a lot.
-
So, whilst my biggest fear in life probably lies with death. A VERY close second is knowing I may go through life without a real purpose.
Ayn stated quite specifically that a life without purpose is left to act on whims/emotions. The dangers of this being quite obvious.
I have a certain amount of admiration for those who know at a young age what they want to do with the rest of the life.
I have never possessed this kind of certainty.
Given most of my life is spent in front of a computer, after school it seemed logical to pursue a degree in Information Systems.
Unfortunately I failed to realize that most of my time in front of the PC was spent designing and not programming.
2 years into my studies I decided this was not in any way a career path for me, but nonetheless finished my B.Com degree.
It has been almost 2 years since I completed my studies. During this time I have taken time off, have held a permanent position at a web design firm and done freelance design and photography for clients. Recently I applied to study a Masters degree in Architecture in the USA (I currently live in South Africa).
Architecture is something I had considered when I originally applied to study my undergraduate degree but decided to give it a miss.
I'm not saying The Fountainhead didn't have anything to do with it, but 5 years later it felt like something I finally wanted to pursue.
I've always been creative and had a keen interest in architecture/interior design, plus I've always wanted to live in the US, so it seemed logical.
I've just been accepted into a school in Chicago and wait-listed at 3 others (which I think I still have a good chance of getting into).
I can't say I am necessarily upset at this result, given I literally prepared the application/portfolio over-night, unlike others who spend half a year on theirs.
The only problem is I now don't know if I'm passionate enough about it to fork out $30k a year on education for the next 3 years.
Given the amount of money, it would be a serious commitment if I chose to pursue it, unlike my undergraduate education which was almost for nothing.
I've considered studying photography as it is something I do love, but I don't know if it's something I could make a career of.
I know I'm not alone in this dilemma. I speak to many who are unsure about their career choices.
Is it a game of luck? Do you have to hope to stumble upon something you immediately know you were meant for?
What do you do if at 23 (24 in a month), you still don't know your purpose?
Anyone have any advice?
WANTED
in Movies, Shows, and Theatre
Posted · Edited by Grant
OK, so having thought about it again, here's my conclusion:
EW Interview with Jolie: "I don't think like in Wanted — which is an action movie — people should [just] be killed. I think there should be trials and justice. But the idea behind Wanted is not that she's a badass assassin that just likes to kill people. It's that, if you ran into Hitler before he did everything, and you knew, should you shoot him? And I would. These assassins are getting lists: They find out who is going to slaughter other people ahead of time and they remove them."
Yeh, I edited my post