Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

"Atlas Shrugged" Movie

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

That might work for the movie. However, someone is sure to come along and point out that it is the exact opposite of how Rand described the cafeteria.

The cafeteria was underground, and Galt sits in a dark corner, at least in the scene where Eddie reveals to Galt that DT and HR were lovers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 728
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Most people on this forum don't think with their nuts anyway.

I just watched it about five minutes ago. Part one of the three piece film will be released in only two months. Who else has seen it - (and who is looking into it now because of this post)? Good.

Does anyone else find that "If you double cross me, I will destroy you." line more fit for an Oliver Stone villain than an AR hero?

Posted Images

The cafeteria was underground, and Galt sits in a dark corner, at least in the scene where Eddie reveals to Galt that DT and HR were lovers.

I suggest you reread the initial description, in Part I, Chapter III. There is a distinct contrast between the underground cafeteria and the rooftop bar which Jim frequents.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest you reread the initial description, in Part I, Chapter III. There is a distinct contrast between the underground cafeteria and the rooftop bar which Jim frequents.

Yes, you're right. It's underground, but with "light and space". Thanks.

The identity of the character is kept in the dark, but not the scene.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't kill me for saying this, but I'd like to see the setting of Atlas Shrugged changed if they ever make a movie. I think the Taggart clan should run a technology company like Microsoft or Google. John Galt should be something like Jimmy Wales or Mark Zuckerberg(founder of Facebook), except they deactivate their innovation. I'd like to see more of a cyberpunk setting because it is supposed to take place in the future. Maybe Francisco d'Anconia should be something like Donald Trump. Who should be Ferris?

Maybe the pro-bailout Warren Buffet or Bill Gates could possibly be Stadler. An animated film in something like Second Life would be cool.

Edited by Drregaleagle
Link to post
Share on other sites

John Galt should be something like Jimmy Wales or Mark Zuckerberg(founder of Facebook), except they deactivate their innovation.

I think you might lack understanding of what John Galt actually stands for.

Whatever one thinks of Facebook the fact stands that Zuckerberg has had several lawsuits filed against him for stealing the entire idea of facebook from the people who created it and hired him to do the tech on it. Reading into the matter the lawsuit appears to be based in reality, not spiteful envious money grabbing.

I'm not sure how creating a motor that effortlessly generates abundant self-sustaining power can be the equivelent of creating a social media page where people blog about their toddlers and cats and teens sometimes bully each other with allegations of "fat" and "fag". <_<

Or is this a continuation of .999999999999999=1? :dough:

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's just so much pessimism about the AS movie. Whatever turns out,it isn't the end of the world, guys. This reminds me of all the people in AS who kept saying, "It can't be done," regarding Rearden's Metal.

Maybe we could just relax a bit. Wait and see what happens. And yes, the movie will probably be a bit different from the book. Most movies are. Let's hope for the best. I mean, if there's already so much grumbling about something as simple as the cafeteria set, certain people will go nuts when the movies comes out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's just so much pessimism about the AS movie. Whatever turns out,it isn't the end of the world, guys. This reminds me of all the people in AS who kept saying, "It can't be done," regarding Rearden's Metal.

Maybe we could just relax a bit. Wait and see what happens. And yes, the movie will probably be a bit different from the book. Most movies are. Let's hope for the best. I mean, if there's already so much grumbling about something as simple as the cafeteria set, certain people will go nuts when the movies comes out.

1) I'm still looking for the quote where someone implied that the AS movie being horrible would bring about the end of the world.

2) Your analogy to AS & Reardon Metal is poor. No one is saying of this film "it can't be done". What is being said is "this should not be done in this way" What is this way? If you read through the whole post you will see that the movie is being made by someone who thinks Rand was wrong.

3) Q.Why should we care that the movie is being made by someone who admittedly disagrees with the conclusions reached in AS? A.Because the rational self interest as Objectivists would tend to find many of us inclined to not having the philosophy any more misinterpreted and misrepresented than it already is.

edited for typos

Edited by SapereAude
Link to post
Share on other sites

1) I'm still looking for the quote where someone implied that the AS movie being horrible would bring about the end of the world.

2) Your analogy to AS & Reardon Metal is poor. No one is saying of this film "it can't be done". What is being said is "this should not be done in this way?" What is this way? If you read through the whole post you will see that the movie is being made by someone who thinks Rand was wrong.

3) Q.Why should we care that the movie is being made by someone who admittedly disagrees with the conclusions reached in AS? A.Because the rational self interest as Objectivists would tend to find many of us inclined to not having the philosophy any more misinterpreted and misrepresented than it already is.

1. Keep looking.

2. No. There's quite a bit of naysaying going on.

3. Where does the director disagree with AS conclusion?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sort of optimistic after above video.

If you think about it, Ayn ("An" Rand - doh!) Rand fleshed out her philosophy somewhat in the context of seeking a heroic, romantic ideal. Certainly that's the case considering Atlas Shrugged. So it's entirely possible that the director will accidently get it right. He may not be devoted to the philosophy, but if he gets the basic aesthetic (individualism, heroic individuals) and is devoted to portraying that (as a profession artist), the movie might turn out well.

Not great, but well.

And I think he said this movie will be on the first 127 pages anyway. Weird, but maybe we'll see a 10-movie 'tv miniseries' after all. Mad Men is popular, so maybe there will be some 'real men' aesthetic that's captured. In any case, only the first 10th of the movie will be ruined if this is a bomb.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how creating a motor that effortlessly generates abundant self-sustaining power can be the equivelent of creating a social media page where people blog about their toddlers and cats and teens sometimes bully each other with allegations of "fat" and "fag". <_<

Or is this a continuation of .999999999999999=1? :dough:

Facebook linked millions of people in the world and has given people who had wanted to get back in touch a means of communication. Facebook provides an easy platform for typed conversations and exchange of photos, while allowing people to meet other new people with similar interests. I didn't know about the idea being stolen from ConnectU until I looked it up just now, but it is still a tremendous display of creativity.

Galt's motor could still fit in a storyline today too. It could be exploited by all those "green collar" job cries and eco-nuts. Environmentalists should be the ones to torture Galt today.

What about Wikipedia? It has provided tons of previously elusive information free of charge because of Jimmy Wales' rational self-interest.

P.S. It is 0.99999...=1

That's 0.9 repeating that equals one. There must be an infinite number of 9's to the right of the decimal point for it to equal 1.

Edited by Drregaleagle
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

TBH I think Hollywood has long become a festering den of collectivists and mystics. I would be really really surprised if this movie will accurately represent the message of Miss Rand's work, but I would be glad anyway since moviegoers would be able to hear the names of John Galt and Dagny Taggart :pimp:

Edited by dollardoctrinaire
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Thats odd, the video made me want to put a bullet through my head...

Alright, not really of course. However it had the same effect as the interview with him linked some numbers of posts ago : It made me think that the director has no idea what the source material is really about, how or to portray it. Hell, I dont think that he can even portray what he thinks it is about. He thinks that capitalism cannot work for one, which clearly illustrates that he did not really understand the book at all. Granted the book is about more than just that, but still, this is a pretty clear consquence of the books essential theme etc.

I definitely agree that this could be very damaging indeed. If it is released (which I am rather dubious about as it does sort of seem to be a throw-away project to keep the rights for the time being ), then people are going to see poorly acted characters in a series of probably unconvincing scenarios which fail to make whatever point this directors thinks the movies should make. Which will just convince people that Ayn Rand was a hack writer that had no idea what she was doing. It is not too hard to imagine what harm this could do.....

I would also like to repeat the point that others have made already : The story of AS as presented in the novel will never suit the movie or even mini-series format. It is far too complicated for either medium in terms of structure and depth. However, it should be possible for it to be toned down into something that could work, while still having an essentially similar theme etc.

Edited by Prometheus98876
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
  • 4 weeks later...

The characters of Hank and Dagny look nothing at all like I imagined them. However that is not too important and I am glad that the reviewer thinks the movie will do justice to the book. I agree with his suggestion to the director he talked about at the end of the review, great catch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that I figured this movie would be 80% horrid this is somewhat encouraging. I read elsewhere that the actor playing Rearden showed signs of actually understanding his character. He doesn't "look" like Rearden to me though "Dagny" does look a lot like Dagny to me.

I like also how they solved the problem of setting a story with a lot of passenger railroad travel in the near future (I had wondered whether they planned to set the movie in the 1950s or simply have Taggart be in some other line of work. Taggart Air and Rail, anyone?): Air travel is falling by the wayside due to the ongoing collapse of the economy. It even ties in to the plot of the novel to do it that way!

I've gone from being pretty sure this will be a total disaster to adopting a wait-and-see approach.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

I just have a strong feeling that the AS movie(s) will probably be a major flop, poorly depicting the story as well as Rand and her philosophy through numerous misinterpretations and compromised revisions to attract the "movie-goer" demographic. Plus, once the movie is released and Objectivism is under the public spotlight, I can easily imagine a large-scale convergence of attacks against the philosophy- or at least libertarianism/right-wing economics- from all the ill-informed critics, pundits, academia, etc. out there, thus resulting in further rejection and ostracism of Rand's ideas.

Edited by Limelight
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just have a strong feeling that the AS movie(s) will probably be a major flop, poorly depicting the story as well as Rand and her philosophy through numerous misinterpretations and compromised revisions to attract the "movie-goer" demographic. Plus, once the movie is released and Objectivism is under the public spotlight, I can easily imagine a large-scale convergence of attacks against the philosophy- or at least libertarianism/right-wing economics- from all the ill-informed critics, pundits, academia, etc. out there, thus resulting in further rejection and ostracism of Rand's ideas.

Yeah, but so what? Just means the good stuff is in more abundance for those of us who know better. :D

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...