As the title suggests--the new movie--Atlas Shrugged PT. I came out yesterday, and I was just wondering if anyone on here has seen it yet and what are their thoughts about the movie? Does it follow the book closely? Is it even worth seeing?
Since Atlas Shrugged is what Andrew Ryan seems to be all about, I hope my fellow Bioshock enthusiasts will have seen it.
Last edited by Ga1Friday; 04-26-2011 at 09:15 AM.
It's not out in the UK but whatever it's like when it comes out I'm going to see it, I do how ever have one question, Who is John Galt.
I just saw this blog post:
http://www.kurzweilai.net/who-is-john-galt
which says:
"Atlas Shrugged Part I the movie, an adaptation of Ayn Rand’s 1957 objectivist novel Atlas Shrugged, tells the first installment in the story of a dystopian future in which a collectivist society has forced the great thinkers of the world to go on strike, leaving the functioning world without scientists, engineers, philosophers, or artists."
The official movie site:
http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com/
Anybody has seen it ?
Does it "feel" like Rapture ?
An 8% rating on Rotten Tomatoes says avoid this one at all costs. If you're really interested, read the book.
No, it doesn't.Originally Posted by IllusionOfLife
RT just doesn't like the philosophy.
I saw the movie. It's awesome. Perfect adaption of the novel. Go see it.
…You do know that Rotten Tomatoes is an aggregate review site, right?
It's only getting 27% on Metacritic... Your Highness and Sucker Punch got higher grades than the movie did. Upsetting? Probably. It's hard to adapt manifestos into movies though, no matter how well written the source material is.
Aggravate reviews are like.... uh... biased or something.
You haven't read the reviews have you...?
They all pretty much say the same: Fans of the book will be mad because it's a very bad adaption that doesn't do the book any justice. Everyone else will hate it because well...It's Objectivism. Which you either hate or love.
I'm an Objectivist, and I loved that movie. So did the other 30 people who saw the movie at the same theatre as me. The place was packed. Everyone kept on cheering at the good parts. It was amazing.
I don't know where people get the idea that the movie doesn't deliver the story properly/doesn't do the book justice. Everyone who left with me kept on talking about how great it was.
I haven't seen it since it has not come over here yet...if ever but I watched the released scenes; I think the the women who plays Lillian is perfect, Eddie Willers is not as I would imagine nor is Henry Readen (to me he is older and not as clean cut)
I don't know what is up with all of these bad review's for the movie it was fantastic, sure its hard to make a book into a movie but they did a good job in my opinion and on top of that every one in the theatre I was in loved it and it was a bunch of older people and a couple people my age. Like RWBR I loved it and sure I noticed certain parts weren't right with the movie as in the book but honestly its not that bad. Also its a independent film so could be reason for bad review's because no one in Hollywood made it so they don't like it.
Is it as preachy as the book?
I hate preachy books, I don't read to be told what to think, I read to think.
I really don't see how the book is preachy at least I didn't pick up on that and if you thought the book was preachy I guess you could think the movie would be but not sure I really didn't pick up on the preachy part of it if there even was one.
Usually a 60 page monologue made by a Mary Sue (admit it. Galt fits every aspect of the Mary Sue character) speaking the writers opinion is considered preachy. So is a complete black and white moral setup.
And yes, Moral Absolution and idealised characters are part of Objectivistic literature and philosophy. But it's still bad literature.
Well honestly from any and every speech that I have either read in a book or heard its going to be preachy about the person who is giving it and what they believe in and such so regardless a lot of books' that have speech's in it or even public figures are preachy so... don't see the point in that. I loved the speech personally but thats just me.
Any speech that stops the plot from progressing for 60 FREAKING PAGES is bad, horrible and completely flabergastingly stupid. It's okay if it's something important and generally agreeable (say, a speech against racism, rape or homophobia), but if the whole thing is just you telling people what to think and how to think, then it's moronic.
And no, it's not because the speech is about Objectivism. I hate it just as much when a writer I agree with starts doing that.
In some cases it's okay though. Take Dostoyevsky's "Notes from Underground" for instance. Where Atlas Shrugged has a speech about human independence, perfection and ingenuity made by a character that is the personification of all these. Notes from Underground has a speech (the entire first half of the book actually) about human irrationality, evil, and hatred by a character that is the personification of all these. In AS the speech is a bad thing. The book tells a story, has many characters and events going on, the speech grinds all those to a halt to tell us the writer's opinion. In NFU the speech is a good thing, because the entire book is a study of the psyche of the main character, thus the speech/rant shows us what he is like. The main character is utterly inhuman and yet so very human (unlike Galt, whom is pretty much a tool to convey Rands opinion). He isn't supposed to be sympathetic, we're not supposed to like him (unlike Galt), we're supposed to understand him, or well, not (yeah, Dostoyevsky writes some complex ☺☺☺☺), and I'm not even sure wether or not Dostoevsky agrees with him. I just find it funny that a book written 150 years ago can still be a thousand times more original than the books today. And of course, that a book completely demolishes Objectivism before the founder was even born.
But that's for another discussion.
Last edited by SquigPie; 04-20-2011 at 06:45 AM.
I'm going to have to assume one of two things:
1. You didn't read the book;
2. You are so sauced on Ayn Rand's Kool-Aid that your capacity for judgment has been much diminished.
If you're going to be an Objectivist (like I was before I turned 17) you need to realize that not everybody is going to be seeing eye-to-eye with you because Objectivism is a fundamentally anti-people philosophy, and people tend not to respond well to that.
It's a philosophy that hates the common man: it hates helping him out of fear of enabling him, and it hates empowering him out of fear of power undeserved. The problem is most people are common - that's axiomatic. Something to keep in mind the next time you're telling a paraplegic police veteran why he can't keep his job and why he can't have healthcare.
I have not seen it yet, and I adored the novel; but the movie looks awful to me. Modernizing parts of the story but keeping retro-ish clothing? Sneaky conversations between pundits wearing fedoras in the rain.... oooh drama!
I will see it before condemning it more but I do not think that I will enjoy this film.
PS
Is it true that Rearden did not have a crisis after sleeping with Dagny? If so then it misses a huge part of the novel and fails as an adaption imo.
True, he didn't have a crisis after the sex scene, BUT then again you don't see him much after that. They show a couple of scenes without him before announcing that Wyatt has blown up his wells/refineries. They'll most likely show Rearden's troubles in Part 2.
I simply loved it. I don't know why they're giving it bad reviews, but I agree with RWBR.
Same here good movie going to see it again tomorrow.
@RaptureWillBeReborn if there is apart two after the dismal theatrical release income. I do hope that they are able to finish the trilogy at least.
Saw it last night. I thought it was great, as did a friend of mine who hadn't even read the book. I really do hope theyre able to to do all three parts.
For a start it doesn't stop the plot progressing it's CRUCIAL to the plot if you replaced those 60 pages with "and galt sais some inspiring stuff" then it would completly ruin the rest of the book. Yes it does outline her philosiphy did you expect her main character to disagree with her?
Did you not read that back and think how stupid that sounded you are basicly saying that it's only okay to right on something if everyone already agrees with. I'm not suprised your not an Objectivist as all you do is go along with the heard and the subjects that you mentioned are telling you what to think and how if the writer doesn't do that then there obviously not secure enough in there own beliefs.
You obviously didnt understand the book at all, all the characters are John Galt there all there to potray the ideal man (or woman) so Galt's speech does not grind there stories to a halt he finishes them so like NFU the book is a study of mans psyche just 2 types John Galts and the Looters. And as for a character that is "Inhuman yet so very human" thats not a very good description of him if your trying to get a point across about him. If the writer of NFU doesn't agree with what he's writing then you can hardly compare the two can you it's like comparing Atlas Shrugged to any Fiction it doesn't work because it's a different book entirley.
Ofcouse it's going to be more original it was written longer ago. Do you think that books get less original as you go back in history?
That is one I'd like to have
On topic I havn't seen the Film yet but the other members of the Objectivist partys reviews are pretty damning.
For a bunch of people who praise objectivism and rational, objective thought, you're all forgetting that such a low metacritic rating basically makes Atlas Shrugged Pt. 1 an objectively bad movie.
Just sayin'.
They are getting bad reviews because of the liberal media/hollywood that didn't want this movie to come out because it shows everyone what they want the world reduced to though not all of hollywood just most of it, I have read this on many other sites, honestly I couldn't care less what some review site says you can't review or get an opinion of a movie unless you have seen it. So until then unless you have seen the movie you should probably just not mention it or speak of it unless you have seen it and the movie reviewer's opinion's are your own in which case good job on sharing a leftist brain... That is all I have to say.
Liberal media/hollywood? Bring it on. Because let me tell you something: Ayn Rand's wet dream still hasn't happened yet.
Of course it hasn't. There will always be looters and moochers in the world. And there's almost no place to hide from them. The best solution at the moment is to let the go about their petty affairs, end up in an Orwellian-Fascist-Dark Ages, and let them learn.
Sad, but true.
And don't respond with your typical sarcastic and honestly annoying response, it makes me want to put a bullet in my brain every time I read something like "Lolz hilter was selfish so liek objectivists think hes cool lolololololol" (paraphrasing of course).
But you get the point.
Well no really... of course it hasn't happened yet other wise we would most likely be in a better society... not that hard to see lol
EDIT: Yes hollywood and the media are by far VERY Liberal.
Last edited by Reborn in the Ocean; 04-24-2011 at 08:52 PM.
It's funny that you guys all think liberalism and in general being anti-objectivist means that the Orwellian dark ages are just around the corner. Sometimes I feel like you guys WANT 1984 to come true just so you can have something to point at and say "See? SEE?!"
Listen, 1984 was a salient commentary in 1949, when people had things to fear from big government. Nowadays, though, that is no longer the case, and I can assure you Orwell (who was a socialist *GASP*) didn't see it coming. I'm sure he couldn't have predicted the decidedly moderate Clinton would preside over the largest economic growth seen by America in well over 30 years, and I'm sure he didn't think Europe's socialistic tendencies would mature into an internationalist system where health care is free and high quality for all and everyone enjoys a considerably higher quality of life than the equivalent "average Joe" in America.
To deny that Europeans aren't less stressed and receive better benefits than American workers is just plain foolishness, and you only have to look at Sweden to see an example of a country where people are generally happy (and corporations are PROSPEROUS?! *GASP*) even though they have the STIFLING ORWELLIAN MONSTER INCOME TAX FROM HELL.
If you really think that a perfect governmentless anarcho-capitalistic society is the height of mankind, and Atlas Shrugged is a mere aperture through which we may envision it, then I advise you to take a few classes on economics to (first of all) gain some basic understanding of how the markets work, and then I advise you to sit down and think about what things would be like if the police were privatized, all roads were toll roads, and all schools were sponsored by corporations.
On another note last time I checked this was a thread to talk about the movie and not our political belief's since this has really gone off on a whole other tangent though the belief's are part of the movie...
I also disagree with the whole perfect government, I do believe that there can be one but it would be hard to do and the perfect Ayn Rand government is a small one that only protects people from crime such as being a police for us and things such as that and to keep our private property safe and secure from anyone who would like to steal it so essentially just to protect us from crime and other than that to let us live our life's how we want to for one and for the other free of government regulation's. Yes Europe lets look at that failing system right now all I have to say is the Great Recession of 2008 up until now look how well there system as kept up with them most of those countries are worse off than the United State's is at this point in time.
EDIT: And don't even get me started on Universal Health Care and how horrid an idea that is...
Oh? Why is universal health care a horrid idea? Is it because it's cheaper than private insurance, or more effective...? Come on, I'm dying to hear. Literally, because I live in America.
And you think Europe is worse off than the USA is? Because of the recession? OK, think about this, buddy - I promise even you can manage this. You can either be socialist or subject to market cycles, you can't be both. That's one of your big GOP talking points, right?
But ok, let's suppose Europe is doing worse than the USA is. Well, ok, they aren't, the Euro is still strong and the pound has gotten stronger... hell, if we look at Canada, now their dollar is worth more than ours, too. Please do outline how Europe is worse off than the US is.
And you argue that the government should brook no regulations? Well, ok. Hey, I just found out that I can sell tuna for really cheap if I leave trace amounts of asbestos and razor sharp aluminum filings in it! Good thing there's no regulation to stop me! Hooray, capitalism!
The last part of your post is pretty much you saying, again, "I don't get Objectivism, and I don't want to."
Have you read any of Rand's books other than her FICTION novels? She herself stated that there should be three branches of the government--judicial, military, and police--and their only job would be to protect individual rights and property. What does this have to do with a careless, cheap bastard leaving chemicals and metal in tuna? Well, for one, in an Objectivist society laws would be passed to protect people from harm. So say I get asbestos poisoning from eating Crezth Brand Genetically Altered Asbestos Tuna (Now with 25% more aluminum!). Instead of the government passing a law saying, "We should regulate the tuna industry," a law would already be in place that allows the consumer to sue the company for harm done to them. Now tell me, how is that a horrible idea next to regulating the entire industry? The way I see it, it would be very helpful to the economy, as only one company will be harmed while the rest of the industry can still prosper.
Also, Reborn is right; stop derailing this thread, Crezth. And yes, I am blaiming you, because you were the one who came in here and started bashing the philosophy instead of talking about the movie.
Thanks RWBR for that and yes please get back on topic don't want to be a back seat mod but yeah we need to before this thread gets shut down... and if you want to talk about it Crezth just go to the other thread where we are debating all of these fun things.
Actually the last part of my post is pretty much me saying "I don't see why laws should get in the way of my rational self-interest, which Ayn Rand says I'm entitled too."
But let's say I produce my CBGAA tuna, as you have allowed me to in this quaint little thought experiment (the new packages are made of strontium), and you come to harm by the tuna and sue me.
Well, I respond haughtily, there's no proof that the tuna is dangerous!
Yes there is, you say, I came to harm when I ate the tuna!
Still a fuzzy connection, I say, shaking my head, come back when you've got some more people on your side.
So you scrape together your life's savings to earn the money to assemble enough people for a really devastating class-action lawsuit. You're at the bottom of the barrel and the legal costs are monstrous because they aren't being subsidized by the government. Now, I am a captain of industry - I made my fortune when I struck oil in Oklahoma while nobody was looking - and am therefore superior to you in every way. That small fact aside, I also own many other industries in addition to the CBGAA brand, which is my latest product. It is true that I cut corners to produce this product because that gave me a healthier bottom line, but I assumed nothing bad would happen.
Oh, woe is me! You come arm in arm with a plethora of individuals all outraged thanks to radiation poisoning and other manners of illnesses that befell you after consuming the CBGAA brand tuna (It's TUNA-LICIOUS!) and you demand compensation.
I snap my fingers and summon a team of highly-paid lawyers who are able to keep the case going long enough and keep it muddled long enough that you're swamped with legal fees long before you're able to make your case and argue it well. You try to keep going, but, alas alas, the judge, too, is in my pocket, and you fail the lawsuit utterly. You end up poor as well as diseased thanks to the tuna, and, just for good measure, I have some men assassinate you. Such is my power.
In truth, any of these could be part of a combination of dirty tactics all meant to abuse the system and assail the lesser man who dares stand up against the so-called "great man." Your ability to fight back is limited - by the law, by your finances, and even by your own tenacity. But my resources, by comparison, are unlimited, and if you think for second that a captain of industry can't get away with selling a shoddy product (and by "get away," I mean completely scot-free) simply by plumbing the depths of his great pockets, then you need to take a long, hard second look at the world, because you are clearly deluded.
Oh, sure, my brand might have a somewhat besmirched name now. That's not a problem - knock the price down a bit, sponsor an expensive and ingenious marketing campaign, and aim for some shiftless individuals (let's say some trailer park junkies) who can do no better, and don't know how to sue any big-wigs for harm done to them. I'm making money again, hand over fist.
Finally, without any appropriate regulations as such, incidents like this can still occur. It'll happen again when a company decides to put profits first, several people will get hurt, and once the product is off the shelves, the damage is already done. Sorry, Suzie, but your mom had some bad fish (TM), and that's it for her. Has her condition caused her to lose her job? And her health insurance? Well, what about her husband? Oh, he's dead? Tough god damn luck.
I'm not in the business of letting business run rampant because ☺☺☺☺ like this ^^^^^^^^^ happens even without unfettered free markets and objectivist anti-governments in charge of everything. I can only imagine how much worse it would be if you told those businesses that they don't need to be accountable because they aren't being watched anymore, then cross your fingers and HOPE they're honorable people like Ayn Rand says they should be.
Yeah. We all can see how good that'll turn out.
Oh, and on the subject of the movie: it's a lousy movie blah.
Again, have you read any of Rand's non fiction works? Have you read into her theory of an Objectivist free market? You're only making yourself look more and more like a fool with every post. I suggest emptying your mind of all your "knowledge" of Objectivism and start new before attempting to make an argument. And try reading some non fiction books. Even better, watch a ton of interviews with Objectivists. Then, maybe I'll try to challenge you. But I won't fight an unarmed man. Or in this case, a man with no good arguments.
Pure, unadulterated comic gold. I love it. "I don't know how to counter any of the points you just made so I'm going to tell you that you don't understand objectivism and then saunter off, chin held high and safely secure in the knowledge that I won a battle I didn't even have to fight."
Listen up, elitist. If you want to convert people to your ideology, one way not to do it is insult their comprehension and then offer absolutely no insight. You tell me read Rand's non-fiction books, which are very nice and biased and is a pretty insulting thing to tell somebody who has as a hobby their entire life studied history. You don't tell me anything that's wrong with my argument, nor do you instruct me in the fallacy of "business run rampant =/= objectivism" which you might even be able to make a good case for. Instead of any of that, you tell me to sod off and "read a book."
So let me ask you a question. Have you ever read any political thesis or historical work that wasn't written by Ayn Rand? And the works of the socialist George Orwell don't count, as they are fiction.
And, by the by, I've watched interviews had with objectivists before (such as Paul Rand) and felt like I had to adjust the settings in the audio and video because the things he was saying were all dreadfully wrong. Not only was the gentleman confrontational and elitist, but he kept assuring me that we needed to get back onto the gold standard, as if gold was the only thing in the world with intrinsic value (way more valuable than the word of man).
Anyway, in case you needed some assurance that I have the intellect required to match wits with a man of your incredible, towering intellectual prowess, let me tell you that I'm a rocket scientist and an astrophysicist so I think I can handle the subtleties of broken and biased political ideologies.
First of all, let's all remember to play nice.
Secondly here is a fun review from The Escapist (possible film spoilers contained in the review)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Ga1Friday