or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › First Review Of "Atlas Shrugged: Part I," The Movie
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

First Review Of "Atlas Shrugged: Part I," The Movie - Page 2  

post #31 of 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by IAM4UK View Post

Oink, were her ideas those I posted from my vantage? (None of those were political, and therefore are valid for on-topic discussion related to this movie.) Or, were her ideas other than those I posted?

I'm sure you are aware the definition of the word "political" has expanded well beyond its original meaning.
Unfortunately, nearly every societal topic under the sun these days is construed as "political" by someone, somewhere.

Discussions involving "politics" brings out intense emotions and little facts, it seems.
Which leads, of course, to threads getting closed down and suspensions handed out.

Having been a casualty around here (more than once), I am on a short leash.

Frankly, my blood pressure (and liver) can't take it anymore.
post #32 of 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by IAM4UK View Post

I'm only part-way through "Atlas Shrugged," but thus far I find these ideas from Ayn Rand:

-- individuals should be responsible for themselves as much as possible
-- "for-profit businesses" exist to earn profit, not to provide charity to various causes
-- indecision is the mother of inaction, which leads to decay
-- refusal to be accountable for one's actions is a dishonorable trait

I am unaware of any of those ideas ever being discredited; however, I have more of the book to get through, so there may be more ideas in it that are less-obviously true.

I certainly agree with those points. People who create should be rewarded. People should be responsible for their actions/inactions. I believe she took things to a greater extreme though. It seems to me that those on Wall Street are living to her values to think only of themselves and their own happiness, egos, and wallets.

As with true communism, her philosophy only works as theory. If everyone was a visionary, or a leader, who would do all the work?

Art
post #33 of 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by IAM4UK View Post

I'm only part-way through "Atlas Shrugged," but thus far I find these ideas from Ayn Rand:

-- individuals should be responsible for themselves as much as possible

Here’s the problem. Who decides, “as much as possible?” No different than who decides how much you regulate. For the sake of the thread I won’t go there.
post #34 of 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by IAM4UK View Post

I will note that as much as I am enjoying "Atlas Shrugged," I'm not really seeing it as a likely hit on the big-screen. We shall see...

Gary, your recommendation of some Heinlein makes me wonder: will we ever get movies of some of his works? "Stranger in a Strange Land," or "The Cat Who Walked Through Walls," for examples?

Heinlein's novels and stories have been made into film before:

Destination Moon (1950) was based on Rocket Ship Galileo.
Tom Corbett, Space Cadet (1950-1955) was based on Space Cadet. (It was also the original "space opera" on TV, not made from a Republic serial film such as Buck Rogers or Flash Gordon.)
Project Moonbase (1953) was an original Heinlein screenplay.
The Brain Eaters (1958) and The Puppet Masters (1994) were based on The Puppet Masters.
Red Planet (1994 TV animated miniseries) was based on Red Planet.
Starship Troopers (1997) and the two sequel films and the animated Roughnecks TV series were based on Starship Troopers.

As for whether we will ever see his "socialogical SF" works in film, I just don't know. It is 50 years too late to make Stranger in a Strange Land, which today would be more painfully out of date than was Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut. As for The Cat Who Walked Through Walls, that was a later sequel to The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, but was a simple adventure narrative with relatively little of the Libertarian subtheme. The Rolling Stones is yet another sequel (technically a prequel) but would make a better film IMHO.

Heinlein's series of Lazurus Long novels would make a great series of films IMHO. As would Citizen of the Galaxy and Time For the Stars. In actual fact, I don't think anyone writes straight space opera to equal Heinlein, unless you want to consider David Weber's "Hornblower in Space" series, aka the Honor Harrington novels.

Heinlein's other socialogical SF work was JOB: A Comedy of Justice, which would not get made into film because of the too-frank discussion of the problems with the Christian faith.
post #35 of 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by adpayne View Post

It seems to me that those on Wall Street are living to her values...

More like the values of the villians in her books, who don't take responsibility for their actions, especially when catastropic.
post #36 of 382
I consider altruism an impossible ideal, a state of perfection on the generous-vs-selfish scale.
post #37 of 382
What does perfection have to do with being altruistic? To me, altruism comes from the heart/soul, whatever you want to call it - it’s not pretentious. It’s something someone else wants to do for another and doesn’t expect anything in return. It happens worldwide every day. Athletes, like many others, are constantly giving back to their childhood neighborhoods and beyond.

You would think that if you talked about the heart/soul of what drives certain individuals, especially in a country that is supposedly so religious, that people would understand that concept. I’m always fascinated when people who claim to be religious are the antithesis of what they preach.
post #38 of 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by adpayne View Post

It seems to me that those on Wall Street are living to her values to think only of themselves and their own happiness, egos, and wallets.

Art

I hadn't thought of that, but I suspect that she would hold them in contempt. They produce nothing and make their living off of those that do.

Cary
post #39 of 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

More like the values of the villians in her books, who don't take responsibility for their actions, especially when catastropic.

Ayn Rand and Alan Greenspan (poster child for deregulation) were very, VERY good friends. This is a fact.
post #40 of 382
Aliens, we merely differ on the definition of the word altruism. I know people can be generous. And generosity is universally recognized as good.
post #41 of 382
al·tru·ism
n.
1. Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.
2. Zoology: Instinctive behavior that is detrimental to the individual but favors the survival or spread of that individual's genes, as by benefiting its relatives.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

e·go·ism
n.
1.
a. The ethical doctrine that morality has its foundations in self-interest.
b. The ethical belief that self-interest is the just and proper motive for all human conduct.
2. Excessive preoccupation with one's own well-being and interests, usually accompanied by an inflated sense of self-importance.
3. Egotism; conceit. See Synonyms at conceit.


As you can see from these definitions, clearly Wall Street is altruistic.
post #42 of 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilgore View Post
Ayn Rand and Alan Greenspan (poster child for deregulation) were very, VERY good friends. This is a fact.
And...?
post #43 of 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
And...?
....he was one of the major architects of the deregulation starting in the Reagan era that led to the worst economic crashes since the Great Depression. He was fully aware of the shenanigans going on on Wall Street yet did absolutely nothing to prevent investment banks from masterminding one of the greatest frauds to come down the pipe in history...all because of his stubborn devotion to the Randian ideology.
post #44 of 382
Now back to the movie in discussion, I don't care which political side you're on, Ebert's review is pretty funny:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...IEWS/110419990

especially the:

"There is also a love scene, which is shown not merely from the waist up but from the ears up. The man keeps his shirt on. This may be disappointing for libertarians, who I believe enjoy rumpy-pumpy as much as anyone."

part.

Some books may defy the laws of moviemaking, let's face it...
post #45 of 382
I also enjoyed the Ebert review, as usual. He writes well, even though he is so hateful so often.
post #46 of 382
7% at Rotten Tomatoes. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/atlas_shrugged_part_i/

From one review:

"About to lose his long-held rights to Ayn Rand’s novel, and perhaps to cash in on apparent Tea Party interest and support, producer John Aglialoro (the CEO of Cybex International in Medway) rushed this film into a low-budget production and it shows in every frame. Even fans of Rand’s 1957 antigovernment manifesto may balk at having to endure dialogue that would be banal on the Lifetime channel, along with wooden performances,..."

Sounds like this movie may be for true believers only.

I wonder if they've already shot parts II and III? If this tanks at the box-office, it may go straight to DVD and Blu-Ray.
post #47 of 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilgore View Post

...all because of his stubborn devotion to the Randian ideology.

What ideology is that? Behave irresponsibly because the government will protect you from the consequences (bail you out from failure)? Again, it is the villians in her book that behave that way. BTW, have you read Atlas Shrugged or are you guessing at her ideology by looking at a government bigwig like Greenspan?
post #48 of 382
Ebert notes that his readers currently give this 4 stars out of 4. However, the movie only started today. (Ebert savages it for the expected reasons, given who he is.)
post #49 of 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by eweiss View Post

I wonder if they've already shot parts II and III? If this tanks at the box-office, it may go straight to DVD and Blu-Ray.

The trailer made it look like a direct-to-video or TV/cable movie-of-the-week. Kinda like when you see a trailer for a new science fiction film and it looks like something made for the SyFy channel. Tough book to turn into a movie. It really needs a good writer, willing cut out some of the preachiness and excessive bloat, and distill the thriller aspect of the story. Movies can promote an ideology AND be popular/successful (Avatar, Dark Knight), but it requires great storytelling skills. I shouldn't pre-judge, but Atlas Shrugged doesn't look like it falls into that category.
post #50 of 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

It really needs a good writer, willing cut out some of the preachiness and excessive bloat, and distill the thriller aspect of the story.

You're right, it would take a heckuva writer to pull it off.
The problem is it WOULDN'T be Atlas Shrugged then.

A.S. claim to fame is all about preachiness.
Take that away....
post #51 of 382
Some books--even iconic masterworks--are just tough to translate into movies. "Dune" comes to mind, and that had sci-fi adventure going for it...

I will not be surprised for this one to fail. But I hope it is better than I fear it may be...
post #52 of 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

The problem is it WOULDN'T be Atlas Shrugged then.

It wouldn't be the verbose book, but it would still be the same story about what happens when people who create wealth start disappearing. A movie like Wall Street would still be a compelling watch even if you took away its zero sum game ideology. So an Atlas Shrugged movie could still use the same plot and characters to get its point across. It would certainly make for a more watchable film that adhering blindly to the book.
post #53 of 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

And...?

Here ya go: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/15/business/15atlas.html
post #54 of 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Here ya go: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/15/business/15atlas.html

Here I go with what? Instead of cryptic posts why don't make your point explicitly?
post #55 of 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by IAM4UK View Post

(Ebert savages it for the expected reasons, given who he is.)

Do I take this to mean:
"Ebert savages it for the expected reasons" = because the movie sucks
"given who he is." = a legendary movie reviewer?

Am I right on this?
post #56 of 382
Andrikos, feel free to misinterpret in any way you choose.
post #57 of 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Here I go with what? Instead of cryptic posts why don't make your point explicitly?

Because political discussion is frowned upon on AVSForum. Overtly political comments are asking for a ban. It's happened to me, and I don't want it to happen again.

I'm just going to say this. I have read Atlas Shrugged, and The Fountainhead, and they both represent an idealized view of capitalistic utopia where deregulation and lack of government interference allows a corporation (or an individual) motivated by his own self interest and the pursuit of excellence can flourish. This assumes of course that multinational corporations and banking institutions are going to behave appropriately and follow the same idealized path

Alan Greenspan is a devout disciple of Ayn Rand, who in the Reagan era, embarked on a path of realizing this Randian philosphy of deregulation and limitation of government interference in matters of business and economics. It was this dogged pursuit of the Randian utopia that allowed a bunch of cutthroat Wall Street investment bankers to massively cripple the world economy. As much as these scumbags did not truly follow the edict of Randian ideology to a tee, and are the real villains in the derivative scams, it was Alan Greenspan's failure to act that allowed these criminals to damage the world economy to the degree that they did.

Greenspan admtted this himself in 2008:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/bu...y/24panel.html

By his own admission, Greenspan's blind belief in the Randian philosophy of non-government interference and dergulation was flawed, and that he should have stepped in to prevent these crooks from investing unrestrained in credit-swapping schemes and derivatives.

The Randian philosophy may look good on paper, but it does nothing to stop greedy, scumsucking bottom feeders from raping the wealth of the world without a single solitary care about the devastation they cause.

Hence the absolute need for regulation. It's the one reason why Canada survived the blows of the economic collapse. Our banks can't do whatever the hell they want.
post #58 of 382
^^^

+1

Well said.
post #59 of 382
Assume all Kilgore said in his excellent post is accurate, and the conclusions are supported. In that case, the opposite of "the Randian" approach would not therefore be a valid solution. The principles in Atlas Shrugged are neither validated nor invalidated by bad behavior of some or many.

Anyone here see the movie yet?
post #60 of 382
Going to see the movie tonight. Can't wait. Super excited.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
This thread is locked  
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › First Review Of "Atlas Shrugged: Part I," The Movie