I'm not sure why but I lol'ed at "super metal" with a shot from T2. Reminds me why I watch your reviews, thanks.
Escape to the Movies: Atlas Shrugged
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
I'm sorry MovieBob, but as I always loved your work as a critic, you have fully misunderstood this movie's presence to the public. First off, Rand was writing of 'what was to come' in her day but that is now 'what is happening'. Second, the reason this movie is 'corny', as you put it due to the 'cheep and rushed' premise is because it had no endorsements. That is why this movie failed previous times to being made and why fans of the novel are extremely happy of this coming to theaters. Third, the reason it has a 'to be continued' aspect to the end is because the book itself was a collection of three parts. Atlas Shrugged Part I II and III, so as you would guess it, yeah, there are going to be three movies. But hey, if any one is going to argue about that, take a look at what is going on in the Hollywood movie scene. Twilight newest movie coming is cut into two parts, and even the Hobbit, a book I read while in middle school, no more then three hundred pages, is being cut into two parts.
I am a fan of Rand, but in no way a right wing conservative that you note this movie is 'for'. By saying that, Have you watched the movie, because there was an adulterous love scene near the end and in your review you seemed to look past it saying that they 'took it out for certain public viewers'. Sorry it couldn't be the two-hundred page erotic literature found in the book (exaggeration), but then again, this is a movie. A good movie. A well done adaptation of a novel that depicts the world. At a time when gas is $4 a gallon, and it takes me $30 to fill up my tank, when it only took $18 three years ago, a future like one depicted in Atlas Shrugged not only seems possible, I feel that it is real. It's not a novel, it is a newspaper. It's not a movie, it is the News Channels.
It seems that to me, as well as you normally do with all other movies, you missed the target on this
"A movie must stand on it's own." No MovieBob, it doesn't. A movie stands on the message it brings to the people. Every movie has a message, either of love, freedom, friendship, honesty; The message to this movie was 'Who is John Galt?'
I am a fan of Rand, but in no way a right wing conservative that you note this movie is 'for'. By saying that, Have you watched the movie, because there was an adulterous love scene near the end and in your review you seemed to look past it saying that they 'took it out for certain public viewers'. Sorry it couldn't be the two-hundred page erotic literature found in the book (exaggeration), but then again, this is a movie. A good movie. A well done adaptation of a novel that depicts the world. At a time when gas is $4 a gallon, and it takes me $30 to fill up my tank, when it only took $18 three years ago, a future like one depicted in Atlas Shrugged not only seems possible, I feel that it is real. It's not a novel, it is a newspaper. It's not a movie, it is the News Channels.
It seems that to me, as well as you normally do with all other movies, you missed the target on this
"A movie must stand on it's own." No MovieBob, it doesn't. A movie stands on the message it brings to the people. Every movie has a message, either of love, freedom, friendship, honesty; The message to this movie was 'Who is John Galt?'
I guess you do have the choice, but by objectivist philosophy it would be a cruel thing to do. To heavily paraphrase, "the worst thing a man can do for another man is help them". reasoning being that by helping them you rob them of the chance to better themselves, and will only make there future harder when such skill, character, toughness, whatever, is needed.Agospy said:
Except, it really didn't.i7omahawki said:
They based Andrew Ryan entirely around "objectivism," and then had him make incrediby statist decisions and screw everything up. Also, the game's equivilent (and I use this term only in reference to how he was initially portrayed,) to John Galt, Atlas, was a more or less a socialist, who was actually a corrupt businessman/mobster in disguise.
While they essentially nailed down some of the philosphical aspects, Bioshock completely missed the mark on accurate portrayal in my mind.
Bioshock is an accurate portrayal of Objectivist (or even Libertarian) Philosophy in the same sense that the collective works of Ke$ha are considered music.CronoT said:
Have you even read the book this is based off of? The source material itself is quite poorly written, overdramatic and ludicrous. More skilled actors and better production values are not going to magically make the source material any easier to take seriously.ClifJayShafer said:
The difference is that those are all movie franchises that have already been proven wildly successful.ClifJayShafer said:
A world that only exists in Ayn Rands own universe.ClifJayShafer said:
The message to this movie is that everyone should except the dead end philosophy of objectivism despite of how it conflicts when take out of Rand's universe which is constructed specifically for objectivism to work, and apply it to our universe, wherein the laws of nature and especially biology are not design to work with objectivism's moral philosophy and the laws on nature do not bend backwards for your opinions of things no matter how much you want them to.ClifJayShafer said:It seems that to me, as well as you normally do with all other movies, you missed the target on this
"A movie must stand on it's own." No MovieBob, it doesn't. A movie stands on the message it brings to the people. Every movie has a message, either of love, freedom, friendship, honesty; The message to this movie was 'Who is John Galt?'
Based on everything we know about biology, evolution and how social species survive and thrive, the true nature on where morality and altruism originate and why they exist, objectivism is about as accurate look on how society and the world should operate as your analogy is a successful challenge against criticism of objectivism.New York Patrick said:
Wow so Movie bob finally pulled his head out of his and realized what strong female character is.
There's plenty of holes in the movie and the source material:
1)They are not sticking close to the source material because it's impossible to create compelling characters since all of Rand?s heroes and are soulless greedbots whose only goals in life are to make great innovations and then profit like crazy off them. In and of itself this isn't a bad thing since a lot of people like creating things and being rewarded for them. But in the case of Rand's characters, their desire for money and achievement supersedes all empathy, family relationships and basic human decency.
2)Rand couldn't right any characters with feeling so the actors can't can't convey any, and they go from bland randroids to passion in a harsh jerk like they're being held and gun point and told "GET HOT FOR EACH OTHER"
3)The richest are the ones being bullied by poor and liberal people so they go on strike and retreat to a billionare owned small-gubment island sanctuary; trying to make billionares look like victims of the needy and poor is going to be equally impossible.
4)The thing these poor bullied millionares were doing that made liberal big-gubment want to shut down was the world's fastest high-speed rail line. Yes, rail. The mode of transportation that has been championed by liberal commie nazis and that has become the bane of good conservatives everywhere. In reality, of course, a liberal government would be tossing bundles of subsidies at any entrepreneurs building high-speed rail lines in the Western United States but in Randality, these noble entrepreneurs were crushed by the rent-seeking big businesses who used their Washington ties to extinguish the flames of competitive markets... which DOES happen in reality... but the big business owners are conservatives
5)The heroes think the business owners going on strike and not spending will make society crumble. Rand doesn't realize in reality, labor produces the capital for the owner and others will step in to take all that money and their positions... ironically out of their own self interest, leaving the business owners with no new capital and exposing the self-contradiction of the philosophy. If Trump or the Koch brothers, or any rich bastard on walstreet disappeared to the cayman islands, no one would care and they'd only be replaced.
6)The author, Ayn Rand, who was so traumatized by the oppressive nature of communism that she developed a philosophy which is the polar opposite would probably be pissed to see the current American capitalist system depending almost entirely on communism, spesifically because it's oppression and lack of rights which she hated, provides it cheap labor while funding an oppressive communist government's growth.... again out of its own self-interest and greed, which is another self-contradition. At the time Rand lived, America was producing it's own goods, since her death, the selfishness and greed of business owners, which she said was a virtue, has made big-gubment hating Randian heroes take in massive profit directly because they employ communists who would be killed if they demanded worker rights.
I wish she was alive to see how self interest has played itself out by making communism the foundation for modern capitalism.
Also, as a little further idea behind the philosophy:
-people who can't solve their own problems deserve what happens to them
-people who are robbed deserved it for not protecting their posessions better
-people who steal deserve it because those they steal from don't have the power to stop them
-people don't help the victims because they're too weak to be worth it and are parasites, unless they have something to offer those that help them.
-people only help as a demonstration of the power they have over those they assist, and only for compensation
It's just as awful as communism, only the oppression comes from the people not the government
1)They are not sticking close to the source material because it's impossible to create compelling characters since all of Rand?s heroes and are soulless greedbots whose only goals in life are to make great innovations and then profit like crazy off them. In and of itself this isn't a bad thing since a lot of people like creating things and being rewarded for them. But in the case of Rand's characters, their desire for money and achievement supersedes all empathy, family relationships and basic human decency.
2)Rand couldn't right any characters with feeling so the actors can't can't convey any, and they go from bland randroids to passion in a harsh jerk like they're being held and gun point and told "GET HOT FOR EACH OTHER"
3)The richest are the ones being bullied by poor and liberal people so they go on strike and retreat to a billionare owned small-gubment island sanctuary; trying to make billionares look like victims of the needy and poor is going to be equally impossible.
4)The thing these poor bullied millionares were doing that made liberal big-gubment want to shut down was the world's fastest high-speed rail line. Yes, rail. The mode of transportation that has been championed by liberal commie nazis and that has become the bane of good conservatives everywhere. In reality, of course, a liberal government would be tossing bundles of subsidies at any entrepreneurs building high-speed rail lines in the Western United States but in Randality, these noble entrepreneurs were crushed by the rent-seeking big businesses who used their Washington ties to extinguish the flames of competitive markets... which DOES happen in reality... but the big business owners are conservatives
5)The heroes think the business owners going on strike and not spending will make society crumble. Rand doesn't realize in reality, labor produces the capital for the owner and others will step in to take all that money and their positions... ironically out of their own self interest, leaving the business owners with no new capital and exposing the self-contradiction of the philosophy. If Trump or the Koch brothers, or any rich bastard on walstreet disappeared to the cayman islands, no one would care and they'd only be replaced.
6)The author, Ayn Rand, who was so traumatized by the oppressive nature of communism that she developed a philosophy which is the polar opposite would probably be pissed to see the current American capitalist system depending almost entirely on communism, spesifically because it's oppression and lack of rights which she hated, provides it cheap labor while funding an oppressive communist government's growth.... again out of its own self-interest and greed, which is another self-contradition. At the time Rand lived, America was producing it's own goods, since her death, the selfishness and greed of business owners, which she said was a virtue, has made big-gubment hating Randian heroes take in massive profit directly because they employ communists who would be killed if they demanded worker rights.
I wish she was alive to see how self interest has played itself out by making communism the foundation for modern capitalism.
Also, as a little further idea behind the philosophy:
-people who can't solve their own problems deserve what happens to them
-people who are robbed deserved it for not protecting their posessions better
-people who steal deserve it because those they steal from don't have the power to stop them
-people don't help the victims because they're too weak to be worth it and are parasites, unless they have something to offer those that help them.
-people only help as a demonstration of the power they have over those they assist, and only for compensation
It's just as awful as communism, only the oppression comes from the people not the government
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
Yes. I forget if its Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead, or both, where one of the main characters literally delivers a 50+ page speech on the tenets of objectivism. If you really like objectivism you might enjoy a fifty page monologue describing it, but if you actually care about reading a good story of where the philosophy is delivered appropriately throughout the story telling rather than author filibusters, its a shit book.Baneat said:
Heh. I only just found out about this movie. Not really surprised it failed; anyone wanting to take on Ayn Rand directly is gonna have to put a lot more effort into their project.
Angelina Jolie as Taggart. Hmm...
Angelina Jolie as Taggart. Hmm...
First off, yes I have read the novel. If I haven't read the novel and commented my opinion based on just the movie, or worst off (and like some people on this forum) on what MovieBob commented on the movie without seeing it for myself, then I'd just be an idiotic follower of someone's own objective criticism riding on what ever personal political beliefs he may have. I, good sir, am not a tool or some sort of fool.Mortrialus said:
But... you did get me on one part. The book itself was considered 'par'. But then again, there was a story built around a message rather then message that could be found in a story. This, I believe was her opus, explaining her views of the world in a fashion that could be read by the publics majority. Would you have taken Rand seriously if she were to just come out of the blue and shared this (her) opinion of politics with this new philosophy? No. So she disguised it in a fictional world; which seems to me that is playing out in real life (but that is my opinion).
And in-a-way, isn't objectivism just another form of philosophical metaphysics that could be implied in anyone's life? Dianetics proved that. Objectivism is just a continuation of self-realization and inner enlightenment theories given by many scholars of ancient times (Greek and Roman). But again, my opinion.
I'm glad the film turned out to be bland. Bland is uninteresting, and not influential, thus it won't "inspire" (I use the word distastefully here) anyone to follow objectivist philosophy, which they shouldn't, because it was proved truly worthless over the course of the 20th Century. It made sense at the time it was produced, but not long after that time of economic and capitalistic overly optimistic behaviour, the Great Depression occurred. If you bet too high and take too many risks, you lose.
Relying on the sword of brilliance alone and not tempering it with morality or at least some restriction or rules is only a sure way to bring about chaos and depression in any established society, because established society relies on the majority of the population following rules. Yes, there are sacrifices, but the alternative is societal collapse, which achieves nothing but worse sacrifices. The best you can say about such unrestricted production is that it would help you survive in the wild. To modern society itself, it is simply inapplicable.
Relying on the sword of brilliance alone and not tempering it with morality or at least some restriction or rules is only a sure way to bring about chaos and depression in any established society, because established society relies on the majority of the population following rules. Yes, there are sacrifices, but the alternative is societal collapse, which achieves nothing but worse sacrifices. The best you can say about such unrestricted production is that it would help you survive in the wild. To modern society itself, it is simply inapplicable.
More or less what Ebert said in his review, and he really wanted to tee off on Ayn Rand's philosophies. Sounds like a fun book, though.
Well, if you haven't, chuck away your atlas shrugged and zarathustra for now and pick up "Brave New World", since that's the kind of thing you seem to have looked for in atlas, but you got hefty philosophical stuff that's like some weird hybrid on reference. For this objectivism, Bioshock seems like a pretty good way to actually incorporate it into a story.Mortrialus said:
Personally I'd prefer it if we all just did what kant did, and write philosophy books as philosophy books, since it means philosophers needn't concern themselves with a shit story, and readers needn't concern themselves with a shit story and intricate philosophy either.
