Escape to the Movies: Atlas Shrugged

[matt87_50]

LOL @ Thomas the tank engine!

 

[Mullahgrrl]

At least the fountainhead had that whip-scene.

 

[KushinLos]

Quite frankly I think MovieBob did an excellent job at reviewing the movie as objectively as possible. I went on opening day and while at no point did I get real lost in it, it did successfully distract the time and while bland, was sort of good. I more or less planned on seeing the sequels (if any) before watching this one though.

 

[mr_rubino]

God the willful ignorance in this thread is choking me.

Firstly, the (what I would laughably call) themes in Bioshock are nothing more than second-rate caricatures of Objectivism inserted into the (again) second-rate story to give some cheap scandal that people would talk about. The developers themselves barefacedly told everyone that they inserted these themes for no other purpose than to gain attention.

Secondly, you people know abso-fucking-lutely nothing about Objectivism proper.

And it was still better than the rushed, non-labor-of-love movie adaptation of Atlas Shrugged.
Honestly now... Curse and yell more about everything except what we should be discussing. That's the reason people take Rand followers so seriously as it is.

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?'

That's not a message, it's a tagline.
And the simplest response to your statement is: "You're incorrect." For a "message" to anyone not already part of the choir it is preaching to, the message has to be contained in a competently-made movie that someone would be willing to consider even if they had never been exposed to it before. Agreeing with something politically doesn't make it good.

 

[mr_rubino]

Doubled post. Not needed.

 

[PrinceofPersia]

It's depressing to see people bashing a philosophy they don't understand. But it's not surprising because Rand is hard to understand. Just like Nietzsche, Kant, Plato, and Aristotle are hard to understand.

Don't even go there man, Ayn Rand wasn't even in the same league. She was the pretender/parasite she railed against in her works. She used smoke and mirrors to fool everyone into thinking she was a great philospher/writer when she was neither. Her characters are bland two dimensional caricatures used as a soapbox for her objectivist ideals. Ideals which have much more similarity with national socialism than anything.

Anyone who spouts the whole 'we are strong therefore we're better then the weak masses' such as this line from Atlas Shrugged: "You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the effort of men who are better than you." I do not want to associate with or wish well of.

 

[Archon]

Anyone who spouts the whole 'we are strong therefore we're better then the weak masses' such as this line from Atlas Shrugged: "You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the effort of men who are better than you." I do not want to associate with or wish well of.

You might be interested to know that your quote is not an Ayn Rand quote. She never wrote those words. The words you are quoting are from a letter an economist sent to Ayn Rand. When you protest that a book is terrible because of quotes it doesn't include, you lose your credibility as a critic of the book in my eyes.

 

[CosmicCommander]

-Everything said-

I cry with tears of happyness and mirth. A guy brings in a reasonable argument on Rand.

After several pages of a thread where almost all present are only taking looking at out-of-context quotes and ideas that she had and using that as a basis as an argument against her philosophy, someone has actually read her works.

OT: Yeah, I spent my teens reading Rand. I think I comprehended it. I definitely do now, anyway.

I have Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal on my lap right now. When a person actually reads beyond the (admittedly sub-par) fiction Rand wrote, and into her non-fiction, one CAN find a lot of coherence, eloquence, and brilliance.

Even if a person doesn't follow or believe in what Rand said to the letter, anyone can find her work is a fantastic basis for any personal ethical or moral system. And a fantastic moral justification for laissez-faire Capitalism (even Capitalism in general).

 

[smut]

Atlas yawned...

 

[PrinceofPersia]

Anyone who spouts the whole 'we are strong therefore we're better then the weak masses' such as this line from Atlas Shrugged: "You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the effort of men who are better than you." I do not want to associate with or wish well of.

You might be interested to know that your quote is not an Ayn Rand quote. She never wrote those words. The words you are quoting are from a letter an economist sent to Ayn Rand. When you protest that a book is terrible because of quotes it doesn't include, you lose your credibility as a critic of the book in my eyes.

Whoops entirely correct that was Ludwig von Mises praise for Atlas Shrugged. Still a boring movie.

 

[old account]

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?'

That's not a message, it's a tagline.
And the simplest response to your statement is: "You're incorrect." For a "message" to anyone not already part of the choir it is preaching to, the message has to be contained in a competently-made movie that someone would be willing to consider even if they had never been exposed to it before. Agreeing with something politically doesn't make it good.

Hahahaha, obviously someone takes Rand literature as literal as possible. 'Who is John Galt?' is much more then a tag-line, but you have to take the book as a symbolic tool for us (the people) to use for change. If you couldn't understand that, re-read the book, if you even bothered too, which I would wager money that you didn't due to the fact that you argued with, and I quote : "the message has to be contained in a competently-made movie..." First off, you used the movie aspect to argue with me... not a good choice. And if you think that Rand was not competent... then go on reading your teen-vampire-magical novels and leave the intellectual works of Orwell, Dostoyevsky, Zamyatin, Nietzsche, and Huxley to others. Agreeing with MovieBob's five-minutes of criticism and [re]over-used three five second clips of the movie without understanding the concept as a whole does not make you correct. If you ever wished to learn philosophy, Ayn Rand is the closest to our generation that use principle.
If you read the book, you would understand what the phrase 'Who is John Galt?' stands for. It is far more then just a 'tag-line'. Sorry, but I respectfully disagree.

 

[LulzOdin]

Man objectivists are gonna get pissed when they how their holy book is mutilated and butchered in this movie.
Is there a big enough pressure group of them anyways?

 

[Amarsir]

I haven't seen it yet (planning to next weekend), so I can't agree/disagree with the review, but I wanted to compliment Bob for what seemed like a very even-handed approach. I don't always like his style (it often feels he's leaping to conclusions) but this was presented in a way I can mull over. My sole objection is that Bob stooped to using the term "Right Wing" at the end, despite having already implied how non-specific the term is. When both the strongly religious Christian fundamentalists and fiercely atheist Libertarians are being lumped together (to say nothing of populists, protectionists, or other various definitions of "right wing"), I'd advise just skipping the term because it isn't helping you. It becomes a pejorative that dilutes the point.

Bob, given your knowledge of the industry, I'd love to read a column explaining how movies are selected for theaters. Atlas Shrugged was a "limited release", which I've never understood. Granted, it wouldn't have been a door-busting blockbuster, but far worse movies get wider release (and good independents often get worse) so I'm wondering what the process is for distributing movies. Is it as simple as each theater owner making their own prediction or is there omre of a distribution company involvement?

 

[engineermk2004]

I guess the Objectivists

*puts on sunglasses*

Are going to have serious objections...

YEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!

 

[dexxyoto]

All i want to know is: what is the name of the cartoon that is in the right hand frame at 00:54

 

[mr_rubino]

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?'

That's not a message, it's a tagline.
And the simplest response to your statement is: "You're incorrect." For a "message" to anyone not already part of the choir it is preaching to, the message has to be contained in a competently-made movie that someone would be willing to consider even if they had never been exposed to it before. Agreeing with something politically doesn't make it good.

Hahahaha, obviously someone takes Rand literature as literal as possible. 'Who is John Galt?' is much more then a tag-line, but you have to take the book as a symbolic tool for us (the people) to use for change. If you couldn't understand that, re-read the book, if you even bothered too, which I would wager money The that you didn't due to the fact that you argued with, and I quote : "the message has to be contained in a competently-made movie..." First off, you used the movie aspect to argue with me... not a good choice. And if you think that Rand was not competent... then go on reading your teen-vampire-magical novels and leave the intellectual works of Orwell, Dostoyevsky, Zamyatin, Nietzsche, and Huxley to others. Agreeing with MovieBob's five-minutes of criticism and [re]over-used three five second clips of the movie without understanding the concept as a whole does not make you correct. If you ever wished to learn philosophy, Ayn Rand is the closest to our generation that use principle.
If you read the book, you would understand what the phrase 'Who is John Galt?' stands for. It is far more then just a 'tag-line'. Sorry, but I respectfully disagree.

Ah, I can see why something as averse to reality as Rand's philosophy makes you feel all tingly inside for following it like your other Independent Thinker (tm) friends: You're ruled by your emotions.

The movie is bad, you can't tell a message from a tagline (Then again, pampered, privileged libertarians nowadays are all about obtuse, pithy phrases meant to short-circuit thought because intelligent argument is scary), and the tired bleating of every Randian saying "YOU DINNA SEE IT! YOU A BIAS! YOU A STUPID!" across the Internet on every review like the puppets they are is pathetic.

EDIT: Because you're a Randian and thus have a rather mangled definition of "critical thinking", I guess I should put it in the tiniest words, else you'll miss it: Saw it. Read it. Be less of a stereotype.

I've been following this movie's production since you were a fetus 3 months ago. Can you blame me? Filming was blink-and-you'll-miss-it, and they've been promising this movie for 40 years. Not exactly the most dignified end to this saga. But you will accept anything you are handed. It shows. Just stop.

 

[octafish]

I see a lot of Michael Lerner and John Polito in the clips shown. They are pretty reliable character actors. They probably shine brighter than the main players, they usually do.

 

[octafish]

All i want to know is: what is the name of the cartoon that is in the right hand frame at 00:54

I may be wrong, but I think it is a still from Visionaries: Knights of the Magical Light from the 80's. I don't know how I remember that but it makes sense as Bob is talking about "visionaries".

 

[old account]

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?'

That's not a message, it's a tagline.
And the simplest response to your statement is: "You're incorrect." For a "message" to anyone not already part of the choir it is preaching to, the message has to be contained in a competently-made movie that someone would be willing to consider even if they had never been exposed to it before. Agreeing with something politically doesn't make it good.

Hahahaha, obviously someone takes Rand literature as literal as possible. 'Who is John Galt?' is much more then a tag-line, but you have to take the book as a symbolic tool for us (the people) to use for change. If you couldn't understand that, re-read the book, if you even bothered too, which I would wager money The that you didn't due to the fact that you argued with, and I quote : "the message has to be contained in a competently-made movie..." First off, you used the movie aspect to argue with me... not a good choice. And if you think that Rand was not competent... then go on reading your teen-vampire-magical novels and leave the intellectual works of Orwell, Dostoyevsky, Zamyatin, Nietzsche, and Huxley to others. Agreeing with MovieBob's five-minutes of criticism and [re]over-used three five second clips of the movie without understanding the concept as a whole does not make you correct. If you ever wished to learn philosophy, Ayn Rand is the closest to our generation that use principle.
If you read the book, you would understand what the phrase 'Who is John Galt?' stands for. It is far more then just a 'tag-line'. Sorry, but I respectfully disagree.

Ah, I can see why something as averse to reality as Rand's philosophy makes you feel all tingly inside for following it like your other Independent Thinker (tm) friends: You're ruled by your emotions.

The movie is bad, you can't tell a message from a tagline (Then again, pampered, privileged libertarians nowadays are all about obtuse, pithy phrases meant to short-circuit thought because intelligent argument is scary), and the tired bleating of every Randian saying "YOU DINNA SEE IT! YOU A BIAS! YOU A STUPID!" across the Internet on every review like the puppets they are is pathetic.

EDIT: Because you're a Randian and thus have a rather mangled definition of "critical thinking", I guess I should put it in the tiniest words, else you'll miss it: Saw it. Read it. Be less of a stereotype.

I've been following this movie's production since you were a fetus 3 months ago. Can you blame me? Filming was blink-and-you'll-miss-it, and they've been promising this movie for 40 years. Not exactly the most dignified end to this saga. But you will accept anything you are handed. It shows. Just stop.

So let me get this straight? Just so I understand where you are coming from; Being intelligent and agree with someone's philosophy makes you lose your self-esteem?

And I am not a 'Randian', I am a one of the few members of society who enjoy meaningful literature. If this forum was about the development of the anti-hero concept in Dostoyevsky 'Notes from the Underground', I would whole-heartedly defend the concept of self-centeredness for the goal of self-improvement, honesty, and the nihilistic meaning of morality and life in general, and how elements of this (and literature like it) have entered other forms of entertainment. Final Fantasy VI had the main antagonist Kefka who, if you hold his story with theories written by Foucault, shows his ascent to Godhood because of his beliefs. POINT: I will defend my own beliefs of any subject because I have pride (dignity).

Just because you are speaking against those who like Ayn Rand's work, and conforming with the majority that disprove of it (because from our little debate, you have yet to give me one example of any form-developed philosophy relating to or involving Rand or any theory of any type. All you have done, is attacked me, because I can not speak for the whole of a community nor will I ever, turning whatever I say around using views already distributed by the public media) does not make you right, nor does it make you wrong. It proves that you have an opinion, which only makes you human. Which one of us is right, it determined by our own perception, which at this time is that I think you're wrong and you think you're right. A belief of others perception would be against Rand's objectivism, yet it is something I believe.

If it wasn't for your un-detailed last paragraph, I would still have not known if you saw or read the book. Though I will say that attacking someone's age, even a ridiculous statement like me being three months old, is laughable but I understand your thoughts. You think that I am immature because of my beliefs. Well that mode of thinking itself is irrational. Rand's thoughts are not her own though, and someone down the line will re-write this story in their own way, just like 'Anthem' was derived from 'Nineteen-Eighty Four', which came after 'Brave New World', which too was derived from 'We'.

Lovecraft states that our mind is an island of ignorance and that we are never meant to journey far. I believe that author such as these push our limitations so that we can see beyond the horizon. And that is who John Galt is.