Poll: Atlas Shrugged: The Movie

[Anton P. Nym]

Give me Dickens and Steinbeck over her tripe any day. A holywood movie would only give this warped, hateful bullshit an air of legitimacy.

What, the same way Battlefield Earth gave an air of legitimacy to Scientology? *giggle*

-- Steve

 

[thedoclc]

The King: Oh, yes, absolutely. I agree that the concepts can be engaged very well when expressed in a different manner. I'd add that complex novels can even be adapted into commercial blockbusters without becoming vacuous. (LotR is the obvious contender here. Tolkien's Luddite Christianity is presented with subtlety that makes Rand's presentation as understated as a sledge to the base of the skull.)

Anton P. Nym: Very funny; I almost choked when I read that!

 

[Eyclonus]

You guys are aware that the basic plot of the novel implies literally millions of deaths in the most horrible ways possible so some dipshits can justify their self-righteousness?

So are they going to make it? I really don't think so. Hollywood is many things, but tacit endorsement of genocide? No.

*Cough*WW2*Cough*Vietnam*Cough*Gulf Wars*Cough*

I personally don't think its possible. Or to be more accurate you couldn't make a good movie out of it.

Also

As you can tell, the book tackles some serious issues. Tellingly, after finishing the novel, Ayn Rand spent the rest of her life writing works on philosophy and cultural critisism. However, Hollywood are reknowned for making a pig's ear of books with a level of depth such as this.

So, question time. Should Hollywood attempt to make a film based upon this book (or any book of this depth) and show that it can be done well, or should they avoid the risk of ruining the book's legacy by making a turkey? Discuss.

Might I point out that the book's legacy amongst several things is being the butt of every joke an economist makes that doesn't laugh at Marxist based governance. Secondly you can stop talking like a teacher to bunch of junior high school kids.

 

[Rshady]

After what they did with I,Robot (i.e a converse advert) Hollywood should never adapt a classic book ever again.

 

[Khedive Rex]

Hollywood? They could never make a great rendition of Atlas Shrugged!

Bollywood? Now that I would go see.

(for what it's worth I've never read the book but a foreign language musical with spinny dance sequences about the complex philosophical problems at the center of a capatilist economy just makes me smile.)

 

[SaintWaldo]

Anthem would make for a better movie. It's an escape story mainly, with the Objectivism pretty well disguised. And it's short enough to practically weigh as a screenplay already.

No, I'm not an Objectivist; Anthem was assigned reading for me in high school, and I remember it being the most approachable thing Ayn Rand ever wrote.

 

[Eyclonus]

I think that the film will give the wider population such a piss poor interpretation, of a poor philosophy, that many people will now claim Objectivism instead of say, Emo?

 

[Anton P. Nym]

Hollywood? They could never make a great rendition of Atlas Shrugged!

Bollywood? Now that I would go see.

Genius! Sheer genius!

-- Steve

 

[Aries_Split]

You guys are aware that the basic plot of the novel implies literally millions of deaths in the most horrible ways possible so some dipshits can justify their self-righteousness?

So are they going to make it? I really don't think so. Hollywood is many things, but tacit endorsement of genocide? No.

*Cough*WW2*Cough*Vietnam*Cough*Gulf Wars*Cough*

I personally don't think its possible. Or to be more accurate you couldn't make a good movie out of it.

Also

As you can tell, the book tackles some serious issues. Tellingly, after finishing the novel, Ayn Rand spent the rest of her life writing works on philosophy and cultural critisism. However, Hollywood are reknowned for making a pig's ear of books with a level of depth such as this.

So, question time. Should Hollywood attempt to make a film based upon this book (or any book of this depth) and show that it can be done well, or should they avoid the risk of ruining the book's legacy by making a turkey? Discuss.

Might I point out that the book's legacy amongst several things is being the butt of every joke an economist makes that doesn't laugh at Marxist based governance. Secondly you can stop talking like a teacher to bunch of junior high school kids.

When I signed up, I was promised people OUT of high school. I feel out of place

 

[HobbesMkii]

HAHAHAAHA. A movie? HAHAHAHAAH. About an Ayn Rand novel? HAHAHAAHAH.

I imagine the movie pitch went something like this:
FIRST EXEC: "I know, guys, let's make a movie that only appeals to a select few members of the middle class, and us! It could be an adaptation of Atlas Shrugged!"

SECOND EXEC: "That's great! A Celebration of how civilization would fail w/o leaders in industry, because we're clearly an invaluable, limited, natural resource!"

THIRD EXEC: "Man, this is the best circle jerk/brainstorm I've ever been to."

 

[Johnn Johnston]

I have appeased the masses, and added an option for those that hated the book.

 

[Archon]

Objectivism encourages and celebrates man's selfish, destructive impulses. It not only views man as a predatory animal, but encourages him to behave like one. Unregulated business and unadulterated greed lead to the horrors of the Victorian age with child labor, company stores, an astronomical gap between the rich and poor, near total lack of social mobility, a nonexistant middle class, and politicians debating what to do with the 'surplus population'.

She doesn't view man as a predatory animal. In fact, she sharply differentiates men from animals, and argues in the strongest possible language that among men there are no conflicts of interest, nor reason to initiate violence, and that the worst sort of people are predators. Nor does she believe in unadulterated greed. In The Fountainhead, her hero drops out of school rather than compromise his principles and turns down high-paying assignments and jobs to pursue his art. It's a paean to the integrity of art; work as spirituality. In Atlas Shrugged, her heroes abandon highly paid jobs and actively aim to lose money, again out of deep moral principle.

 

[Johnn Johnston]

I have appeased the masses, and added an option for those that hated the book.

Hooray, my voice has been heard.

That option has only been up for an hour, and already it has the same number of votes as the 'Yes' option.

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

You guys are aware that the basic plot of the novel implies literally millions of deaths in the most horrible ways possible so some dipshits can justify their self-righteousness?

So are they going to make it? I really don't think so. Hollywood is many things, but tacit endorsement of genocide? No.

i also couldn't see Hollywood endorsing the perspective of an iconic pro-capitalist figure like Ayn Rand.

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

After what they did with I,Robot (i.e a converse advert) Hollywood should never adapt a classic book ever again.

i was actually hoping that I-Robot was going to have a scene where Will Smith teaches the robot how to loosen up and be "cool".

'Nah, robot. You don't walk like that with a stick up your butt. You got to swagger, like you own the place, watch me."

And maybe even a Will Smith song with a music video tie in, complete whith choreographed i-robots who are clownin and crunkin in the background.

that scene never happened though

 

[Colton Caramihalis]

I loved atlas shrugged, and i think it would be a good movie. I am not exaxtualy sure that it would be a good major budget film, maby a indipendent film. Independent film makers are the only ones intelectual enough to do it right.

Also: most hollywood actors would kill john gault

 

[Colton Caramihalis]

Angelina jolie would make a terrable Mis. taggart

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

Angelina jolie would make a terrable Mis. taggart

is there any role she would be good in?

 

[Cyclomega]

Link to Wikipedia article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged_(film)]

While reading through the paper, I noticed a single line about Angelina Jolie's upcoming films. One of them was a film version of the book 'Atlas Shrugged', by Ayn Rand.

For those that don't know, this book was the foundation for the ideas that went into the best-selling game Bioshock. In 'Atlas Shrugged', every member of society that uses their mind and imagination in their work goes on strike. They do this due to the feeling that society has been hampering their progress and they do not get the rewards that are rightfully theirs. As a result, society as we know it collapses without these people contributing their works and their minds to the world around them.

As you can tell, the book tackles some serious issues. Tellingly, after finishing the novel, Ayn Rand spent the rest of her life writing works on philosophy and cultural critisism. However, Hollywood are reknowned for making a pig's ear of books with a level of depth such as this.

So, question time. Should Hollywood attempt to make a film based upon this book (or any book of this depth) and show that it can be done well, or should they avoid the risk of ruining the book's legacy by making a turkey? Discuss.

No, no please, just... no.

I can't stand that pile of words... This book feels to me like the fusion between Soviet Hyperrealism and Nazi Aryan propaganda. Yeah, I follow the analysis of Whittaker Chambers [http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback200501050715.asp] on this book... I hated it deeply.

Every "good" (ie capitalistic, materialistic, egoistical character) is a perfect Aryan, and everyone else could as well be "n-words", it would be the same... I think one of the most eye-rolling, desperating moments, is where the artists draw the Sign of the Dollar, to topple the Sign of the Cross... If art solely equals profit, then art is not only dying, it is another metastasis of the cancer killing everything. The so-called moral principles are always an expression of some kind of hyper-libertarianism, which boils down to hyper right-wing anarchism...

Following on what Anton P. Nym just said, I feel like Rapture is the proof that objectivism doesn't work, because if everyone follow only their selfish interest, thus resulting in the pursuit of profit for everyone, is bound to fail, since riches are the highest moral authority invoked by Andrew Ryan...

And to make a movie of this would be as stupid as making the Tintin films Spielberg and Peter Jackson are planning using Beowulf's technology, it's going to suck balls, I could bet our whole galaxy on this...

*This has been a troll bait by Cyclomega, please, don't put me on probation, I swear I won't do it again*

Decoy Doctorpus : you mean this Bob [http://www.angryflower.com/objectiv.html] ? \o/
I think the strip is right on topic... Now we know what Republicans hold as their true Bible...