Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Ayn Rand's ATLAS SHRUGGED being brought to the big screen!!

ohhh....boy by Jimmy Jazz	Oct 18th, 2006 09:41:00 AM
Get ready for a lot of political bitching on this one. Although I respect some parts of Rand's take on things, I found this book to be one of the most pedantic and awkwardly written slogs I have ever tried to read. The screenwriters are going to have a LOT of work fleshing out the two-dimensional characters and clumsy-ass dialog.
ohhh....boy by Jimmy Jazz	Oct 18th, 2006 09:41:11 AM
Get ready for a lot of political bitching on this one. Although I respect some parts of Rand's take on things, I found this book to be one of the most pedantic and awkwardly written slogs I have ever tried to read. The screenwriters are going to have a LOT of work fleshing out the two-dimensional characters and clumsy-ass dialog.
Agreed by mr_shoreditch	Oct 18th, 2006 09:41:38 AM
Yeha, me too Jazz. I find a lot of her work very hard to get through. Isn't her philosophy somewhat selfish, about only ever looking after oneself rather than others?
we will see.... by rotten666	Oct 18th, 2006 09:42:05 AM
I withhold judgement. The book is good, epic... but the ending is so cheesy. John Galt saves the day! Fountainhead is better. The old movie version is terrible. Rouke is played by someone way too old. Anyone remember who? The Rand book that needs to be made is We the Living. That would be fucking killer.
Ayn Rand Can Suck It by Saluki	Oct 18th, 2006 09:47:51 AM
Inverted bitch wouldn't know the value of teamwork if it came all over her twisted face. The two hoopleheads over at Box Office Mojo that suck her giant spikey phallus at any chance can also burn for all we care. Those two are bitter little creeps when it comes to this subject.
Her philosophy is a bit extreme... by rotten666	Oct 18th, 2006 09:51:20 AM
but I totally get where she is coming from. Remember that she escaped from the soviet union after her middle class family had everything taken awy from them. So I understand her philosophy of selfishness, the problem is there is no counterbalance. She gets shanghied by one extreme and then creates the opposite extreme to comfort herself. On a different note, has anyone else noticed that none of her female characters ever just get fucked, the are practically beaten and raped in every love scene?? Me thinks Ms. Rand had a hardcore S and M streak.
Fountainhead Was A Major Studio Bomb by Saluki	Oct 18th, 2006 09:51:59 AM
What the hell is going to make this one any different?
still waiting for... by Datascream	Oct 18th, 2006 09:54:16 AM
An adaption to Alan Moore's "lost Girls".
Yes, We will love it you commie hippie traitor. by Neo Con Snake Plissken	Oct 18th, 2006 10:08:01 AM
You don't like Ayn Rand's work? Well, we don't like Marx, Stalin, Hitler, Chomsky, Lakoff, Moore and the hundreds of other authors you stinking socialist pricks love to ruminate over. Genocide and Tyranny are YOUR bread and butter you commie prick.
It'll be totally liberalized by RogueWarrior65	Oct 18th, 2006 10:09:40 AM
There's no way that ultra-left-wing Hollywood is going to let this get made in it's pure form. Aside from the fact that it's got too many important sub-plots to fit into a two-hour movie, I have no doubt that Objectivism will be painted as evil and stupid.
Not to sound childish, but: BOOOO-RINGGG! by CreasyBear	Oct 18th, 2006 10:10:01 AM
That book has only the faintest sketching of a plot, no narrative drive, and is more a literary conceit than a novel. If I want overblown politicizing, I'll rent V for Vendetta, because at least then I'll get a masked dude wielding ninja sais now and then.
Ayn Rand by DojoFreak	Oct 18th, 2006 10:11:15 AM
Ayn Rand called her philosophy Objectivism which she described as rational selfishness. I think that AR said Atlas Shrugged would be near impossible to translate to the big screen.
It's a bit simplistic to say that ...... by Jimmy Jazz	Oct 18th, 2006 10:12:30 AM
objectivism is "all about looking after oneself and screw everyone else". The actual doctrine is more an extreme form of libertarianism than any thing else. As a libertarian myself, I have always been rather ambivelant when it comes to Rand's philosophy. Some stuff I fine useful, other stuff I don't. But that does not change the fact that she was a mediocre novelist.
It's a bit simplistic to say that ...... by Jimmy Jazz	Oct 18th, 2006 10:13:06 AM
objectivism is "all about looking after oneself and screw everyone else". The actual doctrine is more an extreme form of libertarianism than any thing else. As a libertarian myself, I have always been rather ambivalent when it comes to Rand's philosophy. Some stuff I fine useful, other stuff I don't. But that does not change the fact that she was a mediocre novelist.
Fuck these double posts! by Jimmy Jazz	Oct 18th, 2006 10:15:36 AM
AHHHHHHH!!!!
Atlas Shrugged is a philosphy tome, so I don't think... by Dagan	Oct 18th, 2006 10:17:40 AM
that including people who don't agree with the philosophy, like Angelina Jolie, as main players, is doing right by the work. And Ayn Rand probably would NOT have been a Neocon, by the way. She was not a Conservative, and said so repeatedly. She was not just an atheist - she was anti-religious. She thought that man unbridled and free was the pinnacle of the Universe - the mind of man and what man can do with the application of that mind. The soaring New York City skyline was much more beautiful to her than the most impressive sunset - because it represented an enormous willpower and achievement. Making THAT(New York City) from absolutely nothing, based on the pure will of man's mind. I don't agree with Rand on a lot of things, but her philosphy is a soaring one, and I definitely think Atlas Shrugged should be read by everybody if they want to be a well-rounded educated person - or just to expand their horizons with a whole new interesting way of thinking. It's a very powerful book, and is credited with changing more people's lives(by polls) than any other work of fiction.
John Galt by DojoFreak	Oct 18th, 2006 10:20:26 AM
Does anyone think that there is an actor with the credibility to play John Galt and who would it be?
Atlas Shrugged really isn't a "novel" per se by Dagan	Oct 18th, 2006 10:24:11 AM
Like I said above - it's a philosophical treatise, and is meant to be that way. And it's a pretty powerful one, too. You don't have to agree with everything to learn a lot from it. But it's hard to deny the power of the work - polls consistently show that Atlas Shrugged is credited by more readers with "changing their lives" than any other work of fiction.
Dagan by DojoFreak	Oct 18th, 2006 10:24:50 AM
Dagan has done a great job of describing AR's philosophy. Hollywood is very unlikely to do justice to the novel.
Quick Lesson by Montag666	Oct 18th, 2006 10:32:12 AM
When Ayn Rand refers to "sefilshness" it's not about "look out for your self, fuck everyone else". She is referring to rational self interest, which if everyone practiced, there would be no "fuck everyone else". I wish they would make The Fountainhead instead. While I agree with most of her philosophy, and her politics, I do have to agree that this book is very pedantic. You conservatives should not get too happy about this film being made. Ayn Rand was not a conservative, she thought of them as irrational mystics, who didn't have the balls to defend capitalism. The overriding theme in her philosophy is about individualism.
Dagan by WISEBLOOD	Oct 18th, 2006 10:32:45 AM
COME ON MAN...what polls? Dont get me wrong...I think Ayn Rand though very pedantic, has some valuable things to say, and I consider myself a fan, but you made a statement that BEGS to be backed up... What polls are you citing that "consistently" show this result?
This is going to be an awful movie... by WillowFan2001	Oct 18th, 2006 10:40:20 AM
But not because it's based on an awful book. Oh, sure, the writing is wooden and the characters only exist to serve the philosophy...but the philosophy is well-developed. It is truly a novel of ideas. The only person on this thread who has come close to encapsulating Rand's ideas is Dagan (although rotten666 makes a good point re: sex in Rand's work). Now, having established myself as someone more in support of than opposed to Rand, why do I think this movie will suck? 1) Even if it's a Gettysburg-style epic that lasts four hours with an intermission, you can't cram Atlas Shrugged into that ength of time without losing a great number of the subplots that give the book so much depth. 2) While I think the choice of Jolie as Dagny Taggart is a fascinating one, and she certainly can pull off the imperious and arrogant manner necessary for the part, I can't imagine who they would get to play Galt (not Brad Pitt, for the love of God) or any of the other main characters. 3) I don't think Hollywood has the open-mindedness necessary to look past their politics and do right by this story. And, of course, 4) I'm not sure audiences have enough open-mindedness to set aside their preconceptions of Rand and her work to treat this as a movie. I have a feeling that Objectivists (or as I call them, "The Cult of Rand") will complain especially loudly if they don't like anything. But oh, I still can't wait for this all the same...because if the composer is of the same mind I am, I can't wait to see the title sequence play over the world's first performance of Helly's Fifth Concerto--the ONLY appropriate theme music for this movie!
This is one book... by jimmy_009	Oct 18th, 2006 10:40:48 AM
...that has a LOT of fat to cut out. Things seem to happen over and over and over. That said, it might be an interesting movie, if only because it's politics are never seen in movies.
objectivism by dread pirate roberts	Oct 18th, 2006 10:41:44 AM
is not about 'not helping people' it's more about resisting the idea that the needs of those who need help create some kind of entitlement, or an obligation from those who can help to do so. sort of an extreme anti-communism
Jimmy Jazz by Montag666	Oct 18th, 2006 10:43:16 AM
Mediocre novelist? Have you read Anthem? That is a great book! What about We the Living? That is a pure novel that pulls no punches. Incredible stuff. And The Fountainhead is the queen's tits! I agree that Atlas is more of a discourse, but even in that book there are some wonderful dramatic moments. And yes, there is a plot going on: Dagny is trying to find out why all the creative and productive minds in the world are quitting and disappearing, while trying to run a transcontinental railroad! It even has some sci-fi elements which make it a very unique book. And for anyone else who might think her character are 2 dimensional I have a question for you: Is it about these characters not being real? Or is it about you not wanting people like this to exist in real life?
Have you guys even read the book? by VanLingoMungo	Oct 18th, 2006 10:46:50 AM
Say what you want about objectivism, the premise of the book is awesome. And yes, it get repetitive at times, but it's a very good book. One of my favorites, actually. Of course, nanny-staters hate it, so there you go. Look forward to it.
What is Galt's age supposed by DojoFreak	Oct 18th, 2006 10:47:29 AM
What is Galt's age supposed to be in the book I do not rememberat this moment.
Mediocre Novelist by AliaAtreides	Oct 18th, 2006 10:48:46 AM
Ayn Rand isn't just a mediocre novelist, she's a bad novelist. Her ideas notwithstanding, the woman has no sense of what makes good drama. Specifically, her pacing is all over the place. Atlas Shrugged isn't just one of the longest popular works in the English language, it FEELS like one of the longest. Have you read John Galt's speech? Rand has her main character monologue about her philosophy for over 40 pages straight!
The idea of Angelina Jolie in this movie by vikingkitty	Oct 18th, 2006 10:50:01 AM
Angelina Jolie, she who loves the U.N. and by all accounts is as dumb as a rock . . . the idea of her starring in Atlas Shrugged makes me ill.
It's simple. by ZeroCorpse	Oct 18th, 2006 10:52:28 AM
Objectivism: The needs of the one (me) outweigh the needs of the many. Call it what you will, but at the heart of it objectivism is a philosophy that basically preaches against compassion, unity, and teamwork (just to name a few things). It the philosophy of a hopeless semi-nihilist who sees no purpose to humanity other than to serve them, personally. A Randian Objectivist on 9/11 would not have helped other people out of the towers- They would have locked other people in burning offices to make sure that there was no competition to get out of the building. Compassion is the bane of objectivism. Unity the antithesis. Ayn Rand was a fucking idiot who today would be two steps from being Ann Coulter.
I always pictured Galt by VanLingoMungo	Oct 18th, 2006 10:52:51 AM
As a thinner, more granite jawed version of ole John O'Hurley (sp?) from Seinfeld. In terms of look, not actions (obviously). I dunno, late 40's/early 50's. I guess Clooney could pull it off, but he wouldn't be my choice at all. Think prematurely gray haired studly guy. David Strathairn would not be a bad choice. There you go, David Strathairn!
This book sucks. by Aragorn II	Oct 18th, 2006 10:53:47 AM
If you want to get an idea of what Ayn was like, read "Old School" by Tobias Wolff. Fucking nutjob, she was.
Steve Ditko is an objectivist by Tacom	Oct 18th, 2006 10:53:58 AM
I only learned that after I read "Atlas Shrugged". Ditko based his indepenently created "Mr. A" character on Rand's "A is A" . I agree with some of Rand's philosophy about individuality and think you do need to be the best person you can be before you ever thinking about the whole community. Rand really didn't like the Religious Right that was starting to take hold over conservatism in the early 80s. I don't think it's really possible to be completely objective in life, because we all are limited by our own points of view. It's like RASHOMON, there might be a few absolute facts that can be determined but our own subjectivity makes everyone's own "reality" different.
radio speech by DojoFreak	Oct 18th, 2006 10:58:45 AM
I have the novel in hardback so I looked to see how long the important radio speech lasted. It's over 60 pages long. How will Hollywood edit it down? Will they also try to make it more modern by making it a tv speech?
But who'll make the sandwiches? by Cameron1	Oct 18th, 2006 10:58:59 AM
Or do any of the dirt work? A bit like socialism...hold on hold on, comeback. what I mean is, interesting idea in principle but would be sheer hell in the real world. Still I'd like to see the film, if they strip away the boring prose and tackle the story it will be fun.
What do you call a movie theatre full of neo-cons? by Harry Weinstein	Oct 18th, 2006 10:59:08 AM
Proof that Hell is PUNCHLINE CENSORED BY DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. YOUR IP ADDRESS HAS BEEN LOGGED. ANY ATTEMPT TO CONTACT YOUR LAWYER OR THE PRESS WILL BE VIEWED AS AN ACT OF TREASON BY DHS AND WILL BE DEALT WITH AS SUCH. GOD BLESS AMERICA.
What this film needs is a big by StarBlitzer	Oct 18th, 2006 11:00:14 AM
shrug ^_^
"The Passion of Ayn Rand" by AliaAtreides	Oct 18th, 2006 11:08:01 AM
Is that the one where Rand is willingly crucified and dies a self-sacrificing death in order to further God's agenda in this world? I'd like to see the Objectivists' response to that version. ;)
Quantum Physics really makes a mockery of... by Cod Profundity	Oct 18th, 2006 11:09:55 AM
Rand, her philosophy and followers. But ho hum, since when has something being outdated and pointless ever stopped Hollywood thinking it will make money.
Watch "Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life" instead by Tacom	Oct 18th, 2006 11:11:32 AM
You'll get a better view of what she's about in this documentary.
ZeroCorpse... by WillowFan2001	Oct 18th, 2006 11:11:34 AM
"A Randian Objectivist on 9/11 would not have helped other people out of the towers- They would have locked other people in burning offices to make sure that there was no competition to get out of the building." Considering that Rand only sanctioned killing another human being if they were trying to kill you, and given that locking someone in a burning tower would be tantamount to passing a sentence of death, I'd be interested in seeing you justify this incredibly specious statement.
Killing Another Human Being by AliaAtreides	Oct 18th, 2006 11:14:50 AM
Really? Rand only sanctioned killing another human being if they're trying to kill you? How about if a person is lying in the street bleeding, shot in the stomach and asks you for help? Rand would say that it is perfectly moral for you to walk on by if you felt it was not in your self-interest to help. So though Rand would object to you actually shooting the person, it's okay if you let as many people die as you want. I don't really make a distinction. If you could easily help someone who's dying and choose not to, it's still "killing" them.
Rational Self-Interest? by Saluki	Oct 18th, 2006 11:19:12 AM
Rational self-interest is about not spending all your earned dollars on charity. Rand's characters are ONLY about self-interest. She cares not for the people who build the damned buildings she loved so much, only the idea that someone had the motivation to start. A total fool with a stoic writing style beyond taste or worth. Remember kids, calling oneself a Libertarian is for chumps that can't own up and call themselves Republicans anymore. Sad.
Zerocorpse by WISEBLOOD	Oct 18th, 2006 11:30:14 AM
Your statement paints an unflattering picture of your understanding. Your offering on what you say a "randian" view on 9/11 is so far off base I find it hard to envision where you arrived at that opinion. Let me suggest that you read the book, and then re-form your opinion. Please understand I'm not trying to be unfriendly and I'm not "calling you names" I just thought that your interpretation of Rands philosophy is not couched in any first hand knowledge. It sounds as if you have derived your opinion of her from someone else.
The Fountainhead was a terrible movie... by anchorite	Oct 18th, 2006 11:31:21 AM
I couldn't believe how bad it was. Gary Cooper and everyone in it was directed horribly. The script by Ayn Rand was simply awful. It was as painful as watching that early Paul Newman movie The Silver Chalice, or that Kirk Douglas stinker Ulysses. Worst movies of these actors' careers. I am pretty shocked to see Hollywood taking interest in an Ayn Rand novel. I find it interesting that rather than remake The Fountainhead, they are choosing to make Atlas Shrugged. Perhaps because of its disdain of religion? Even with that going for them, it seems that Hollywood runs the risk of sending a message that really runs antithetical to its typical beliefs...that we exist to serve one another; that socialism or, brought to its extreme, communism, is a virtuous and noble form of civilization we should strive toward. Perhaps the filmmakers will make the independent and objectivist John Galt a villain rather than a hero? They will most likely portray his self-centerdness in a very negative light. Perhaps they will seize upon the sci-fi aspects of the novel. Project X - it's a Sonic Death Ray! Cool! Maybe they'll re-write the ending and make John Galt use the death ray on the rest of humanity, the victims of his greed, isolationism and selfishness! Maybe they'll hire Noam Chomsky to write the screenplay. Who can say? While I surely do not believe in all of Rand's notions, I do subscribe to some of them. She takes things to the extreme, and is frankly a heavy-handed storyteller and writes terrible dialogue. Well, we'll see if this ends up being any better than the horrible Fountainhead movie.
I think that... by HillaryLovesMe	Oct 18th, 2006 11:34:55 AM
trusting Hollywood to make a libertarian film is like trusting a prostitute to give a lecture on the benefits of chastity.
Re: Ayn Rand = L. Ron Hubbard by Right Bastard	Oct 18th, 2006 11:39:34 AM
I'm so glad I'm not the only person who thinks that. Her followers are just as annoying as scientologists. Only they bow to the word of the Cato and American Enterprise institute. What a joke.
AliaAtreides by Autobot Council	Oct 18th, 2006 11:42:38 AM
That's some pretty interesting superhero logic you have going there. Are you really Batman? Of course the first thing anyone would do would be to wonder who shot him and if they are next - isn't it?? I haven't read this book yet but is it like the bible or scientology (as I see the Ron's name mentioned). People aren't living their lives to this book are they? Are the same people considering whether or not to arm themselves to the teeth and kill everyone in their path if their daughter has been kidknapped after watching Commando? This is a work of fiction right?
Deep Cover by HillaryLovesMe	Oct 18th, 2006 11:42:46 AM
Are you that bigoted and hateful in real life, or is this yet another instance of someone becoming brave through the magical medium of the Internet? "cruel, stupid, insufferable assholes"... Pot, meet kettle.
This is so not a neocon book by cptrios	Oct 18th, 2006 11:44:22 AM
Ayn Rand would have HATED the amount of wheeling and dealing big business has been doing with this government. She was all about personal hard work and success. And an atheist, to boot.
The Hulk by NightArrows	Oct 18th, 2006 11:44:44 AM
I really hope the Hulk shows up in this one! It would be BADASS to see The Hulk fight Atlas, though I think Atlas has the strength advantage as he can hold an entire planet on his back! I saw The Hulk lift a mountain once, though. But if it's the grey The Hulk it will be even more one-sided as he isn't as strong as the Green The Hulk. We would get some great quips from him, though. Stuff like: "Hey Atlas, Shrug THIS!" That would be awesome....
Angelina Jolie by _Kayser_	Oct 18th, 2006 11:46:41 AM
Is way too curvy to be Dagny Taggert. Let someone else play her. Atlas Shrugged has too much in it for a proper adaptation so Ill be surprised if this isn't bastardized into some liberal wet dream. It has to have a run time of 3 hours minimum to be anywhere true to the book.
Who is John Galt? by Clutch0	Oct 18th, 2006 11:50:55 AM
The pirate had better be in the movie.
And Zero Corpse, I think you misunderstand... by anchorite	Oct 18th, 2006 11:51:09 AM
Objectivism. It isn't that cutthroat. Her position isthis: "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." She wrote the book as a way to show her opposition of those who were hugely productive members of society (in this case, industrialists), but were resented by the average person out of jealousy. She posed the question, "What if these social titans, who felt put upon and reviled by society, simply decided not to contribute anymore to a society that did not appreciate them?" She took that notion to an extreme conclusion. But there is nothing in her writing that indicates anything you professed about Objectivism being about murder or a cruel "survival of the fittest". You remind me of Kevin Kline's character Otto from A Fish Called Wanda. As Wanda explained to a disbelieving Otto, "The central message of Buddhism is not 'every man for himself'." Okay, so the actual line was, "Aristotle was not Belgian, the principle of Buddhism is not 'every man for himself', and the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up." One of the greatest movies ever. I doubt I will be able to say that about Atlas Shrugged.
Sequel Ideas by Autobot Council	Oct 18th, 2006 11:51:42 AM
Atlus Waved Atlus Bowled Atlus and Kumar Go To Castle Greyskull...with sexy results
Michael Bay Presents. . .Atlas Shrugged by Clutch0	Oct 18th, 2006 11:57:46 AM
I feel dirty.
Deep Cover, where the hell did I say that? by anchorite	Oct 18th, 2006 11:59:08 AM
I just said that the central message in Ayn Rand's novels seems to run antithetical to the typical Hollywood utopian ideal. You read too much into it. I know one thing for certain; Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez will never be seen endorsing a copy of The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged.
Frederick Nietzsche + Jackie Collins = Ayn Rand by hailcrassus	Oct 18th, 2006 11:59:10 AM
Atlas Shrugged + Big Screed Adaptation = Train Wreck The deeply anti-religious/virtue of selfishness philosophy of Rand's would be way too controversial to place at the center of a major Hollywood film. So they would have to play up the melodrama that moves along the story of the book. Rich bitch screws Latin copper tycoon. Rich bitch screws steel tycoon. Rich bitch screws iconoclast scientist. It will be horrible. Not that I agree with Rand's philosophy, but it is an interesting take on things and Atlas Shrugged is a very interesting book. I always thought that the only way to adapt it would be to make a 20-hour animated adaptation and then air it as a series for a season on Adult Swim or HBO or something like that.
Autobot Council by AliaAtreides	Oct 18th, 2006 12:01:06 PM
I use superhero logic because Ayn Rand's books are all about superheroes. They are about the relationship of those with great talent and power to the rest of society. And whether or not the ubermensch should be obligated to help those who are less fortunate. Rand pretty clearly comes down on the side that those with power have no obligation to anybody but themselves, no matter how much others may be suffering.
Just to add... by _Kayser_	Oct 18th, 2006 12:01:33 PM
If they do make this please get Basil Poledouris to do the score.
Hey, glad someone posted that Rand quote. by Cod Profundity	Oct 18th, 2006 12:02:36 PM
Her utterly oblivious to quantum physics and what it means for macro-reality would be forgivable if she wasn't quite so vocal about her stupidity. The philosophy is based on suppositions that have been proven to be false, it's rather pathetic that Hollywood or anyone else thinks this is "deep" or meaningful or of any real value other than curiosity.
i won't hold my breath by reckni	Oct 18th, 2006 12:02:37 PM
Might be a tough adaptation, especially in the hands of someone like Akiva or Haggis. The book was OK, I liked The Fountainhead much better.
Hey, glad someone posted that Rand quote. by Cod Profundity	Oct 18th, 2006 12:03:06 PM
Her utterly oblivious to quantum physics and what it means for macro-reality would be forgivable if she wasn't quite so vocal about her stupidity. The philosophy is based on suppositions that have been proven to be false, it's rather pathetic that Hollywood or anyone else thinks this is "deep" or meaningful or of any real value other than curiosity.
damn, they need to redo The Fountainhead by Russman	Oct 18th, 2006 12:06:22 PM
maybe on HBO as a 4 hour mini-series. That would be sweet.
P.S. by AliaAtreides	Oct 18th, 2006 12:09:19 PM
Atlas Shrugged, in my experience, is also one of those books that is viewed as a philosophical guide/tract by a certain segment of the population. I won't go so far as to say people live their lives entirely on its basis, but I would argue that the logic of her philosophy informs the decisions of at least some people who read it. In a mid-1990s poll by a prominent literary organization (I think it was the American Librarians Association?), Atlas Shrugged was voted the #1 novel of the 20th century by the American public. It didn't make the list of critics' top 100 novels. Speaking of Hubbard, Battlefield Earth was voted the #2 novel of the 20th century in the popular vote, so the philosophical potential of the two works are arguably similar.
P.S.S. by AliaAtreides	Oct 18th, 2006 12:12:05 PM
Here's the link to the poll I referred to: http://tinyurl.com/ntmi
Poor Ayn by Macktheknife01	Oct 18th, 2006 12:14:40 PM
First jolie will mess this up probably because she couldn't sleep a t night after creating a positive depiction of a philosophy that places man's technological endeavors over the welfare of poor starving kids in Africa. Second guys remember "best interests" is a difficult thing to easily quantify. Helping someone who is hurt or avenging some wrong can be in best interests in that either the person is indebted to you or by ruthlessly punishing an offender (i.e. killing) you can guard against you being an unfortunate victim. This movie will probably not be very good. I loved the book but i cursed out loud when i got to the damn 40pg Galt speech, I actually felt sorry for the people listening on the radio. By the way Ayn Rand uses the Straw man argument however it is applicable considering Rosevelt was considering a nearly 100% on certain income brackets.
"Who Is John Galt?"70's version that was to be made... by Uncapie	Oct 18th, 2006 12:19:46 PM
I read the original script which was to be an ABC mini-series. They wanted Dustin Hoffman to play "John Galt" and Farrah Fawcett to play "Dagney." As always, financing fell through. There's too much to tell in Ayn Rand's story to merrit a feature film. The only way is that you'd have to do it in three installments.
"Who Is John Galt?"70's version that was to be made... by Uncapie	Oct 18th, 2006 12:20:05 PM
I read the original script which was to be an ABC mini-series. They wanted Dustin Hoffman to play "John Galt" and Farrah Fawcett to play "Dagney." As always, financing fell through. There's too much to tell in Ayn Rand's story to merrit a feature film. The only way is that you'd have to do it in three installments.
Objectivism! by rev_skarekroe	Oct 18th, 2006 12:21:24 PM
Giving assholes an excuse for over 50 years!
Tons of politics, yet both sides have reason to hate it by minderbinder	Oct 18th, 2006 12:25:38 PM
I just don't see this working. The book is an excuse to ramble about philosophy with not much of a plot. Nowadays, it seems like while bits and pieces of her philosophy may be appealing, other parts will completely piss off the same people. It would likely end up being a long dry "art film" that few would see, fewer would enjoy, and mainly would exist as Oscar bait. And I think it's obvious why they're not doing the Fountainhead. The main character blows up a building at the end. Yeah, that would be a big hit, a movie where the "hero" ends up a terrorist! Audiences would love that.
What has Communism done? by anchorite	Oct 18th, 2006 12:28:44 PM
Given assholes an excuse for well over 50 years. What has religion done? Given assholes an excuse for thousands of years. Moral: Assholes will always find an excuse to be assholes.
Casting by Montag666	Oct 18th, 2006 12:29:27 PM
I can't imagine who could play these characters today. In the past, it would have been proper to cast someone like a young Robert Redford as John Galt, and I always saw Theresa Russell as Dagny. And it's easy to tell who's read her work and who heard about it from some academic with a cushy tenure. The detractors need to familiarize themselves with her work before forming half assed arguments.
ChrTh Shrugs at this news by chrth	Oct 18th, 2006 12:29:54 PM
Wasn't this the book that Officer Barbrady read at the behest of the Chickenfucker?
Montag, you need to familiarise yourself with... by Cod Profundity	Oct 18th, 2006 12:37:42 PM
the work of Werner Heisenberg, David Bohm and Niels Bohr before you make a half assed attempt to defend Rand.
Didn't they already do a film on Ayn Rand's life? by chrth	Oct 18th, 2006 12:39:24 PM
Henry and June? (Wait for it ...)
minderbinder, the "heroes" are terrorists in Atlas... by anchorite	Oct 18th, 2006 12:40:02 PM
Shrugged, too. They pretty much destroy the economy of the US when they throw a tantrum and go on strike. I wonder how the audience will take to such portrayals. I can't help but think Hollywood wants this to work against the grain of the novel, actually pointing out the necessity of thinkers and industrialists as vital contributors to the greater good. Maybe they think they will appeal to the hearts and minds of current industrialists and tycoons to donate their vast fortunes to the needy. Look at Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. Those guys alone are contributing billions to charity. Maybe this movie is meant to be a guilt trip for the miserly hold-outs. I admit to being intrigued by all of this.
Sure, anchorite by rev_skarekroe	Oct 18th, 2006 12:42:16 PM
But with most other philosophies you're not actually SUPPOSED to be an asshole.
Gee, I don't know... by anchorite	Oct 18th, 2006 12:42:43 PM
forcing economic equality upon the masses seems pretty asshole-ish.
I re-read the book about once a year. by The Skeptical	Oct 18th, 2006 12:44:23 PM
It has flaws, but I really enjoy it. The message is about praising and glorifying the human spirit, and mankinds potential. This is the opposite of those on the socialist left and the far religious right, who both preach that man is flawed and unworthy, and must defer to the state/God. I always kind of pictured Francisco d'Anconia as being played by Antonia Banderas, but I think that he is too old now for the part. There were rumors at one point that Brad Pitt might be in this. I think I read that is some tabloid. Has anyone else heard that?
I think most philosophies require you to be assholistic by chrth	Oct 18th, 2006 12:46:28 PM
Many of them require widespread disemination to be practical, thus believers must serve as missionaries as well, annoying the crap out of those who don't believe. Personally, I find it wrong to try to convert others to libertarianism.
Rand hated commies so much, but she saw all black/white by minderbinder	Oct 18th, 2006 12:48:32 PM
Her philosopy seems so extreme and absolute. And she seems to see the only alternatives to be the opposite extremes and absolutes. I can buy the argument that forced charity can be bad. But what's the harm in someone successful voluntarily choosing to help others out. I wonder if Rand even supported things like insurance, after all, it's just the fortunate subsidizing those who aren't, right? And I don't really see wealthy "industrialists" as the ones who are necessarily keeping society going. If some fatcat owns a sweatshop in thailand that makes sweaters, the sweaters aren't really going to stop getting made if HE shrugs.
I am Familiar by Montag666	Oct 18th, 2006 12:51:30 PM
And I don't see how what these very brilliant theorists (and I DO NOT mean that sarcastically)worked on contradict objectivist epistemology. A is still A. Afterall, we have more than enough proof that show the application of quantom studies having a more than real consequence on our world and the way we live. We're are you coming from with this?
Ayn Rand was a stupid bull dyke. by s00p3rm4n	Oct 18th, 2006 12:53:40 PM
(And I'm a fag, so it's okay if I use those words.)
Montag by Cod Profundity	Oct 18th, 2006 01:02:43 PM
Macroscopic quantum uncertainty is widely documented. Randian philosophy is purely objective. While quantum uncertainty is easily provable, Rand's objectivsm is completely naive.
Just porno and Ayn Rand by conniebrean1	Oct 18th, 2006 01:03:58 PM
Oh Bender, how I love you.
Deep Cover by Montag666	Oct 18th, 2006 01:05:21 PM
Dude, you're making an ass out of yourself. You've completely given away the fact that you've never made it all the way through anything Ayn Rand wrote! For the last time: SHE WASN'T A CONSERVATIVE! Get off the computer and go to a public library and read about how she felt towards conservatives. It's free! How lazy can you get.
1,084 pages of pure unadutlerated boredom by Miami Mofo	Oct 18th, 2006 01:09:13 PM
I can't tell you how much I hated 'Atlas Shrugged'. I read it right after I read 'The Fountainhead' which I really liked. What a major disappoinment 'Atlas Shrugged' was. But since I felt that 'The Fountainhead' was good book that was turned into a shitty movie maybe the reverse will happen with 'Atlas Shrugged'. I just don't see how it can though.
Barbrady said it best by harrys_site_sucks	Oct 18th, 2006 01:12:14 PM
I'd like to say that reading totally sucks ass! Yes, at first I was happy to be learning how to read. It seemed exciting and magical. But then I read this: "Atlas Shrugged," by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of sh-shit I'm never reading again! .............. Talk about a preachy book, why make a preachy half assed movie? Won't be seeing this one.
Only thing worse than politics in the AICN talkback by Jonesey1111	Oct 18th, 2006 01:21:29 PM
is philosophy in the AICN talkback. You people know that there's other sites for this, right?
If it's provable... by Montag666	Oct 18th, 2006 01:21:55 PM
Then I don't have a problem with it. I've studied objectivism for quite some time and I still do not see where objectivist philosophy contradicts quantum physics or mechanics! Is there some philosophical term we are not agreeing on? I gotta give you this: This is the deepest argument I've ever witnessed on an AICN talkback. The world will end any minute now.
Jonesey1111: Why the heck would we want to go elsewhere by chrth	Oct 18th, 2006 01:25:19 PM
AICN Talkback: ADD Discussions Anyone Can Join!
Ive always wanted to read Atlas Shrugged by Lovecraftfan	Oct 18th, 2006 01:32:04 PM
So politics aside this is just a bad boring book. I'm not going to read it if that's true.
The book insults the average man in huge way.. by lettersoftransit	Oct 18th, 2006 01:32:34 PM
The book is an essential read for anyone interested in politics. Best thing about it is the hijacked broadcast by the mystery lead, John Galt, in which he lays out why government needs to encourage ambition. Problem is the rest of the book is like an elitist republican's wet dream told in romance book style. The sequence at the retreat, where the elite congratulate themselves for being just plain better than everyone else,and charge one another for normal niceities like playing a song on the piano, is actually so out there it's comical. And many passages in the book seek to imply that 99.99 percent of people are little more than ignorant savages who have no business wanting to vote or to regulate the actions of the better folk. Now, you may agree that most people are savages, but history has shown that when government embraces the notion that some folk are better than others, it is never the people who are actually better or smarter that end up in power. In fact we usually end up with the country being driven to ruin by the idiot offspring of the super-wealthy. They should use the radio broadcast as a springboard for a movie exploring the nature of ambition and the need to incentivize people with bright ideas, and leave the rest of the godawfully hude novel on the floor.
I love this thread.... by rotten666	Oct 18th, 2006 01:45:31 PM
I knew it would get good. 20% fans defending the novels. 20% people who have read the book and are critical of the writing and/or philosophy. Kudos to you guys. 60% fuckheads with no clue spouting off empty headed bullshit and slogans. Like the chump that said an objectivist on 9-11 would lock people in rooms so there would be no competition getting out. You sir, are a putz. iT's on a thread like this that we really get to see the morons come out. Hasta la pasta!
Dammit, I fall in the 60% by chrth	Oct 18th, 2006 01:51:34 PM
I resent that.
Montag, I'm a physicist not a philosophy graduate... by Cod Profundity	Oct 18th, 2006 02:02:28 PM
so I'm talking about this from that standpoint, apologies if it's not philosophically minded enough or if I'm innacurate. Anyway...Rands focus is objectivism, she bases all her arguments and treatises on the belief that all reality is objective and external to the mind. So here's my example of macroscopic uncertainty. I'm not sure if you know of Dirac but he tried to find an noncommutativity in classical mechanics that was analogue to the noncommutativity in Heisenbergs quantum uncertainty. And find it he did: If you calculate the value of the Poisson bracket [x,y], times it by Planck's constant and the square root of minus one and divide by twice pi the outcome is the correct value to assign to the difference between x = y and y = x. Dirac disproved the classical assumption that y times x is the same as x times y. That in itself is the antithesis of objectivism. In fact I'm sure I have missed something crucial in that explanation but as busy as I've been today I can't think of it at the moment. Hopefully it clears up where I am coming from if not our disagreement.
I loved The Fountainhead (the book) by symphy	Oct 18th, 2006 02:02:47 PM
Never saw the movie, though. Any good? Is it on DVD?
rotten666, "We the Living" has been made into a film. by ExcaliburFfolkes	Oct 18th, 2006 02:04:21 PM
There is a fine old 1940's Italian version of it starring Alida Valli and Rossano Brazzi. Amazon.com carries it on VHS.
Deep Cover by HillaryLovesMe	Oct 18th, 2006 02:08:10 PM
Nope, you're still "by default" a bigot. Many Republicans sincerely believe as they do, with no real malice. The only way they can be bigoted is if you consider acts of legislation intended to restrict the rights of certain groups as being acts of bigotry; and if you do, then Democrat legislation is equally guilty of bigotry, against whites and the wealthy, for instance. Now of course, Democrats believe that this bigotry of theirs is practical, but when has that ever excused any sort of bigotry? Shall we forgive Nazis because they believe that their persecution of non-Aryans is practical? Persecution of any group is wrong, regardless of one's own social ideal. *** As for communism, capitalism, and socialism: liberals and conservatives are socialists; they both believe that society is higher than the individual. This is why I'm a libertarian. (That's libertarian, not Libertarian.) Liberals and conservatives are vastly more alike than they want to believe: they are both statists seeking the destruction of individual freedom for some Greater Good. (Liberals: social "progress"; conservatives: social "virtue".) And they justify this, how? By going, "Well, it's only practical". By throwing away principle in favor of that tyrant's toy, pragmatism, they can justify demanding liberties for themselves but not for their opponents: you see, freedom for their opponents is impractical, and therefore their opponents are evil and stupid for demanding their freedom. After all, what kind of malicious idiot supports a policy that he knows doesn't work? A statist's core philosophy, really, is that freedom simply doesn't work. Does he actually have the authority to banish freedom for the sake of pragmatism? It doesn't matter! He says so, so he does! Liberals and conservatives play the same game, but for opposing goals. ****** Deep Cover, I realized just how alike these two groups are when I noticed how conservatives throw patently liberal phrases around: "the greater good", "society over the individual", and so on. The truth is that conservatives justify a ban on gay marriage for precisely the same reason as liberals justify the death tax: it's for the greater good of society. It's only practical, you see. Society will collapse unless the government prohibits [fill in the blank with some consensual activity]. The same kind of thinking is at work on both "sides" of politics, and it can be labelled Statism. I've asked both liberals and conservatives to reject socialism, and they just -- couldn't -- do -- it. They need socialism to justify at least part of their agenda. I'm betting you do, too.
Blah by NeotheLessar	Oct 18th, 2006 02:19:42 PM
"Atlas Shrugged" really really sucks. If you want to read a book filled with twenty page diatribes, paper thin characters, strawmen, insane plot devices, ad hominem attacks, and an undercurrent of romance novel sleaze...well read "Atlas Shrugged." Unfortunately for Ms. Rand her ambition outstrips her ability and is evident with her plotting scheme and tear-inducing tedium. This movie will be a mess no matter who stars or who writes or who directs.
NeotheLesser, that sounds like my kind of book! by anchorite	Oct 18th, 2006 02:27:23 PM
I have been accused of every single one of those characteristics in my posts at one time or another. Well, maybe not the romance novel sleaze part. I'll have to work on that. I'll be sure to include something about "throbbing pole of love" or something equally grotesque someday soon. Maybe in a BSG talkback for Mr. Nice Gaius.
Cod Profundity by Montag666	Oct 18th, 2006 02:46:57 PM
I have not heard of Dirac. Thank you for pushing me in that direction. I understand where you are coming from, but the way I see it, as long as this noncommutativity can be arrived at through formulas containing values, then it still seems to me that A is A. I must say, for once that I truly feel like this has been quite an informative talk back. Thank you for the discourse.
Adrien Brody for Galt by konkrete590	Oct 18th, 2006 02:48:22 PM
I loved this book as a kid, havn't read it in 20 years. But from what I remember, there is a really long speach near the end, that if they tried to put in the movie would probably take up the whole two hours.
In many ways Rand was a crappy novelist... by anchorite	Oct 18th, 2006 02:49:34 PM
she was more of a sociologist and philosopher who happened to use the novel as a medium to advance her theories. She certainly had a penchant for contrived plots and verbose, didactic characters. But she must have struck a nerve with the populace to have such a lasting influence.
Brilliant Book. But Jolie can suck it. by Rearden	Oct 18th, 2006 02:57:10 PM
She is one of many things that will likely make this a failed attempt.
Have fun anchorite... by NeotheLessar	Oct 18th, 2006 03:02:21 PM
...but it's not necessary to read past page 200...the rest is just filler. But good luck, I would never tell anyone not to read a book...just letting you know that it's really crappy and given Rand's hatred for all things mediocre it's kind of funny that she spent so much of her life in the identity of a writer given her lack of talent. Then again she wasn't much of a philosopher either.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! by JohnGalt06	Oct 18th, 2006 03:02:24 PM
RANDALL WALLACE??? ACCCHHH!!! Christopher Nolan is the perfect director for ATLAS SHRUGGED. I hope this doesn't come into fruition.
Cod Profundity.... by playahatersball	Oct 18th, 2006 03:10:30 PM
Heisenberg (the syphalitic drunk) and his uncertanty principle nonwithstanding, are you seriously claiming that reality DOES NOT EXIST outside of a persons conciousness? That kind of Kantian "the room stops existing when I leave it" stoner philosophy would be more apropriate to the freshman dorm. And I say this as both a pothead and a captialist.
playa by Cod Profundity	Oct 18th, 2006 03:14:13 PM
no no no, I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that reality is subjective at both the macroscopic and quantum levels. That doesn't equate to reality not existing though.
Oh yeah, this movie will suck by playahatersball	Oct 18th, 2006 03:21:04 PM
Only way to do it justice is a six hour miniseries on HBO with SKY CAPTAIN style production design, someone afiliated with the ARI executive producing so they don't fuck with the material, Banderas as D'anconia, Mathew Modine as Galt (yeah, I said it) and Diane Lane as Dagny. For those of you who find Chairman Rand's fiction a little too didactic (Although she built her philosophy around the plot of Atlas, and not the other way as is often presumed) try reading her non-fiction, especially CAPITALISM- THE UNKNOWN IDEAL and THE VIRTUE OF SELFISHNESS. In TVOS, she actually talks specifically about why charity is perfectly moral and good (when voluntary), and why helping to save someone in an emergency is not a violation of her ethics, provided you don't put yourself in worse danger than the person you're trying to save- so suck on that Zerocorpse!
This movie has '"Train Wreck" written all over it... by drugstore cowboy	Oct 18th, 2006 03:21:18 PM
vikingkitty said it best - "Angelina Jolie, she who loves the U.N. and by all accounts is as dumb as a rock . . . the idea of her starring in Atlas Shrugged makes me ill." Hollywood is all about Idols, not Ideas, so I have zero hope for this picture being worth a darn. And 'The Fountainhead' was a truly awful movie from a much better book than 'Atlas'...
Whatever happened to James V. Hart's script? by JohnGalt06	Oct 18th, 2006 03:24:45 PM
Didn't he do a draft already? Did they throw it out? Was it that bad?
If they must make this movie... by JohnGalt06	Oct 18th, 2006 03:28:48 PM
can they please get Stephen Root to play Eddie Willers? That's all I ask. (Oh and get Howard Shore to play Richard Halley and have him write all the symphonies. That would be kinda sweet.)
By saying that reality is subjective... by playahatersball	Oct 18th, 2006 03:28:57 PM
you are claiming it is not independent of our conciousness, which it is. Reality exists whether we choose to observe it or not. People who claim that reality is dependent on our observation of it are either a) Exstistentialists or b) schitzophrenic or usually c) both. There's actually a character in Atlas based slightly on Einstien who uses his quantum theory to prove reality doesn't exist. (SPOILER ALERT) Then he builds a death ray and vaporises Nebraska. Hmmm, now that I think of it, maybe some good could come through your physics by way of zen budhism chicanery. ; )
Since we're on the subject of objectivism... by playahatersball	Oct 18th, 2006 03:33:29 PM
why didn't anyone bitch this loud last year when Steve Ditko's The Question gave a heavily abreviated version of the John galst speech on JLU? Speaking of The Question- I really agree with whoever sugested Willem Dafoe for Rorsarch. Just dye his hair red and throw a ratty trechcoat on him- cinema gold!
Well Said playahatersball by Montag666	Oct 18th, 2006 03:33:57 PM
It's all true. As a matter of fact, in TVOS she even mentions that people who say they wouldn't help a wounded dog in the middle of a road are no better than the animal. Any of you who think that objectivism is about "save yourself", and "look out for #1" saw Dirty Dancing way too many times. That said, I still think that Fountainhead would make a much better picture than Atlas. Jolie is wrong for this movie. I have a bad feeling about this. It would be cool to see the production go in a Sky Captain direction though. It reminds me of the book covers.
Well no, playa. by Cod Profundity	Oct 18th, 2006 03:36:33 PM
First of all I'm not claiming anything I'm relating back a factual proven discovery. I didn't just makes the equations up. Secondly subjectivity isn't just a matter of human consciousness. It's been shown time and again that things behave or react differently depending on how and where you observe them. This isn't existentialist philosophy this is physics.
5 words by WONKABAR	Oct 18th, 2006 03:43:51 PM
MAN IN THE IRON MASK
It's funny being called playa... by playahatersball	Oct 18th, 2006 03:50:31 PM
Okay, I'm going to play devil's advocate again and say that no theory of physics has actually been proven, not Newton's, not Einstien's, especially not Heisenberg. I'm not saying these theories aren't true, but all theories are still theories and that's just how science works. Secondly, I think you're confusing terms and that we both, in fact, agree with each other. Subjectivity, by definition, relates to individual perception- how each of us sees things. The fact that observation of a subject (Phone surveys, Finches in the galapogos, cells in a microscope) automatically alters it is not a subjective phenomenon, but an objective fact and something that all scientists consider when they examine data. When you and I see a movie and have completly different takes on it, that is due to subjectivity. When we take turns performing a scientific experiment, we might have slightly different results due to any number of reasons, and we would in fact have a difficult time getting the EXACT same results because we're different people. This isn't because reality shifted between our two observations. It's because, exactly as you put it, things behave or react differently depending on how and where you observe them.
Well, a tree that falls in a forest with no one to hear by chrth	Oct 18th, 2006 03:50:44 PM
Doesn't make a sound. All it does is displace air, the sound that humans (and most animals) hear is simply a mechanism of translating displaced air into something the brain can recognize. Don't know if that adds anything to the discussion, but I thought it's an interesting idea.
Chrth... by playahatersball	Oct 18th, 2006 03:53:14 PM
if we send radio waves into space and nothing recives them, does that mean they were never sent in the first place?
The myth of a monolithic Hollywood ideology. by NapalmSon	Oct 18th, 2006 03:55:58 PM
The force that guides Hollywood's decision making isn't leftist thought, it is the desire to make money. Lots of money. Don't believe me? Try pitching a no holds-barred docudrama chronicling US involvement in Latin America to any of the big studios. My bet is that unless you have Ashton Kutcher signed on to play Salvador Allende, you probably won't get very far.
thanks Cod Profundity by schrodingerscat	Oct 18th, 2006 04:02:59 PM
for pointing out the obvious. Reality is not objective. Deal. When they figured this out a century ago, they forgot to tell everyone. I hated the Fountainhead. It took me three months to read it. It was horrible, but I forced myself to do it. Everything about it was ridiculous. The only Rand book I've read and liked was Anthem. Short and sweet. And then there was Rush's musical adaptation...
Hey schrodinger... by playahatersball	Oct 18th, 2006 04:06:07 PM
According to you, reality is objective "if I just belive in it, man". If it took you three months to read a 600 page book, how long did it take you to get through that fine waste of wood that is the Illuminatis trillogy? Isn't there a hollow earth talkback you should be posting your sad, Hubbardesque theories on?
Outstanding book, not for everyone.... by DoctorWho?	Oct 18th, 2006 04:06:23 PM
Not an easy read either. It engages you with a philosophy and sets out to illustrate it. It really changed the way I viewed the world, Jolie LOOKS the part, though I find it ironic she took the role considering she probably adheres more to Dagny's brother's philosophy in the real world. As with most of the people in Hollywood. Its not o right/left thing...in a nutshell, it celebrates the individual over the "herd" ...very anti- Communist/Socialist and very pro- Capitalist...provided that individuals have the ETHICS to govern themselves and not abuse the liberty Capitalism provides us all (with freedom comes GREAT RESPONSIBILITY). So, when something like ENRON goes down...it's not indicative of Capitalism... but rather the disgraceful,unethical acts of the bozos responsible.
Ok, playa I see your points. by Cod Profundity	Oct 18th, 2006 04:10:09 PM
Now I don't mean to sugggest that observing anything automatically alters it, in fact I would say that is true only at the sub atomic level. My point is that what people see as certainties are only certain provided the person observing them remains in that position. And sometimes not even then!!! Lets say you are looking out for friends on the horizon, they appear much smaller but as they come closer obviously they appear larger...that would be an individual finding subjectivity in a result depending on where it was viewed from. However it would be objective to measure the distance from the horizon to the viewer if. That distance would objectively be correct...however due to the fact that the earth contracts and expands as it travels through space the distance would actually be changing therefore an objective measurement would be impossible from the viewers position. Now I can see why me using subjectivity has confused the issue, but to make myself clear I am not arguing about how the mind percieves things differently from person to person. But anyway the whole noncommutativity equation (which is certainly provable) from Dirac catches and pulls a thread from objectivist philospphy which is hard to ignore. I'm yet to hear an objectivist reconcile these essential contradictions.
schrodinger, I apologize by playahatersball	Oct 18th, 2006 04:10:26 PM
that was a bit harsh, robert anton wilson doesn't suck that much. Subgenius is pretty funny.
Agreed...The Fountainhead was... by DoctorWho?	Oct 18th, 2006 04:13:22 PM
not that great and the film atrocious. Rand's stuff is really nuanced...I don't know how much can be translated to film. It took her 600 or so pages (way too many) to thoroughly expound on her thing as it was.
Interesting note by oisin5199	Oct 18th, 2006 04:15:21 PM
"Atlas Shrugged" was one of Anton LaVey's (The Church of Satan) favorite books, and to him it perfectly encapsulated his ideas of modern Satanism. And anyone remember that HBO thing with Helen Mirren as Rand gilfing it up with Eric Stoltz?
I am not a radiohead album... by playahatersball	Oct 18th, 2006 04:22:22 PM
but I digress, it strikes me that if one can measure/prove the kind of disruptions in time and space that you describe, that would be an objective phenomena, right? A contigency based on any number of variables will always change a certain way because of those certain variables. We might not be able to predict or record every single one of them right now, but if a shift in time/space exists, than it is objective reality, like, oh- say a black hole?
What I should have just said was.. by playahatersball	Oct 18th, 2006 04:25:21 PM
relativity and subjectivity are not the same thing. I think we're both talking about the former, which is certainly provable. Wow- this IS the deepest talkback ever. Leonard Pekoff raped my childhood!
Sweet. Now there's a TBer by Mechasheeva	Oct 18th, 2006 04:27:03 PM
called Neo Con Snake Plissken. Y'know, I myself am not a fan of the Neo Con movement, being a liberal "hippie" and all, but I doubt there's anyone at all who would want to be associated with THAT guy. As for the movie, don't know the book or much about Ayn Rand, so I'm neutral as all hell.
playahatersball by schrodingerscat	Oct 18th, 2006 04:33:47 PM
less than a week for the Illuminatus Trilogy. Much better book. It's at least entertaining. I didn't really explain myself about the Fountainhead. It took me three months to read it because I had to FORCE myself. Horror of horrors, it was bad. One thing I will agree with Rand on is that society shouldn't stimey invention, science, and the arts. And I'm of big fan of the architect on whom she based her character Roark. That still doesn't make reality objective. Ad hominem attacks are for people who have no other ammunition.
playahatersball by schrodingerscat	Oct 18th, 2006 04:38:56 PM
apology accepted. (we'were writing at the same time.)
Playa...interesting reasoning. by Cod Profundity	Oct 18th, 2006 04:43:33 PM
However a black hole distorts space/time. It essentially distorts what we naturally percieve as reality. As a black hole is approached time speeds up. A probe sent to collect data will be experiencing a different reality from whoever launched the probe. Sadly I have to leave it here for the night but I'll be back tommorrow hopefully for more fun filled physics philosophising.
That was hardly an Ad hominem attack by playahatersball	Oct 18th, 2006 04:45:10 PM
You say reality is subjective and you present no evidence to your claim (in addition to ignoring the debate cod and I were having, which was mostly about a confusion of terms), since you gave no argument supporting your claim, I had to base my response on your name, which betrays your dimestore phillosphical leanings. Once I did that, I merely connected the dots to the other ludacris ideas that go hand in hand for people who take R.A.W. seriously. Then, if you noticed, I apologized for insulting you, which seems like a mistake at this point. Latin phrases are for people who find pretention an endearing quality.
Subjective/Objective by clem_snide	Oct 18th, 2006 04:49:16 PM
Hmm - methinks certain talkbackers should have a read of 'The New Inquisition' by Robert Anton Wilson. In between the extended (& as such perhaps unnecessary) humour, there's some interesting points on this whole reality issue. If I understood him well enough (which in itself is debatable) then an objective reality is unknowable because of our (humans) limited perceptions. "If perception is not absolute, no deduction from perception can be absolute" He holds this to be true from quantum events to 'eye-witness' phenomena to political (social) systems. Science (in his view) is equivalent to philosophy & religon in that they simply provide models of reality & none hold a self-evident truth other than in the specific circumstances of the observer (perceiver?). Science may be more more demonstrable than philosophy or religon, but it is just an (highly) organised belief system. RAW encourages his readers to examine situations from the perspective of several of these models and pick the one of best fit, but recognising it is not THE truth, just an option. One of his suggestions is that the word & concept of 'is' in the English language should be replaced with 'seems to me' (or similar - I forget the exact words) as any statement is opinion based on received, & therefore perceptually constrained, information. Try it in your Talkbacks and see where your objective arguement goes....
whoops- ignore previous post by playahatersball	Oct 18th, 2006 04:50:24 PM
At least I didn't call you a douchebag
Perception versus reality.. by playahatersball	Oct 18th, 2006 05:01:02 PM
again, sorry schrodinger, but I think we're all on the same page more or less. Even Chairman Rand admits that human perception is fallible, and we can't percive all of reality (i.e. be omnicient) but if things like quantum sigularities, black holes and other time/space shifts can proven, then their reality-shifting properties are an objective fact. I don't think it's a huge stretch to claim we live in an objective universe goverened by definable physical laws that occasionally lead to bizzare phenomena that appear contridictory to how we belive the world works. It doesn't disprove the idea that all human beings have an innate value and a right to pursue their happiness by rational means- or does the fact that I won't age in space mean I should become a socialist?
"I destroyed that statue, because I loved it..." by Billyeveryteen	Oct 18th, 2006 05:01:42 PM
"And I don't want to love anything." Perfectly decribes every woman I have been involved with. Damn you Rand!!
I like The Fountainhead better; Atlas is overwrought by Zardoz	Oct 18th, 2006 05:05:46 PM
Also, Frank Miller ripped off Atlas with Martha Washington Goes to War. But Angelina will be a great Dagny. I'm sure Ian McKellen will find his way into the movie, also
I read Give Me Liberty a long time ago.. by playahatersball	Oct 18th, 2006 05:12:08 PM
what is the plot to MWGTW?
They already made ATLAS SHRUGGED into a movie anyway... by JohnGalt06	Oct 18th, 2006 05:15:25 PM
It was called BATMAN BEGINS.
Following this thread is like.... by joegiant	Oct 18th, 2006 05:17:19 PM
...listening to Damon Wayan's Homeless Philosophizer on In Living Color. Allow me to Flagellate my Hypotenus to all the Minionians... 1) Jolie - who cares about her politics. She's an actress. And hot. It's Hollywood. She's Dagny. 2) Running Time - Just because the book is 700 pages doesn't mean it has to be a 3 hour movie or even (god help us) 3 movies. The book, while intellectualy stimulating, is HOPELESSY REPETITIVE. This could easily be condensed to 2 hrs or even 90 minutes. We are the MTV generation after all. 3) I just love the hate/fear of an Ayn Rand work being brought to the masses. Heaven forbid a viewpoint not seen in the movies since The Fountainhead in the 50's be produced! Afraid a few lights may get turned on in people's heads, maybe?????
JohnGalt06 by playahatersball	Oct 18th, 2006 05:19:36 PM
Yeah, then it was remade as THE AVIATOR!
Ayn Rand... by alienindisguise	Oct 18th, 2006 05:27:57 PM
She's just like any self important douchebag...they make others believe they have something important to say when, in fact, they don't. Her holier than thou fans are just as ignorant as she so they can all SUCK IT!!!!
playahatersball by schrodingerscat	Oct 18th, 2006 05:29:37 PM
Here's my problem with your theory. And I guess you could see it as basically an existential one: the observer can't take himself out of the equation. Can not. That means that no matter what machine readout or phenomena you observe, it's still YOUR observation, YOUR calculation. When someone else walks into the room, are you seeing that person? No. You're seeing a representation in your mind of that person as experienced through your sense perception. The very definition of 'subjective.' Like the tree in the forest. It is not possible for you to prove that reality is objective. If you think you have a way, I'd love to hear it. It seems to me that what we call reality is much more compicated than any of us really know, or even can know. If that makes me a dimestore philosopher, somebody tell Bohm.
playahatersball by schrodingerscat	Oct 18th, 2006 05:30:01 PM
Here's my problem with your theory. And I guess you could see it as basically an existential one: the observer can't take himself out of the equation. Can not. That means that no matter what machine readout or phenomena you observe, it's still YOUR observation, YOUR calculation. When someone else walks into the room, are you seeing that person? No. You're seeing a representation in your mind of that person as experienced through your sense perception. The very definition of 'subjective.' Like the tree in the forest. It is not possible for you to prove that reality is objective. If you think you have a way, I'd love to hear it. It seems to me that what we call reality is much more complicated than any of us really know, or even can know. If that makes me a dimestore philosopher, somebody tell Bohm.
Joegiant, you have some noble thoughts, but... by Uncapie	Oct 18th, 2006 05:38:39 PM
If the powers that be turned "Atlas Shrugged" into a 90 minute MTV fest, think what would be lost or for that matter reworked to fit the subconcious of the masses in a substandard vision of what Ayn Rand had in mind. Its the episode of "The General" from "The Prisoner." Speed Learning. 100% entry. 100% pass. I said "what" was the Treaty Of Constantinople, not "when." All one has to do is look at the slew of remakes that we've seen for the past few years. To quote Ayn Rand- "What if the thinking men wet on strike in the word? What would happen?" All we have to do is look around us.This has already happened. Pretty scary. "Who is John Gault?"
Joegiant, you have some noble thoughts, but... by Uncapie	Oct 18th, 2006 05:39:43 PM
If the powers that be turned "Atlas Shrugged" into a 90 minute MTV fest, think what would be lost or for that matter reworked to fit the subconcious of the masses in a substandard vision of what Ayn Rand had in mind. Its the episode of "The General" from "The Prisoner." Speed Learning. 100% entry. 100% pass. I said "what" was the Treaty Of Constantinople, not "when." All one has to do is look at the slew of remakes that we've seen for the past few years. To quote Ayn Rand- "What if the thinking men went on strike in the word? What would happen?" All we have to do is look around. This has already happened. Pretty scary. "Who is John Gault?"
Schrodinger.. by playahatersball	Oct 18th, 2006 05:46:47 PM
I'm not saying that my perception is not limited, I am simply saying that the universe exists, as is does, whether or not I observe it. It existed before I was born, it will be there after I die. I can chose to intepret light, sound, smell and taste however I want, but everything outside of my conciousness is what it is outside of what I belive, hence: A is A. Period, point blank. If you can figure out a way to prove Descarts, Bohm, Kant, Hegel, Sartre and the Wachowski brothers- which no one has been able to, despite being it being fashionable to discredit reality, I'd love to hear it.
the thing that scares me.. by playahatersball	Oct 18th, 2006 06:17:23 PM
is when you insist that reality is subjective, you imply that it is unknowable and unperceptible. That facts are an illusion and reason is impossible because knowlage is false. If you mean something else, you better clarify, because it's mystics like yourself that insult those human beings who have "penetrated the veil" and figured out things like splitting the atom or mapping the human genome. If we can't know anything for certain, how was the computer you typed your responses on built? Fumbling in the dark?
I gotta go do homework.. by playahatersball	Oct 18th, 2006 06:27:18 PM
Here schrodinger, read this: http://tinyurl.com/yytxkd It's been nice chatting with all of you. Now lets get William H. Macy cast as Dagny's brother
JoeGiant, you have a refreshing view of things... by anchorite	Oct 18th, 2006 06:30:12 PM
I like that you embrace the thought of a Hollywood-ized Ayn Rand project. I still am baffled at their decision to make Atlas Shrugged into a movie and wonder how they will try to change the message to fit their typical viewpoint (which is far from Rand's). Hell, I can't even imagine many actors who would be willing to tackle the hero characters if they were so antithetical to their own beliefs. Unless they really needed a paycheck, of course. Jolie? I doubt she needs a paycheck. By the by, the movie version of The Fountainhead came out in 1949... not quite the 1950s. Sorry to nitpick. Other than that, I think you hit the nail on the head. Rand is hopelessly repetitive, but then again so is Hollywood, so it may be a match made in heaven.
Reality is all about perception... by anchorite	Oct 18th, 2006 06:52:11 PM
I know this is elementary Philosophy 101 stuff, but here goes: What is the color red? How can you be sure that the color you call red looks the same to me? Most everyone (who isn't color blind) can agree that red is, well, red. But everyone has been taught that that specific color is called red. So how do we know we're seeing it in the same way? Perhaps someday science will allow us to hook into each others' optic nerve or something (actually, it would have to be in the brain, not the nerve, but you get my point). All I know is, it's not 100% objective. There is some level of subjectivity (or perception) involved.
playahatersball: yes, they were sent by chrth	Oct 18th, 2006 06:53:02 PM
You're confusing ideas. Sound is the result of a combination of two factors: the compression/transmission of a shift in air, and the reception decoding of the shift into sound by the ear. Even if no one hears it, the air displacement still occurs. This is physiology, not psychology. What you're saying is akin to "If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, does it really fall?" Two different ideas.
anchorite: subjective vs perception by chrth	Oct 18th, 2006 07:06:19 PM
It's been a decade plus since I've taken Phys 101, but I think what you're discussing with the color red is not actually subjectivity. Subjectivity is when an individual associates additional criteria to a perception. For example, some people see the color red and consider it an 'angry' color; that's subjective. Ditto some people being soothed by the color blue. We may perceive the objective qualities (hue, brightness, etc) of something called 'red' differently, but that doesn't mean we each are viewing subjectively. Of course, I could be way off base, but I think that's how I remember it. If I'm wrong, well, just ignore this post.
On a related note... by Paul T. Ryan	Oct 18th, 2006 07:51:59 PM
Michael Cimino planned a remake of The Fountainhead in the late 70's as his next project following The Deer Hunter. I think that would have been quite telling given what happened with his next project, Heaven's Gate...
Did I say Phys 101? I meant Psych 101 by chrth	Oct 18th, 2006 08:33:47 PM
I didn't take Phys 101, I took Phys 111.
If Atlas Shrugged is philosophy... by empyreal0	Oct 18th, 2006 08:48:21 PM
...then Gigli was the best film since Citizen Kane.
anchorite, these days each color is exactly defined by ExcaliburFfolkes	Oct 18th, 2006 08:53:46 PM
by its specific wavelength of light. Its a measured property. How someone sees the color is irrelevent.
If a bear shits in the woods, will the Pope hear it? by Uncapie	Oct 18th, 2006 10:03:41 PM
Only if Schrodenger's cat is outside the box and the bear shits faster than the speed of light. That way the bear in question, taking said shit, will be able to go back into time or forward, and actually see himself take a dump while doing it, though he won't be able to occupy the same space/time continum when he arrives. It'll have to be a red box too. Unless its Tuesday. I hope this clears everything up. There will be a test on Friday.
That other Horrible Ayn Rand Movie by Larry of Arabia	Oct 18th, 2006 10:04:01 PM
Have you seen "The Fountainhead." Great googily moogily what a terrible piece if sheeeee-it. I personally hate her theories and her scorched earth ethics.
Objectivism made easy by maxwello	Oct 18th, 2006 10:26:56 PM
Galt gives the one line definition a specific place of honour in the book: "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will not live for the sake of another man, nor ask him to live for mine."
Objectivism made easy by maxwello	Oct 18th, 2006 10:27:08 PM
Galt gives the one line definition a specific place of honour in the book: "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will not live for the sake of another man, nor ask him to live for mine."
HOW TO READ AYN RAND ... by falawful-314	Oct 18th, 2006 10:59:14 PM
WITHOUT GOING INSANE: (1) read the first sentence of the paragraph, (2) skip down to next paragraph, (3) repeat. Everything after the first sentence of the paragraph is basically sawdust. "The simple-minded oaf couldn't understand that the selfish life is the only life worth living. [I'm right. You suck. Everyone who disagrees with me is a jackass. Fuck Commies. Hail the Almighty Dollar!]"
Dagny Taggart is blonde? by kabong	Oct 18th, 2006 11:42:25 PM
Or am I thinking of "The Fountainhead" chick?
Ayn Rand vs, Angelina Jolie by IMissNewOrleans	Oct 19th, 2006 01:17:05 AM
A heavyweight vs. a lightweight. Should be as good as Bill Murray in Razor's Edge.
Ayn Rand vs, Angelina Jolie by IMissNewOrleans	Oct 19th, 2006 01:17:45 AM
A heavyweight vs. a lightweight. Should be as good as Bill Murray in Razor's Edge.
Ayn Rand vs, Angelina Jolie by IMissNewOrleans	Oct 19th, 2006 01:17:46 AM
A heavyweight vs. a lightweight. Should be as good as Bill Murray in Razor's Edge.
Fountainhead by mostdwnloadedman	Oct 19th, 2006 02:51:10 AM
"I trade stock in the human spirit and I sell short!"...great line and I love the scene where Gary Cooper is drilling the wall and sees his woman for the first time..very beautiful scene. As far as the characters being two-dimensional to comment on differing philosophical opinions...thats common: read Delillo or Palahniuk
Most accessible Objectivism primer would be by Laserbrain	Oct 19th, 2006 03:04:45 AM
The Incredibles. The pedantic will disagree over the fine points but in most respects Rand's philosophy is all over that flick.
"No theory of physics has actually been proven" by minderbinder	Oct 19th, 2006 07:11:18 AM
Really? I'm sure the physicists of the world would love to hear that newsflash. By the way, they're Newton's LAWS of motion, not "theories".
The Incredibles by minderbinder	Oct 19th, 2006 07:42:25 AM
I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned sooner. As far as I'm concerned, it's a much more persuasive argument for the empowerment of the individual than anything Rand ever wrote. But she would hate it, probably would hate the whole notion of comic book superheroes - after all, they're constantly putting themselves at risk to help others. What a bunch of idiots. She really would have had a field day with Spiderman: "With great power comes great responsibility". More like "With great power comes the great urge to tell people to go fuck off." I just don't buy into her philosophy of self serving above all else. Even if you look at the world from a purely selfish point of view, it's in your best interest for the people around you to be healthy, well educated, and able to make a living. Even if you are rich, you can't provide the entire infrastructure around you. You can't build your own personal roads to every location you might want to visit. You can't teach yourself surgery and operate on your own brain tumor. Hell, you don't want the other people driving on the road to run you over because they're illiterate and can't read the signs. I think welfare and even charity can go too far, but at the very least, people should have the opportunity to get a decent education and get at least basic medical treatment (yes, even if it means the "more successful" subsidize it). And I have no problem with digging into the collective pocketbook to help out people who fall victim to things like natural disasters. Rand's philosophy seems like a recipe for becoming rich and miserable. While her stuff is thought provoking, I don't think her point of view is all that appealing to most people just because she comes off as so fucking unhappy. (And an Institute? Give me a fucking break already)
Will they include this scene? by bingo the clown	Oct 19th, 2006 08:01:35 AM
www.angryflower.com/atlass.gif
It's fiction by kadath	Oct 19th, 2006 08:12:04 AM
Ayn Rand's philosophy might not work for you in real life, but that 'man as heroic being' stuff works great for fiction. You know, like Atlas Shrugged. Do you need to agree with Dracula's politics to watch a vampire movie?
And a word about Ayn's ex-lover; Nathaniel Branden... by Uncapie	Oct 19th, 2006 08:42:09 AM
...that guy's an asshole. I met him standing in line about fifteen years ago when I was filing paperwork at the local courthouse. This guy was so jumbled, so nervous trying to get his act together, I let him go first in line. He thanked me and introduced himself. He then gave me a flyer on his seminar where he was charging $495.00 for a lecture on his book! I thanked him, went down to the library and checked it out for free. His book made Harold Robbins look like Zig Ziglar! Here's a guy who is somewhat in love with Ayn Rand then totally, publically denounces her. Nice guy. The guy should have worked for the National Enquirer.
I have no idea who Ayn Rand is.. by Mr_Sleep001	Oct 19th, 2006 08:47:56 AM
but Randall Wallace!! I'm sorry but I can't stand the guys showboating, jingoistic and simplistic writing. Now off to Wikipedia Ayn Rand...
Terry Goodkind by King_Midas	Oct 19th, 2006 09:24:44 AM
Somewhat related to Ayn Rand, has anyone read the Terry Goodkind Sword of Truth novels? The author professes to be a Rand devotee and has basically hijacked his own series in a rambling tribute to objectivism. He uses all the same straw men arguments lacking in any real-world applicability that Rand so delighted in, but it’s fascinating to see where he takes it. His most recent book is a thinly veiled reference to the War on Terror but his solution is great – your life is important, your life is your own, and you must kill everybody that disagrees with you (either because they are a threat or they get in the way of your pursuit of happiness). It’s really objectivism taken to the logical conclusion and therein lies the problem – Rand’s philosophy only works against paper tigers. As one person said above – objectivism hinges on the idea that man is innately ethical and responsible enough to handle the power that comes with such unfettered freedom. History has shown otherwise and the unabashed pursuit of your own self interests to the exclusion of all else will eventually lead you into conflict with others. What do you do then? Kill or be killed? Collectivism can be taken too far (i.e. communism where there is no motivation for the individual to excel) but there is nothing innately evil about working together for the betterment of society as a whole. Minderbender nailed it on the head – it is in our individual self interest to have those around us leading healthy, productive lives. It’s especially important in an advanced society where we need each other. None of us are at all self-sufficient. The wealthiest, most intelligent person in the world wouldn’t have the means to make a pencil and piece of paper on his own.
feh by spidercoz	Oct 19th, 2006 09:36:51 AM
What's next, Also Sprach Zarathustra? That'd be a travesty of epic proportions.
minderbender: you could NOT have picked a worst example by chrth	Oct 19th, 2006 09:56:17 AM
Newton's Laws only work in a Newtonian frame of reference--which doesn't exist in the universe! We still use them because in many cases the effects of relativity and universal motion are so small to be considered zero (just like we ignore the effect of the sun on the gravitational equation when considering objects on earth). However, just because we ignore them doesn't mean they're not there. While I disagree with attacking scientific theory for no other purpose than to discredit, the statement fundamentally is correct: there is no Law in Physics that is unassailable. And that's a good thing, because it allows us to continue to increase our knowledge.
If the institute president is any indication... by CoffeeAndCinema	Oct 19th, 2006 11:53:03 AM
...then I have to agree that this will be a fairly boring movie but with a lot of sex in it. I was helping out a documentary director who is doing a documentary about Christmas. He wanted to get some varying viewpoints, and so he interviewed the president of the Ayn Rand Institute. The first thing the guy said to us as we walked in was, "Just to warn you, I collect nudes." (As if it wasn't obvious from the moment he opened the door.) It was hard to find a place in his house where we could frame him without something distracting in the background. Not to mention he was in his 70s and his wife looked to be about 30. He said that Christmas should be more materialistic than it already is, and should revert back to what he thought it's origin was, which is the celebration of Saturnalia. It's all about the celebration of self and of life. (Basically, lots of presents and lots of sex.) Outside of the impression I got that his life pretty much revolves around sex, he didn't seem like all that interesting of a person. In fact, he seemed somewhat out of touch with reality. He didn't even know how to use his own dishwasher, because apparently the maid always does that. I'm not intending on joining the philosophical debate. I've never read the book. I just figured I'd add that little anecdote. I guess we'll see when the movie comes out if my prediction of "fairly boring but with lots of sex" is correct.
Objectivist Are Not Libertarian and Other Myths by R Flagg	Oct 19th, 2006 12:36:25 PM
First, Objectivist are not Libertarian. They hate Libertarians as being "too tolerant." Next, Libertarians are not Republicans who are afraid to vote Republican. They are people who want the government to stop intruding into our lives. Unlike the Democrats and Republicans who both seek to control every aspect of peoples lives, and make the government bigger and bigger. Yes there was a time when the Republicans supposedly stood for smaller government, but those days are long gone. The two parties have merged into two different fractions of the same essential party. While I don't agree with Objectivist, since they are so anti-religious,I don't see them as being against compassion or even team work. The point is not to blindly do everything that everyone else does without first considering your interests. Collectivism is far more dangerous the consideration of self. Collectivism leads to loss of individual liberty and room for independent thought. Unfortunately this is what our schools and media teach everyone, and even more unfortunate is that too many never break the chain of collectivist thought. There is tons of room for compassion and teamwork and all that without descending into "It Takes A Village" moronic thought lines of the collectivist. All that said, yes this movie will suck. Angelina Jolie is the exact opposite of the kind of person to play a part in anything like this, and a clear indicator that Hollywood intends to make it a collectivist movie. One has to wonder what Leonard Peikoff was thinking in letting this one go through. A far better option would be to remake the Fountainhead in a cable mini-series, if they could find somebody who would keep the ideals intact and not move it to the far left with the rest of the Collectivist/Socialist ideals coming out of our public schools and media.
Minderbender, r.e. Ayn Rand and superheroes by playahatersball	Oct 19th, 2006 03:04:14 PM
Chairman Rand not only spoke highly of the medium of comic books, but also of the heroic ideals which they espouse. Her book "Romantic Manifesto" has been credited by Frank Miller as the chief insperation behind all of his superhero work. Steve Ditko, co-c

Talkbacks

Ayn Rand's ATLAS SHRUGGED being brought to the big screen!!