Atlas Shrugged the movie part one

[qliveur]

I couldn't finish the book, so I doubt that I could sit through the movie.

 

[crashtestdummy]

Is it supposed to be like South Park where the point is illustrated by showing just how retarded the main characters are acting? Example: Randy claiming alcoholism is a disease then running with this idea to the point of absurdity.

Maybe it should be more like this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J47ENHSomc8

Not really, but you're sort of on the right track. The main characters are glorfied, sometimes to excess (I stopped reading the Fountainhead at the rape scene). Instead, of the absurdity of characters, however, she focuses on the absurdity of rhetoric. Rand tries to tackle what she feels is a horrible misuse of language by society.

She feels that as a society we've developed speech patterns that glorify socialism, and through her novel turns these patterns on their head. Instead of selfless heroes, you have useless sycophants and parasites. Instead of greedy, money-grubbing bastards who want only money, you have a productive elite that only seeks fair trade for their skills and drive. The left would argue that unions go on strike to try to protect the working class from being taken advantage of. So, Rand says in Atlas Shrugged, what if all of those productive elite went on strike instead, because they were being taken advantage of?

In doing this, she tries to argue that if we reverse all our values in this way, we would create a far more productive and free society.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Am I the only one who liked Fountainhead more than Atlas Shrugged? I thought it was a better written, more concise story.

I read Atlas first - twice. Then I read Fountainhead. I prefer Atlas.

Atlas was definitely all over place and a bit too long and preachy in sections, but the overall story felt more cohesive and the characters more clearly defined. Fountainhead's was shorter and more concise, I just didn't quite "get it." It almost seemed a very, very rough draft of Rand's Objectionism, but not fleshed out enough to make a lot of sense. Atlas was blunt and direct. Fountain was meandering and iffy.

/$0.02

 

[Brigandier]

I read Atlas first - twice. Then I read Fountainhead. I prefer Atlas.

Atlas was definitely all over place and a bit too long and preachy in sections, but the overall story felt more cohesive and the characters more clearly defined. Fountainhead's was shorter and more concise, I just didn't quite "get it." It almost seemed a very, very rough draft of Rand's Objectionism, but not fleshed out enough to make a lot of sense. Atlas was blunt and direct. Fountain was meandering and iffy.

/$0.02

I thought Fountainhead managed to capture the objectivist ideal without beating you over the head with it. I too read Atlas Shrugged before Fountainhead, but I preferred Fountainhead. It could just be because Roark is down with the rough secks though.

 

[rockyct]

hahaha

I just saw that quote in the comments. Hilarious.

 

[Lummex]

Meh, I imagined it more dark and sinister when I read the book.

Exactly. A much more serious tone. And I feel that it needs to be set in the time period it was written, not modern day. And Dagny looks completely wrong.

 

[Born2bwire]

Exactly. A much more serious tone. And I feel that it needs to be set in the time period it was written, not modern day. And Dagny looks completely wrong.

Yeah, the weirdest thing is that they kept the plot about metal and railroads. It just seems so anachronistic.

 

[Minjin]

Yeah, the weirdest thing is that they kept the plot about metal and railroads. It just seems so anachronistic.

Actually, the materials thing is quite current. New advances in material science are happening every day and many things we use take advantage of these innovations. Now just imagine a new material, let's say a nano-metal, with better hardness than tungsten, lighter than balsa, tougher than steel, and cheap to produce. How much would that revolutionize our world? I'd say quite a bit.

 

[Born2bwire]

Actually, the materials thing is quite current. New advances in material science are happening every day and many things we use take advantage of these innovations. Now just imagine a new material, let's say a nano-metal, with better hardness than tungsten, lighter than balsa, tougher than steel, and cheap to produce. How much would that revolutionize our world? I'd say quite a bit.

But why not update it to a more relevant industry? They could have used aerospace as the industry instead of railroad and it would have worked just as well. Look at the problems in building, designing and delivering the latest models from Boeing and Airbus. Would be a perfect parallel.

 

[Minjin]

But why not update it to a more relevant industry? They could have used aerospace as the industry instead of railroad and it would have worked just as well. Look at the problems in building, designing and delivering the latest models from Boeing and Airbus. Would be a perfect parallel.

I agree. I'm not trying to justify their decisions just saying that while materials may have been in a rut for 40 years, it is picking back up now. Besides, if you "update" the story how many people will complain? I do think they should have kept it as a period piece but I imagine that that would greatly increase production costs.

 

[Gibsons]

Not that I've ever read anything she's written, or ever will, but...

It's one thing to identify the disease, but the suggested cure might be worse. i.e. watch "The Smartest Guys in the Room." Lay, Skilling and Fastow are pretty perfect 10's from the Objectivist perspective, no? They were extremely ambitious, smart, and hardworking capitalists.

 

[Minjin]

Not that I've ever read anything she's written, or ever will, but...

It's one thing to identify the disease, but the suggested cure might be worse. i.e. watch "The Smartest Guys in the Room." Lay, Skilling and Fastow are pretty perfect 10's from the Objectivist perspective, no? They were extremely ambitious, smart, and hardworking capitalists.

No, they weren't.

 

[Gibsons]

No, they weren't.

How so?

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Dismal, boring, predictable book meet dismal, boring, predictable movie?

 

[0roo0roo]

Not that I've ever read anything she's written, or ever will, but...

It's one thing to identify the disease, but the suggested cure might be worse. i.e. watch "The Smartest Guys in the Room." Lay, Skilling and Fastow are pretty perfect 10's from the Objectivist perspective, no? They were extremely ambitious, smart, and hardworking capitalists.

First line explains why your second paragraph is full of fail.
But hey, ignorance is bliss.

 

[zerocool84]

I guess I'm the only person in the world that has no idea what Atlas Shrugged is.

 

[Gibsons]

First line explains why your second paragraph is full of fail.
But hey, ignorance is bliss.

I've read quotes of hers and descriptions and discussions of Objectivism. Self interest, value yourself, the desire to achieve, etc. Seems like Jeff Skilling to me.

If I'm wrong, just tell me why, inform me. I'm not an expert at all on this. But simply telling me I'm wrong without argument, without example or evidence, doesn't help anything.

 

[Born2bwire]

Can't believe that this hasn't turned up yet.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/150385/plucked

 

[zinfamous]

that looked like SyFy network quality production directed by Uwe Bol.

 

[Alone]

Shit, I watched the trailer a few more times through the evening, hoping there would be at least one thing that interested me about this movie. One thing that seemed to capture the style of the book.

Nothing.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Shit, I watched the trailer a few more times through the evening, hoping there would be at least one thing that interested me about this movie. One thing that seemed to capture the style of the book.

Nothing.

That's because Ayn Rand has no style, just attitude.

 

[Alone]

That's because Ayn Rand has no style, just attitude.

It doesn't have the "feel" of the book, at all.

But I'm welcome to hear everyone bash on an author who has sold millions of books. She must just be horrible!

 

[Born2bwire]

It doesn't have the "feel" of the book, at all.

But I'm welcome to hear everyone bash on an author who has sold millions of books. She must just be horrible!

I ain't bagging on Ayn Rand but c'mon, that unfortunately is no longer a qualification of quality. Have you read Dan Brown? Jesus Christ, it's like they finally figured out a way to write books for the illiterate.

 

[zinfamous]

It doesn't have the "feel" of the book, at all.

But I'm welcome to hear everyone bash on an author who has sold millions of books. She must just be horrible!

 

[Born2bwire]

Yeah. Hubbard and Bieber also came to mind too.