Atlas Shrugged - Movie

[booker81]

Anyone else going to try and see it?

I'm geeked. I've like the trailers so far, and I even emailed the local large movie theater to please bring it. They just listed it the other day for opening day

It's by far and away my favorite book, I'm rereading it for the 10th+ time. I know the movie won't be perfect, very few made from book movies are, but I like the casting, and I like what it looks like the director tried to do. I'll go with low expectations, but with the hopes they will be able to come close to capturing at least the essence of the novel. It's only going to be part 1 of the book, but I can't wait!

http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com/

 

[foweler]

I'm traveling 90 miles to see it.
While I believe everyone should be exposed to Rand's vision, at least in as far as everyone is forced to be exposed to anything at all via public schooling, it's only 1 of 3 parts of the novel.
The answer is is the ending.

 

[PineappleMama]

Whoa... DH read this book this year and has been telling me I should.

If I'm going to then I definitely need to before seeing the movie... anyone else recommend it?

DH says "I donno if they could make a movie out of that book that makes any darn sense"

 

[booker81]

The nice thing is this isn't a Hollywood cranked out movie - it was supposed to be very limited release, but it looks like demand is really pushing it out. Last week, it wasn't in a single theater in MI. They have a spot on the site to request it be brought to your nearest place, and I also emailed the general manager for the nearest theater, and on Sunday, it was brought out to I think 7 theaters in MI, along with about 50 more. More have been added, even though it's to start on Friday. No advertising really. It was to be released in 10 theaters, I'm not sure what it is now, apparently there is a huge crush of requests for it everywhere. Not surprised.

I believe if this first Part does well, it will be able to finance the ability to do the second and third Parts.

The trailers are in that link I posted, and if you've about memorized the book as I have, they actually do stick closely to the book, many lines are exact. I think that's why it has to be 3 parts at least, there is no way to cram that book into an hour and half, and I am glad they didn't.

 

[foweler]

Quote:
I read preview reviews that said it was fairly true to the book, though the trailer shows Midas Mulligan who doesn't make an appearance until part 3, I think, of the book so I don't know.
Of course one reviewer bashed the quality but added the disclaimer that Rand-heads wouldn't care. LOL.
I expect a lot of mainstream bashing of this movie. I also, to their chagrin, expect it to do well and bring a lot of new interest to the story. Kind of like the financial meltdown has already.
It is supposedly the second most read book in western culture to the bible.

 

[I have WHAT in my yard?]

Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to “do something.” By “ideological” (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, which subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the “libertarian” hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.) To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and the victory of your enemies.

[Ayn Rand, “What Can One Do?” Philosophy: Who Needs It]

Like many other philosophical writings from Democritus to Marx, Rand's writings are often taken out of context or taken too far. With her it is the "self interest above all others" part that frequently gets taken too far. The release of this now concerns me as I fear it will be (is being) used by unscrupulous people to foment more divide and class war...... Sigh.​

 

[foweler]

I have WHAT in my yard? :

Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to “do something.” By “ideological” (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, which subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the “libertarian” hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.) To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and the victory of your enemies.

[Ayn Rand, “What Can One Do?” Philosophy: Who Needs It]

Like many other philosophical writings from Democritus to Marx, Rand's writings are often taken out of context or taken too far. With her it is the "self interest above all others" part that frequently gets taken too far. The release of this now concerns me as I fear it will be (is being) used by unscrupulous people to foment more divide and class war...... Sigh.​

She took the self interest too far her self...into the realm of self centeredness, a decidedly different plane, in how she treated her husband and then her lover and finally the followers of the movement built around her. That in itself or the reactions of hangers on looking for a centering force of one kind or another still do not take away from the accuracy of the observations depicted in this story....if the real producers in life simply stopped their efforts the takers would be in quite a quandry indeed. They would need to change both their views and their actions or perish as the society the producers built crumbled around them. This is irrefutable truth.

Should the bourgeois decide to pack up and disappear and expliot the labor of the proletariat no more, how many of said proles will step up envision the great achievments and the way to achieving them in their absence?
How much will the value of the labor of the proles be reduced without the direction and inspiration of men and woman of genius leading the way? How much harder and less productive their daily fight for survival?

http://mises.org/etexts/misesatlas.pdf​

 

[I have WHAT in my yard?]

My refutation of this is the concept that there is a small group of producers that are somehow inherently better than everyone else. When a vacuum at the top is created through any means, some one will rise to fill it. Period.

I do not argue that there are many people who are smarter than I. I do not argue that those who are smarter and more ambitious, those who work harder deserve their rewards. Never have argued that point.

But, society is not dependent on any one of us whether we're the guy at the helm or the guy in the bilge. It may be easier to replace the bilge guy, but the helm would be taken over by some one. And our current system- predicated on the belief that if you heartily reward those at the top, at the expense of everyone else, is even more skewed than the socialism Rand decried. It is socialism for the top and capitalism for the rest of us.

Neither of these systems is any good without balance and we are out of balance. What scares me is that the believers of doctrine treat economic policy like it was religion.

Economic ideology is a man made construct. The argument is framed as if it was black and white - either/or - its not!! Make up a new one!! We don't have to choose socialism or capitalism write your own new ism.

And please start the idea soon before these either or people start a war and either side wins!

 

[foweler]

Economic reality is far above religion.....it can be proved correct.
Capitalism is merely the act of humans specializing in their efforts, trading value for value voluntarily, and using the proceeds to build up their position to do more of the same in the future, preferably more efficiently and with less effort.
Nothing wrong with that. Corperatism is what is most commonly misidentifed as capitalism. Capitalism is a component of corperatism but not vice versa.
Corperatism, the modern outgrowth of mercantilism, is the practice of business capturing the power of govt and using it to make rules that favor it at the expense of both competitors and consumers.

Reject corperatism? Abosolutely! Reject socialism? of course! Capitalism is a natural phenomoenon that can not be rejected any more than economic reality itself. The instant any two humans engage in trade...the market is spontaneously created.

 

[GarlicEater]

She was an utter nutball but she wasn't wrong about everything.

Atlas is of course the legendary figure who supports the world. The parallel is with the producers, whether a gardener raising a few veggies and eggs or a great engineer, inventor, or designer. The premise is, punish producers for producing, and they, Atlas, will shrug off the world, the modern world, they carry on their shoulders and go away. They'll just produce for themselves (Roark going off and working in a soda fountain) and to heck with producing for the larger world.

Many of us now are effectively Roark working in a soda fountain. Under-utilized, under-paid, etc. I should be sitting at some big company inventing stuff, instead I learned about permaculture around here and turn Tektronix test equipment into poultry hooks. The cases make dandy nest boxes. And I make 5% of what I used to make a few years ago.

Punish Atlas for working hard and Atlas says, "I quit" and walks off.

I am not a Rand fan but I am certainly fond of some of "her" ideas. I'll see the movie if I can, since movies like that don't come where I live, and tickets are expensive, and I've read the book, all I can do is hope the movie gets some viewers.