On February 12 2011 08:40 Torte de Lini wrote: "why don't you let me finish!"
...
Sounded so out of place and cheap.
The movie sounds interesting. I don't understand the plot nor why it has to be "part 1"
Yea, they didn't bother to explain the plot at all in the trailer. I think they are assuming that the target audience would have read the book. And it's part 1 because the book is something like 1400 pages long
That or they botched the book so much that the plot is linear, one-dimensional and boring. So they add really nice music and one-two good actresses/actors.
Well, it's possible, but if they had reduced the plot to that, wouldn't that make it easier to release just in 1 part? I think expanding it into 2 or 3 would be much more conducive towards developing the plot, purely based on time constraints when considering the source material.
On February 12 2011 08:40 Torte de Lini wrote: "why don't you let me finish!"
...
Sounded so out of place and cheap.
The movie sounds interesting. I don't understand the plot nor why it has to be "part 1"
Yea, they didn't bother to explain the plot at all in the trailer. I think they are assuming that the target audience would have read the book. And it's part 1 because the book is something like 1400 pages long
That or they botched the book so much that the plot is linear, one-dimensional and boring. So they add really nice music and one-two good actresses/actors.
Well, it's possible, but if they had reduced the plot to that, wouldn't that make it easier to release just in 1 part? I think expanding it into 2 or 3 would be much more conducive towards developing the plot, purely based on time constraints when considering the source material.
Harry Potter breaks your logic that I was initially going to agree with.
On February 12 2011 08:45 HowardRoark wrote: Oh my, it looks like second-handers made this movie I hope I am wrong...
EDIT: A soap-opera star directing it, and B-grade actors, even the cameras in the trailer looks cheap. This really would have been better unmade. And BTW, I think you all comment on some fan trailer with Bad Pitt the OP mistakenly linked to.
Fear not Roark. Investor John Aglialoro paid good money for the rights to this movie, and he is determined to do justice to the original. Here is an interview with him.
This looks horrible. Set in modern day, railroads and the steel industry are hardly compelling topics of capitalism and monopolies, and the trailer made the movie seem like a suspense thriller.
This was my reaction when they first announced they would make the movie
The movie should never exist, like, you cant make a dramatic life/story of a philosopher/philosophy into a movie and have it be true to the subject. Itd be like making a movie about Newton, or Nietzsche.
cue dramatic music: Nietzsche: "Your church is weak, we dont need it! We are the immoralists!!" Priest: "Look, you pinheads are just getting desperate" next scene: Nietzsche is duct-taped to a pew with priests repeating "The sun comes up, the sun goes down. Tide goes in, tide goes down, never a mis-communication" end
How does that work? You cant explain it!
But seriously, trying to make an existential subject into some sort of drama takes a very very clear plan to turn into a movie, and it just cant be done Atlas Shrugged. There are too many things that you just need to sit and think about for a day or 2 to grasp in order to really appreciate the entire book. And im not even going to get started on the dialogue.
On February 12 2011 09:23 ShadowDrgn wrote: This looks horrible. Set in modern day, railroads and the steel industry are hardly compelling topics of capitalism and monopolies, and the trailer made the movie seem like a suspense thriller.
On February 12 2011 08:41 Jswizzy wrote: Atlas Shrugged is a straw man argument for Laissez-faire capitalism. It's a great book but Rand supported communism before capitalism and the book is just the result of here disillusionment with that system after it failed to live up to her pure idealism. I would recommend looking into the book although it is pretty boring up until about 1/2 of the way into it.
edit: the reason I liked the book is because I truly hated the villains, you want to yell at them for being so absurdly stupid. Laissez-faire capitalism on the other hand just ends up with society being taken advantage of by tycoons and monopolies after they have control of a market.
Sorry for double posting.
She was very young when she supported communism though, like pre-15. She thought the ones in office would really represent the people, but they didnt, so she does a total 180. And even though you can find problems in any one philosophy, I do agree that she is a bit too idealistic. Her ideas wouldnt work for the same reason pure socialism wont work: we arent 100% self sustained and rational all the time, and we arent a beehive either.
Even with the existentialism she tries throwing in there for justification, she kind of assumes all of the scientific evidence needed to support that does actually lead to her conclusion, not that we would ever get that amount of information needed ANYTIME soon.
I do agree with you about the villans. I want to punch James in the face everytime he talks.
On February 12 2011 09:23 ShadowDrgn wrote: This looks horrible. Set in modern day, railroads and the steel industry are hardly compelling topics of capitalism and monopolies, and the trailer made the movie seem like a suspense thriller.
Part 2: 3 hours of speech broadcast? Most painful book I ever finished.
If you told me this was for a basic cable channel and showed me that trailer I'd have 100% believed it. Especially that train cgi. Jeez if your shit looks that bad keep it out of the trailer.
On February 12 2011 08:41 Jswizzy wrote: Atlas Shrugged is a straw man argument for Laissez-faire capitalism. It's a great book but Rand supported communism before capitalism and the book is just the result of here disillusionment with that system after it failed to live up to her pure idealism. I would recommend looking into the book although it is pretty boring up until about 1/2 of the way into it.
edit: the reason I liked the book is because I truly hated the villains, you want to yell at them for being so absurdly stupid. Laissez-faire capitalism on the other hand just ends up with society being taken advantage of by tycoons and monopolies after they have control of a market.
I really don't want to derail too much, but does anyone have any idea what this person is referring to? Perhaps there's a general assumption that she must've been a communist at some point since she was raised in Soviet Russia, or is this one of those marxist interpretations of one of her works? Btw if the people at large concentrated more on preventing unfair legislative support for the rich as they see it, instead of seeing the freedom to be rich in the first place as unfair legislative support and demanding unfair legislative support for the poor as the only counter to it, capitalism would probably work just fine.
The movie should never exist, like, you cant make a dramatic life/story of a philosopher/philosophy into a movie and have it be true to the subject. Itd be like making a movie about Newton, or Nietzsche.
cue dramatic music: Nietzsche: "Your church is weak, we dont need it! We are the immoralists!!" Priest: "Look, you pinheads are just getting desperate" next scene: Nietzsche is duct-taped to a pew with priests repeating "The sun comes up, the sun goes down. Tide goes in, tide goes down, never a mis-communication" end
How does that work? You cant explain it!
But seriously, trying to make an existential subject into some sort of drama takes a very very clear plan to turn into a movie, and it just cant be done Atlas Shrugged. There are too many things that you just need to sit and think about for a day or 2 to grasp in order to really appreciate the entire book. And im not even going to get started on the dialogue.
Actually, the story of Socrates' life would make an amazing movie now that I think of it.
On February 12 2011 08:41 Jswizzy wrote: Atlas Shrugged is a straw man argument for Laissez-faire capitalism. It's a great book but Rand supported communism before capitalism and the book is just the result of here disillusionment with that system after it failed to live up to her pure idealism. I would recommend looking into the book although it is pretty boring up until about 1/2 of the way into it.
edit: the reason I liked the book is because I truly hated the villains, you want to yell at them for being so absurdly stupid. Laissez-faire capitalism on the other hand just ends up with society being taken advantage of by tycoons and monopolies after they have control of a market.
I really don't want to derail too much, but does anyone have any idea what this person is referring to? Perhaps there's a general assumption that she must've been a communist at some point since she was raised in Soviet Russia, or is this one of those marxist interpretations of one of her works? Btw if the people at large concentrated more on preventing unfair legislative support for the rich as they see it, instead of seeing the freedom to be rich in the first place as unfair legislative support and demanding unfair legislative support for the poor as the only counter to it, capitalism would probably work just fine.
Read the forward in Atlas Shrugged thats were it mentions her support of the October Revolution.
On February 12 2011 08:41 Jswizzy wrote: Atlas Shrugged is a straw man argument for Laissez-faire capitalism. It's a great book but Rand supported communism before capitalism and the book is just the result of here disillusionment with that system after it failed to live up to her pure idealism. I would recommend looking into the book although it is pretty boring up until about 1/2 of the way into it.
edit: the reason I liked the book is because I truly hated the villains, you want to yell at them for being so absurdly stupid. Laissez-faire capitalism on the other hand just ends up with society being taken advantage of by tycoons and monopolies after they have control of a market.
I really don't want to derail too much, but does anyone have any idea what this person is referring to? Perhaps there's a general assumption that she must've been a communist at some point since she was raised in Soviet Russia, or is this one of those marxist interpretations of one of her works? Btw if the people at large concentrated more on preventing unfair legislative support for the rich as they see it, instead of seeing the freedom to be rich in the first place as unfair legislative support and demanding unfair legislative support for the poor as the only counter to it, capitalism would probably work just fine.
Read the forward in Atlas Shrugged thats were it mentions her support of the October Revolution.
Rand is a lot like Reagan or Palin in that their supporters are more like adoring fans who selectively pay attention to the histories of these people instead of looking at the history as a whole.
On February 12 2011 09:47 mucker wrote: Part 2: 3 hours of speech broadcast? Most painful book I ever finished.
If you told me this was for a basic cable channel and showed me that trailer I'd have 100% believed it. Especially that train cgi. Jeez if your shit looks that bad keep it out of the trailer.
I love the book, but getting through that speech was one of the hardest things I've ever read. Why must you suddenly get a 80 page speech repeating almost verbatim the things that have been obvious from the beginning of the novel? Really? John Galt believes what??! No way!
On February 12 2011 08:41 Jswizzy wrote: Atlas Shrugged is a straw man argument for Laissez-faire capitalism. It's a great book but Rand supported communism before capitalism and the book is just the result of here disillusionment with that system after it failed to live up to her pure idealism. I would recommend looking into the book although it is pretty boring up until about 1/2 of the way into it.
edit: the reason I liked the book is because I truly hated the villains, you want to yell at them for being so absurdly stupid. Laissez-faire capitalism on the other hand just ends up with society being taken advantage of by tycoons and monopolies after they have control of a market.
I really don't want to derail too much, but does anyone have any idea what this person is referring to? Perhaps there's a general assumption that she must've been a communist at some point since she was raised in Soviet Russia, or is this one of those marxist interpretations of one of her works? Btw if the people at large concentrated more on preventing unfair legislative support for the rich as they see it, instead of seeing the freedom to be rich in the first place as unfair legislative support and demanding unfair legislative support for the poor as the only counter to it, capitalism would probably work just fine.
Read the forward in Atlas Shrugged thats were it mentions her support of the October Revolution.
Rand is a lot like Reagan or Palin in that their supporters are more like adoring fans who selectively pay attention to the histories of these people instead of looking at the history as a whole.
My interest in the personal history of a philosopher is secondary to my interest in their philosophy. That's the main difference between me and the average supporter of Palin.
On February 12 2011 09:31 _Darwin_ wrote: I tried to take an objective glance at the trailer, but I just can't give it good marks.
Ha.
This book, rand and everything she's spawned are total travesties. With the exception of Bioshock and that one Rush album (I forgive them, they make great music). This is the type of thing our society really doesn't need right now, especially if it puts a positive light on this devilwomans work.
On February 12 2011 08:41 Jswizzy wrote: Atlas Shrugged is a straw man argument for Laissez-faire capitalism. It's a great book but Rand supported communism before capitalism and the book is just the result of here disillusionment with that system after it failed to live up to her pure idealism. I would recommend looking into the book although it is pretty boring up until about 1/2 of the way into it.
edit: the reason I liked the book is because I truly hated the villains, you want to yell at them for being so absurdly stupid. Laissez-faire capitalism on the other hand just ends up with society being taken advantage of by tycoons and monopolies after they have control of a market.
I really don't want to derail too much, but does anyone have any idea what this person is referring to? Perhaps there's a general assumption that she must've been a communist at some point since she was raised in Soviet Russia, or is this one of those marxist interpretations of one of her works? Btw if the people at large concentrated more on preventing unfair legislative support for the rich as they see it, instead of seeing the freedom to be rich in the first place as unfair legislative support and demanding unfair legislative support for the poor as the only counter to it, capitalism would probably work just fine.
Read the forward in Atlas Shrugged thats were it mentions her support of the October Revolution.
Rand is a lot like Reagan or Palin in that their supporters are more like adoring fans who selectively pay attention to the histories of these people instead of looking at the history as a whole.
My interest in the personal history of a philosopher is secondary to my interest in their philosophy. That's the main difference between me and the average supporter of Palin.
So you understand why Atlas Shrugged is a joke of a book?
EPT
I hope I am wrong...
