f13.net

This looks absolutely, 100% horrific   :ye_gods:
Link to awful (http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com/atlas-shrugged-movie-trailer)



I'm reading this now and this trailer just made me literally nauseous.  And there wasn't enough smoking for it to be true to the book.

You missed the PART 1 at the end of the title.

Looks like a terribly dull movie, even aside from all the other stuff.

Looks of Syfy quality.  WTF was someone thinking?  The Neo-objectivist movement *finally* got their funding together after pooling for fifty years?

I'll pass.

Its Ayn Rand. It got the treatment it deserved.

No, the treatment it deserved would have had the production values of Plan 9 From Outer Space.

I disagree. It doesn't deserve to be so bad its good. It deserves the lower limit of mediocrity so that it vanishes in the ravages of time without ever being mentioned again. Just like the books of that "philosopher" should have.

And the director is considering part 3 as a musical. 

Yeah, that helps...

 :uhrr:

Well, it's hard to pool money when your sweat, blood and talent alone earned it in the first place!  :oh_i_see:

Oh and the movie looks stupid.

If they did the movie with the original setting with a film noir type interpretation this could actually be a decent movie.  The story is a good one, unless you let your politics get in the way.  It's particularly irritating to me when they try to modern up classic literature.  This is my first go-round with the book, and while I can see how people get all bent out of shape about it, end the end it's just a fictional story with some louts who very well could come from any political ideology.  

Edit:  And I understand that Rand is a highly polarizing figure.  I guess I just look at it as she came from early Soviet Russia and was influenced by the times.  If she was born today, her works might possibly be the exact opposite, considering the state of the world.

Rand is superhero porn for capitalists.

I think the book can be modernised relatively well, railways aside. But I shudder to think that this is only Part 1.

Part 3 is all monologue.

Oh god, that will be noting butJohn Galt basically talking for 100 minutes/pages about how everyone else sucks or something.

Actually, it was more like 200 pages.

Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

This is absolutely exactly what the book should get.

You guys are all being pretty negative. 90 minutes of movie about some chick deciding where to source the metal for her railway project, sounds like a dynamite script!

This really should have been a period piece, but there's a lot of bonegrinding over this and the producer came within two days of having an 18 year option on the film's rights expire. The parties left involved are literally incapable of providing the budget necessary for a period piece, so they're putting it in Dystopian America, 2016. A once great nation threatened by the HORRIFIC ECONOMIC PERIL of GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION and COLLECTIVE BARGAINING RIGHTS.

I got an email at work about this movie. Basically this chick sent me a link to a site that is trying to get the movie to play here, sort of like how Paranormal Activity had the whole "sign here to get the movie in your town!" thing going on. (I think it was PA that did that.)

If it wasn't a work email I'd have totally replied and ripped her a new one. As it is I simply deleted the email though I considered trying to find a way to get that site to the attention of some porn spammers or something.

If I were an Objectivist and I had the movie rights to Atlas Shrugged and I didn't have much budget, I'd do it extremely abridged and in the modern day. Replace steel and railroads with modern US corporate interests (software? weapons?), focus the sprawling plot to its barest essentials and push the government corruption, industrial espionage and suspense with only the barest hints of romance and philosophy. Even an in-depth adaptation shouldn't last more than two hours.

Other Objectivists would hate it, but they're a tiny minority and I'd be a fool to focus on their dollars. They're already on my side. By showing what Rand intended using subtler language and storytelling than she was capable of I might encourage a few uninitiated kindred spirits to pick up the book.

That said, if I were an Objectivist I'd be too spiritually blind and socially retarded to do anything of the sort.

The idea of subtler language in an Ayn Rand novel is  :roflcopter: :roffle: :headscratch:

Why is this set in modern times?

Probably a lot cheaper to costume, set build contemporary settings and not digitally take out telephone poles and cel towers.

Because Rand is hip to the modern vibe.

Why not make a movie about the importance of the pony express and set it in modern day New York?

Oh, or better yet, make a film about how gunpowder will change the face of the world set in Detroit while the character drives around his new American made car sponsored by Chrystler. Eminem can do the theme. Hannah Montana can play the lovable daughter who tries to teach her parents about the importance of gunpowder by using her Iphone.

Ayn Rand would have been a complete shit of a human being in any possible world. Read up on her life some time.

Anybody who thinks Atlas Shrugged has a good story, or isn't particularly political, probably would read Das Kapital and think it was a textbook for an economics course.

Rand would suggest that the ponies are parasites and that True Men and Women could do the job better, if only the Horse Union would stop interfering with them.

This is a red herring.  Rand fans have never argued she wasn't political.  Her writings are heavily ideological to even the dimmest reader.

LOL

I mean that trailer is just LOL funny

it's like an earnest version of a Hallmark TV movie with capitalists.

I'd put this on the shelves right next to Battlefield Earth for subtlety and intent. 

Agreed, but I think with some finesse one could wring a good story into an Atlas Shrugged movie while still keeping just enough of the philosophy to intrigue the proto-Randian audience and get them to pick up the book. In its current condition, it'll only preach to the choir and efforts by that choir to inflict the movie (or the movie trilogy) to their friends will only result in further alienation.

LOL indeed.

There's value to be had in the book, but digging it out from all the babble is time-consuming.

I think I'm going to make a pamphlet of Francisco's Money Speech, the part of John Galt's speech where he blasts the concept of "Original Sin", and a few other excerpts and call it good.

A movie? Should be craptastic.

Oh god, I just saw an ad for this on a page with the release date.

April 15th.

Fucking tax day.

Since the god damn teapartiers are all going to take that day off to picket and demand Obama's birth certificate, they should have ample time to head to the theater and catch a matinee.

Tax day's the 18th this year.

Apparently the government is taking the 15th off because Emancipation Day falls on a weekend. Never heard of it? You wouldn't because it's basically a bullshit reason for DC not to work they made up in 2005.

If I didn't get the memo (being the one of the world's worst tax procrastinators) you can be damn sure the teapartiers planning their "rallies" didn't get it either.

And I am still doing my taxes this weekend, regardless.

Check upthread for someone arguing it's a good story and not particularly political.

Well so far its standing at a whopping 7% at Rotten Tomatoes (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/atlas_shrugged_part_i/)

As ever, much entertainment from reading the comments. The Randians are out in force.

The free market at work.

And of course the one positive review comes from the New York Post.

Best movie review evar.

I did not read the article or click the link, but I saw this headline on CNN's frontpage when I was perusing the interwebs this afternoon in a lull at work:

Dating site for 'Atlas Shrugged' fans (http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,2065348,00.html?hpt=Sbin)

 :ye_gods:

Ayn Rand's face would not be my first choice to launch a dating site.

for just like a hundred sixty dollars you too can own this ugly as sin bracelet ~*from the movie*~

http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com/bracelet




also, the objectivists are out in force, with a couple of groups turfing comments and user ratings and posting obviously fake stories about packed theatres and cheers at the end for more.

"lol" - Socrates

I love it.  I wish I had less moral fiber so I, too, could make money off of telling idiots how unique and special they were and how only they, the chosen, could really understand the message.   It's worked for thousands of years and will continue to for thousands more.

It's down to 5%. While I believe in capitalism, I wouldn't see a movie to promote an agenda. That's for dumbasses who stage protests to get on the news.

Objectivism does not equal Capitalism, though.

Objectivism might be a way to convice yourself that Capitalism is an ethic way to behave. But Capitalism per se does not need that legitimacy to work (or as it seems right now not work, but thats a different discussion).

Edit: Lets put it this way. Most Capitalists are fine with everybody knowing they are greedy bastards, but Objectivists have the gall to think everybody should thank them for it as well...

If this movie is as bad as everyone's suggesting, I bet it'd make a great Rifftrax.

But it's got an 85% user rating.  :awesome_for_real:

Stef and I saw it Friday night, 7:15pm show.  We showed up at about 7:25 and the theater was actually full, so we sat in the handicap seats with plenty of leg room.

It was actually pretty good, the only acting that really bothered me was brother Taggart, the rest did a decent job.  We both liked the movie on it's face, not 'well it was really good for a 10M budget and being shot in 37 days!', it was entertaining.

People did actually applaud at the end.  I never understand why people do that, no matter how great. So we left quickly to avoid the crowd, and our stolen gimp seats let us do that.

But yeah, not actually as bad as I was expecting from the trailer.  Worth seeing imo.

 :-o

If the rotten tomatoes reviews didn't scare me off, Nerf's sure did.   :why_so_serious:

Was I the only person who had Nerf on the (very very short) list of posters who might actually see this?

No.

I can think of three more people here who are also possible carriers.

About as accurate a review of atlas shrugged if ever there was one.

It would have been much higher, but about one in five turfed reviews seems to have accidentally given it zero stars. Those posts are sad and it would be interesting to see how many of those posters only had one review and it was for AS. The level of back-patting and "only the chosen will get it and everyone else is to stupid, and reviewers don't like it because they're not allowed" is off the chart.

The coments for the tacky as fuck bracelet are pretty great though. My personal favorite is the guy complaining that the exact components of the metal its made of are unknown and it's described as an "Aluminium alloy". "What's it alloyed with? It could be 50% lead for all we know". Indeed sir, it could. If only there were some sort of entity that had an agency that was empowered to regulate and inspect the attributes of things, apply some sort of standards, determine their safety, and then make all that information known. If only... Oh, and that same guy wanted to know if thesy were really made in the USA, why do they use the British "Aluminium". 

 :heart:

i'm making the drinking game once I can see it.

Official title: "Atlas chugged"

I hope you posted that.  :awesome_for_real:

I hear its made 1.7 million in the Box office and Parts 2 and 3 have officially been canceled. No links to confirm though.

Revisiting the gaudy jewelry thread, it seems there's quite a problem with the cheap clasps breaking randomly and the things being lost. Objectivism, is there anything you can make more delicious than just desserts?

See, I think Ayn Rand was a crackpot, and haven't read the books, but I'd love to see a film version of Atlas Shrugged that gives it to us with both barrels. At least it can be entertainingly bombastic, and not just a terrible movie, made due to Hollywood shenanigans, that just happens to be based on Atlas Shrugged. That's just sad, and happens all the time. Nothing noteworthy.

"The bourgeoisie will eat the legs out from their own table."

So I finally watched this because I had nothing better to do.

Dear God. It's not even full of stars. It's full of bad acting, though. Really, really bad acting. And having read the book almost 20 years ago, I didn't then at my young impressionable age realize how fucking awful the dialog is. It is wretched. The changes they made to force fit the story into a modern context not only don't really make a whole lot of sense, they just accentuate the stupidity of the whole thing. It's hilarious watching bad actors play pampered entitled rich people throwing a fit because "IT'S MINE!" is the highest moral platitude they can come up with.

I bought the DVD, and then it popped up on Netflix.  :uhrr: Watched about the first 15 minutes, got terribly bored and turned it off.

Don't you have a local crack dealer?

What can I say, I like watching shitty movies. Especially if they highlight just how bad Ayn Rand's work really is.

 :ye_gods:

Meh. I own dumber movies. Like the new Star Trek.  :grin:

Arooga! Arooga! Incoming Nerd rage!!

You could reduce Atlas Shrugged to a pamphlet:

1. Francisco's Money Speech (http://capitalismmagazine.com/2002/08/franciscos-money-speech/)
2. Francisco talking to Rearden about self-esteem and sex (http://occasionalpoetinresidence.blogspot.com/2011/04/francisco-danconias-speech-to-hank.html)
3. John Galt on Original Sin (http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/galt.htm).

Those are the three pieces that resonated with me the most, anyway. YMMV.

That'd be a big-ass pamphlet.

Ayn never makes anything brief. I'll summarize:

1. "...men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity–to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words ‘to make money’ hold the essence of human morality."

2.  "...a man’s sexual choice is the result and the sum of his fundamental convictions. Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy on life. Show me the woman he sleeps with and I will tell you his valuation of himself."

3. "Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge - he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil - he became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor - he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire - he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joy - all the cardinal values of his existence."

Which is probably why she went completely berserk when the man who she had been having an affair with, and to whom she dedicated Atlas Shrugs, fulfilled his selfish moral purpose by unceremoniously dumping her via a letter.  :grin: Which caused a massive scandal as the guy had set up the Objectivist foundation

I think that's the trouble with objectivism in a nutshell: The fundamental attribution error.

It's easy to believe that the subjective values you assign people, objects, and activities are objectively true aspects of those things. We love to assign snap-judgements without understanding the complexity of a situation. If you never actually talk to anybody who doesn't agree with you, "A is A" is obvious and comforting.

But we hate to be judged that way. When somebody assigns a low value to us, to our habits, to our friends and family, or to our treasured belongings, it hurts like hell. Their judgment is obviously subjective. Those bastards don't understand my history with these things, the secret inner lives of these people, or just how crucial or enjoyable my habits are. My subjective understanding of myself and the things I love, makes everybody else's subjective view objectively wrong... all without making my views objectively right.

In almost every way that matters in the lives and interactions of real people there is no A.

(http://www.mythicjourneys.org/images/matrix_spoon_boy.jpg)

One could believe humans are not objects with properties.

Consider humans with properties are ones that just limit who they and others are.

Also see Reacher Gilt in Going Postal.

Well sure but, as many have observed, one does not get very far in the world without treating people like things. It is only the few proud psychopaths who can completely disregard the humanity of their fellows -- and use them as tools, stepping stones, or piñatas -- who reach the highest echelons of power. The sympathy and sacrifice of the multitudes are the traits these men exploit in order to further their goals. Rand believed sacrificial morality had become so widespread that it had allowed immoral but weak men to rise to power on the backs of men who were strong but moral... so one irony of Rand's ideas (perhaps the least surprising) is that they are foundationally Marxist.

Despite differing political stripes she would find much agreement in the writing of Paolo Friere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedagogy_of_the_oppressed), especially when he urges us to always strive to be subjects rather than objects: Those who act, rather than those who are acted upon.

Two Marxist idealists who ultimately wanted very similar classless societies, but with very different ideas of how to reach them. Rather than redefining strength from that of the individual to that the community, Rand redefined morality from the sympathetic to the selfish.

Or we're still just a ridiculous savage ape species that has grown just enough culture to substitute being a complete amoral sociopath in business/personal relations for caving eachothers heads in with rocks.

It's like someone read Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil and thought it was great but was far too well written and needed to be more about money.