[Sixstrings]

Trailer: http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com/atlas ... ie-trailer

The website says "in theaters" April 15th, but the trailer has a low-budget feel to it. I wonder what counts as "in theaters," probably one or two. The studio is "The Strike Productions." Some of the special effects look good, but the actress playing Dagny Taggert is awful. So you can bet the editing is a mess too and the movie will stink.

Also, the trailer makes it out to be a thriller -- Atlas Shrugged should NOT be a triller. Another odd thing is that it appears to take place in the present or near future. So that's another miss.. today's America isn't the world of wealth-creating industrialists, beaten down by the socialist "man" as depicted in Rand's book.

To the contrary, today's wealth creating crowd are more interested in manufacturing algorithmic financial derivatives than building a transcontinental high-speed rail. Add to that Rand never addresses globalism.. so the reality she ignores is that our modern wealth creators are fleecing America and creating wealth somewhere else. Of course globalism didn't exist when she wrote the book, but really you'd think she should have seen that coming.

Overall this movie looks to be a mess.. and it's too bad, whether you agree or disagree with Rand, this *could* have been a a good movie.

Synopsis:

Atlas Shrugged Movie: Part I Film Synopsis
Dagny Taggart (Taylor Schilling) runs Taggart Transcontinental, the largest remaining railroad company in America, with intelligence, courage and integrity, despite the systematic disappearance of her best and most competent workers.

She is drawn to industrialist Henry Rearden (Grant Bowler), one of the few men whose genius and commitment to his own ideas match her own. Rearden's super-strength metal alloy, Rearden Metal, holds the promise that innovation can overcome the slide into anarchy.

Using the untested Rearden Metal, they rebuild the critical Taggart rail line in Colorado and pave the way for oil titan Ellis Wyatt (Graham Beckel) to feed the flame of a new American Renaissance.

Hope rises again, when Dagny and Rearden discover the design of a revolutionary motor based on static electricity - in an abandoned engine factory - more proof to the sinister theory that the "men of the mind" (thinkers, industrialists, scientists, artists, and other innovators) are "on strike" and vanishing from society.
Atlas Shrugged is a novel that has generated inspiration and controversy since its publication in 1957.

Its theme is the role of individual achievement in society and its goal is to demonstrate what can happen when individual achievement is undervalued, suppressed and demonized. Complex characters embody heroism and evil, in a plot that combines drama, mystery, romance, and science fiction - the result is ultimately inspirational, not apocalyptic.

Dagny Taggart is one of the finest female heroines in modern literature: intelligent, courageous, and as beautiful as she is strong. She is a rare screen example of life lived on one's own terms, for one's own values. Steel magnate Henry Rearden says, "My goal is to make money" with pride. He is an industrialist who improves the quality of life for all - and values his reward. Atlas Shrugged's villains are evil, but as familiar as our local neighbor - as they undercut and subvert talent and achievement.
Relevance Today - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged & Objectivism

Ask yourself: What would happen, if our producers disappear - Steve Jobs, Sergey Brin and other industrialists fall off the radar, their companies shuttered and their creative genius no longer powering America? The answer lies in Atlas Shrugged Part I.

For the millions around the world who have read Rand's books, for those curious about her controversial philosophy, and for the uninitiated, and skeptical - the film, which only covers the first third of the book, is an opportunity to a faithful adaptation.

Rand's unique literary genius - which we hope to make accessible to a broader audience via film - is to show the price to be paid by the individual and society when the tragic words "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" are carried out.
http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com/about

Oh, brother..

Ask yourself: What would happen, if our producers disappear - Steve Jobs, Sergey Brin and other industrialists fall off the radar, their companies shuttered and their creative genius no longer powering America? The answer lies in Atlas Shrugged Part I.

Hogwash.. Steve Jobs is NOT an industrialist. For China maybe, where all that iCrap is made, but he's no industrialist here in America. And Google, Facebook, and Twitter are great and all (twitter recently valued at $10 billion ) but I'm sorry, frickin' Twitter is NOT industry. These "industries" of today do not employ many people.. I've used Netflix before as an example. I forget the number, but they have very few employees and yet they've single-handedly put Blockbuster out of business. Similarly Google, Facebook, and Twitter employ a very tiny number of people.

Trying to apply Atlas Shrugged to the world of today is just silly. The only good thing about that book is just the general precautionary warning about too much socialism. But Rand doesn't realize too much capitalism (i.e. selfishness and anti-social greed) is just as bad.

[Lore]

It's a book and a set of idealistic views isolated in its own time and now very much passé just as modern capitalism is about to become.

[Sixstrings]

It's a book and a set of idealistic views isolated in its own time and now very much passé just as modern capitalism is about to become.

Exactly. If anything, the world of 2011 proves the failure of Rand's vision. It's great for China and all, but the book was written in English and English speakers are getting the short end of the globalist objectivist schtick (well except for Aus, NZ and Canada).

I never could finish that book, not a bad novel but she's WAY too wordy and the thing is a monstrous read. Some good parts though.. I still remember a scene about a cocktail party where some intelligentsia talk about limiting how many books each author can publish -- so that every author has a "fair chance." Rand is right on that, socialism can go way too far into the silly zone. You see this in parts of Europe.

BUT.. just because uber socialism is bad doesn't make un-checked capitalism good.

[green_achers]

Of course globalism didn't exist when she wrote the book, but really you'd think she should have seen that coming.

She was writing in the early 50s and couldn't even see that railroads wouldn't always be the major form of transportation in this country. She fails as a futurologist, a philosopher, an organizer, and most definitely as a writer. I made it about half way through the book before the wooden, stilted dialog and the telegraphed climax became too dreadful to bear.

[PrestonSturges]

OMG, this looks as bad as the "Left Behind" movie shot on the budget of a porn video where the Beast takes over the world (Toronto) with what seems to be six mall cops.

How excited are the wingnuts going to be over a struggle to build high speed rail?

They hate high speed rail more than anything!

Oh well, at least it will give the film makers a chance to pad the movie with stock footage and cheap CGI of choo-choos.

It will be interesting to watch them try to map Rand's vision onto anything corresponding to the real world, because she certainly doesn't seem to have got much of anything right compared to Jules Verne, H.G. Wells, or Karl Marx.

I also don't understand why they like Rand any way. I mean she writes about as well as Palin talks, and she was an atheist, and promiscuous, and her top priority would have been to line up everyone that follows Beck and have them shot.

[Sixstrings]

OMG, this looks as bad as the "Left Behind" movie shot on the budget of a porn video where the Beast takes over the world (Toronto) with what seems to be six mall cops.

Yeah, it has a "made in Toronto" feel.

I also don't understand why they like Rand any way. I mean she writes about as well as Palin talks, and she was an atheist, and promiscuous, and her top priority would have been to line up everyone that follows Beck and have them shot.

Well as I understand it, Rand's philosophy (objectivism) pretty much glorifies selfishness. I remember my philosophy professor years ago, saying in that grave dramatic voice of his how Atlas Shrugged "changed his life forever." Putting two and two together, he apparently did several things after reading the book: he became an agnostic (had been a devout Christian ), he left his wife, and quit social work (giving up on helping others).

So in that way, maybe for some Rand was the first of the self-help gurus -- telling people it's okay to drop all social obligations to pursue their own happiness. It's an attractive message: Greed Is Good. And I can't argue with that per se, if you want to leave your wife go ahead. But their ARE consequences to 300 million people running around just looking after their own happiness. Broken homes, screwed up kids, society a mess.

[Narz]

It's a book and a set of idealistic views isolated in its own time and now very much passé just as modern capitalism is about to become.

Concisely put.

[Ludi]

I have enjoyed this website about Rand and her work: http://www.aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/

The discussion about Ayn taking Social Security payments is especially delicious.

[Cog]

The fact that Ayn Rand is so hated here speaks of jealousy about talent and exceptionalism. Perhaps no one here has accomplished much in their lives and tearing down someone else's accomplishments makes them feel better about being losers. Long after the people on this board are forgotten about, Ayn Rand's name will still be known and her work discussed.

[nobodypanic]

The fact that Ayn Rand is so hated here speaks of jealousy about talent and exceptionalism. Perhaps no one here has accomplished much in their lives and tearing down someone else's accomplishments makes them feel better about being losers. Long after the people on this board are forgotten about, Ayn Rand's name will still be known and her work discussed.

she's a complete hack that took a superficial and utterly sophomoric interpretation of nietzsche (he's the one that'll be remembered) as inspiration.

if she weren't so readily taken as gospel by rabid free-market fundie, proto-fascists, she'd simply be funny.

and oh yeah, she's a bad writer too.

[Cog]

The fact that Ayn Rand is so hated here speaks of jealousy about talent and exceptionalism. Perhaps no one here has accomplished much in their lives and tearing down someone else's accomplishments makes them feel better about being losers. Long after the people on this board are forgotten about, Ayn Rand's name will still be known and her work discussed.

she's a complete hack that took a superficial and utterly sophomoric interpretation of nietzsche (he's the one that'll be remembered) as inspiration.

if she weren't so readily taken as gospel by rabid free-market fundie, proto-fascists, she'd simply be funny.

and oh yeah, she's a bad writer too.

Have your written anything read and appreciated by millions? Give me the link to it so I can adore your intelligence and deep thoughts.

[furrybill]

BUT.. just because uber socialism is bad doesn't make un-checked capitalism good.

Hear hear! Just about any system of thought breaks down when you push it to extremes non?

I'm reminded of recent studies indicating that the larger an executive's bonus is the less likely he is to work in the best interests of the company and/or shareholders but the more likely he is to do whatever is necessary to get the bonus.

On a related note, "The High Price of Materialism" by Kasser is a great read. One tidbit, paraphrased: the more materialistic you are the more likely you are to suffer from mental disorders...

But at the same time we can all agree that capitalism is an excellent way to stimulate innovation and hard work, and most of the time it's a great way to allocate resources.

Hopefully somebody out there either already has or is getting the NEXT GREAT IDEA that will provide an alternative to socialism and capitalism that somehow combines the best elements of both.

[Ludi]

Yep, we all suck compared to Ayn Rand. Unless you've done something yourself to the degree someone else has, you have no right to not like them. You're not allowed to have your own ethics or aesthetic values unless you have won a major award like a Pulitzer or Oscar.


<<<<<< helped other, more famous people, win major awards

[PrestonSturges]

The fact that Ayn Rand is so hated here speaks of jealousy about talent and exceptionalism. Perhaps no one here has accomplished much in their lives and tearing down someone else's accomplishments makes them feel better about being losers. Long after the people on this board are forgotten about, Ayn Rand's name will still be known and her work discussed.

Once upon a time it was possible to admit that some conservatives were just obnoxious and stupid. But now anyone that's obnoxious is just scarey brilliant and the victim of a conspiracy.

[Ludi]

But now anyone that's obnoxious is just scarey brilliant and the victim of a conspiracy jealousy.

[nobodypanic]

The fact that Ayn Rand is so hated here speaks of jealousy about talent and exceptionalism. Perhaps no one here has accomplished much in their lives and tearing down someone else's accomplishments makes them feel better about being losers. Long after the people on this board are forgotten about, Ayn Rand's name will still be known and her work discussed.

she's a complete hack that took a superficial and utterly sophomoric interpretation of nietzsche (he's the one that'll be remembered) as inspiration.

if she weren't so readily taken as gospel by rabid free-market fundie, proto-fascists, she'd simply be funny.

and oh yeah, she's a bad writer too.

Have your written anything read and appreciated by millions? Give me the link to it so I can adore your intelligence and deep thoughts.

which has exactly what to do with her complete inability to understand nietzsche and the fact that she compounded this bit of philosophical incompetence by building her ideas around it?

hack, i say.

[nobodypanic]

But at the same time we can all agree that capitalism is an excellent way to stimulate innovation and hard work, and most of the time it's a great way to allocate resources.

i don't agree at all.

[Newfie]

It's really funny, I'm a real left leaning guy and I read Rand just out of high school. At that time I had grown up in a very small town and really didn't have much perspective on the greater world. That's probably a gross understatement. But, my point is, I had only heard of Rand and had not listened to any particular point of view. All my friends were too high or drunk to have a point of view on any thing that didn't involve drugs, sex or rock and roll. So I formed my own opinions.

Perhaps it is that you hear what you want to hear but.....I heard a pretty humanist voice in Rand. I heard her rail against the bureaucracy that I too came to hate. I know others hear her preaching about capitalism but I hear her saying 'Let people do what they have to do to take care of themselves. Don't let the hangers on have power." Those are OK ideas by me. There was some other stuff I liked too, the idea that a man/woman has value by that which they can contribute to society seems pretty fair and even.

I know others hear a very different voice, this is the voice I hear. Perhaps I just hear what I want.

I will NOT see the movie. Uck!

[Outcast_Searcher]

But at the same time we can all agree that capitalism is an excellent way to stimulate innovation and hard work, and most of the time it's a great way to allocate resources.

i don't agree at all.

So what is your alternative? Redistributionism?

No system is perfect, especially since humans are involved. But if you think that, for example, the workers of the world are going to "unite" and create a utopia, because they want to hold hands and sing songs and make things better for their "fellow man", you (and Marx) are dreaming as much as (for example) the GOP hard right touting that cutting taxes by itself will solve all economic ills in the U.S.

[Outcast_Searcher]

[and oh yeah, she's a bad writer too.

Do you have anything specific to back that up, or are you mouthing soundbites by the many leftist idiots who can't stand to read a philosophy different than their own, so they attack the source? (I don't mind intelligent criticism backed by ideas or data, but just empty LAZY criticism about her writing only helps make one of her points).

The most common complaints about Rand's writing in novels like "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead" I've seen (seemingly endlessly), but almost always with little meaningful substance are:

1). One dimensional characters

2). Repetition


As one who has actually read much of her work, and related work, and carefully pondered it, I'm convinced that:

1). As to the first complaint, her characters are symbols. Especially the primary characters. They represent ideals. They are shown to CONSISTENTLY represent the concepts the symbols stand for.

Excellence, intelligence, a good work ethic, productivity, morality, and respect are some examples of values of her "good" or "heroic" symbols. Sloth, whining, and stupidity are examples of her "evil" symbols. Tellingly (IMO), greed and/or selfishness are attributes of both types of symbols -- in different contexts, of course.

All the supposed "literary experts" that fail to see this blindingly obvious concept make me believe that either THEY are the hacks, or that they let their political emotionalism override their brains (or their honesty) when reading/reviewing Rand.


2). Sadly, in most of the first world, the ideas of capitalism - of merit, of earning one's way, of building something to benefit the society which raised and protected you and your family -- are so alien and so roundly attacked by such a huge proportion of a society -- that, IMO, Rand needs to repetitively bash the reader over the head with the main ideas to have much of a chance of their getting through -- vs. the noise from those who want something for nothing. So she does - mercilessly.

The critics just fuss about this without even acknowledging the POSSIBILITY that there is a valid reason for it -- even if they disagree with it.

So again, I ask -- do you have any meaningful thoughts of your own on this backed by actual data or passages in her book(s)? Have you actually thoughtfully READ entire books of hers like "Shrugged", or are you just copying endless drivel from "whine-bites" from unhappy reviewers on places like Amazon?