NationStates Jolt Archive

Just a general question, since I want some opinions about something. Being a Libertarian and somewhat of an Objectivist myself, I don't care if you want to yelp about Ayn Rand and how horrible she is and how greed = evil omg. Because I honestly don't care.
But, well...they're making a movie of it.
Yes. A movie.
I'm hoping for a trilogy at least, because of the length and details, but there aren't any promises...

So. My main concern here is...casting! Who would you like to see in what role? I have my opinions, but I'd rather not post them here for fear that anyone's in the process of reading the book.
So, I guess this should be fair warning:



...SPOILERS MAY BE CONTAINED WITHIN THIS THREAD.
Thank you.

Jack Black should play Ayn Rand. Just because.

I haven't read the book. Just looked at the cover once on my way to the bathroom.

I own it, but have not yet read it. How good a novel is it? I've heard it's just like a serise of essays in quotes. I've read most of her non-fiction, will I just be getting the same thing in the form of dialague, or is there a gripping story there that I'll enjoy reading?

Jack Black should play Ayn Rand. Just because.

I haven't read the book. Just looked at the cover once on my way to the bathroom.

Jack Black should never play anyone. Ever. Haha.

I own it, but have not yet read it. How good a novel is it? I've heard it's just like a serise of essays in quotes. I've read most of her non-fiction, will I just be getting the same thing in the form of dialague, or is there a gripping story there that I'll enjoy reading?

There's actually a very good plot that kept me turning page after page after page after...you get the idea. It's a long book, and there are some long (some would say boring) speeches and things in the middle of some of the story's most compelling character-conflicts and things...but all-in-all, I enjoyed it way too much to say anything but thumbs-up.

That "i thought chicken of the sea was a chicken that lived in the ocean" actress should play ayn rand.

Dennis Hastert should play the book's protagonist.

That "i thought chicken of the sea was a chicken that lived in the ocean" actress should play ayn rand.

Dennis Hastert should play the book's protagonist.

Ohgodno.

Especially considering that Ayn Rand wasn't in the book?
Erg.

Well, they made a movie out of The Fountainhead, so why not? Not sure if the Fountainhead movie was any good though.. I haven't seen it.

I've read Atlas Shrugged.. I think a movie version could be interesting, but the end would be sort of tough to pull off. It's kinda far-fetched, but with an inventive script or maybe some changes, it could flow smoothly out of the first half.. maybe.

Well, they made a movie out of The Fountainhead, so why not? Not sure if the Fountainhead movie was any good though.. I haven't seen it.

I've read Atlas Shrugged.. I think a movie version could be interesting, but then end would be sort of tough to pull off. It's kinda far-fetched, but with an inventive script or maybe some changes, it could flow smoothly out of the first half.. maybe.

Yeah...I just hope they break it up into more than one movie. If they don't, it's going to be nearly impossible to get everything in, just because just about everything in that book is fairly important.
I'm mainly wanting to chit-chat about casting choices, though...no one has yet to agree with me about my choice for Dagny.
(Mainly because I believe that anyone would be better for the part than Angelina Jolie, who has expressed interest in it. Ugh.)

There used to be a John Galt Cafe in Denver, but I think it went out of business.

I've read it and I really can't see it being a movie.

(Mainly because I believe that anyone would be better for the part than Angelina Jolie, who has expressed interest in it. Ugh.)
Wha...what?

There used to be a John Galt Cafe in Denver, but I think it went out of business.

I know there's a John Galt Staffing around here that hires for construction.
Went out of business? ....Fail.

Wha...what?

My sentiments, exactly.

I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of shit I'm never reading again!

I read it in seventh grade. I don't remember much of it now though, and I don't particularly recall enjoying it.

I have mixed feelings about it (I sort of read part of it but then stopped) because while I have an overall libertarian view of the role of government, there are some things like her view of religion, I take issue to.

I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of shit I'm never reading again!

Are you reading this?
Good.
You just broke your vow.

I have mixed feelings about it (I sort of read part of it but then stopped) because while I have an overall libertarian view of the role of government, there are some things like her view of religion, I take issue to.

Examples, please? I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here.

Have you read the book? It makes religion appear to be completely absurd. She makes it appear as though if you believe in a higher being, such as God, then you are under its authority and hence you are being controlled by someone else and are not in control of your own life. I'm sorry, I don't have the book with me at the moment.

Have you read the book? It makes religion appear to be completely absurd. She makes it appear as though if you believe in a higher being, such as God, then you are under its authority and hence you are being controlled by someone else and are not in control of your own life. I'm sorry, I don't have the book with me at the moment.

Yes, I've read the book...why would I be posting this if I hadn't?
What Rand was getting at is more like...well, let's put it this way. Have you ever heard someone say that to give up earthly riches is a moral and just thing in the eyes of the Lord? Okay...then why make the riches? If you don't work and you're poor, are you moral?
But, then, how do you survive? By people's handouts and charity.
Charity coming from people unwilling to pay it (e.g. welfare and social security) is not charity at all.

So...you're stealing.
Is that moral?

Same thing. She didn't condemn all religion in one fell swoop, although I believe she disliked it...I do, too, but I don't hate anyone for their religious views. I just don't like what some religious beliefs result in.

Listen, I'm not in favor of welfare. I'm a capitalist but I'm also a Christian. The way I see it is that, despite how some people view it, you do not have to give up earthly wealth in order for God to "accept" you. Infact, if everyone were in a poor, desolate state, then no one could help each other. If people were in such a wretched state on earth, just to please God, then I doubt that it would simply be content and say the people have understood my message. I know priests and nuns do this but I think you can be both successful on earth and be a decent christian, if your actions show that.

I understand this concept you speak of and it is the precise reason I left my old church because of it promotion of this poor life on earth in order to obtain the riches of heaven. I see where that thinking leads and it isn't anywhere good.

For some reason I'm really partial to the idea of this movie being an animated one; for some reason I'm fond of that medium and I think it's a good way around some of the character roles everyone seems to be fearing for certain characters. The geometry of Galt's face, for instance, is pretty important [the "angular planes" and such are meant to indicate his tendancy towards the man-made as opposed to the circuity of nature and what-not] and I have a hard time imagining who could assume this role.

That said, I will still offer my suggestions from a live-action standpoint, since if it IS ever produced it certainly won't be animated anyway: and besides, live action is more fun to speculate anyway.

I'm currently favoring Clive Owen for Galt; perhaps not so much on virtue of his appearance [the particulars of which can be handled fairly well with makeup], although it's close enough. To me, the defining measure of this particular pick is his voice: Owen delivers his lines in a manner which I have not seen in many other actors; he speaks with a certain clarity in every role I've seen him in to date, and that's very important for Galt. I can't believe anyone would suggest Christian Bale with a straight face.

I really like Sean Bean for Galt too; Sean Bean has a certain air about him I've always liked and he also has a voice I've liked--I particularly enjoyed the way he delivered the best line in Fellowship: "It's strange that we should suffer so much fear and doubt over so small a thing"--for some reason that [and Owen's] is the kind of voice I'd imagine for Galt.

I like Sam Neil for Rearden. Don't know how to qualify this any further; I just do. another possibility I like is the builked-up Mickey Rourke a la Sin City

Dagny's a tricky one. From what I can remember of her physical description, she's good looking, but not too good looking. We also have to remember to scale her age appropriately with Taggart's [my suggestion for him will follow shortly], so the age discrepancy shouldn't be so great as to prevent us from believing that the two characters came out of the same woman. From what I've seen so far I'm liking Jodie Foster, and can't think of anything better although if there's a better suggestion I'll know it when I see it.

Ragnar is a tough one, but I really like the Viggo Mortensen angle here. I know Rand characterized Ragnar as being uber-beautiful, but if we want to follow too closely for that we'll just end up with some pretty-boy. If we wanted to follow convention [eww] we could always go with Orlando Bloom, but I think he's a tad too young--and I don't think anyone in the audience could ever be made to believe he went to college at the same time as Clive Owen, who is infinately more age-appropriate in the first place.

I have no idea who could or should play Francisco, so I'm going to go with a really oddball pick here; you might laugh at first, but he has a really flexible look, and with the right makeup work and character direction, he could do it. Brace yourselves: Johnny Depp.

James Taggart should be played by David Huddleston; the guy who played the Big Lebowski in... uhh... The Big Lebowski. This is one of the picks I refuse to budge on; it's goddamn perfect.

I like Morgan Freeman as Askton; he's probably the most cerebral character in the book and Freeman is always really good at coming off as a good thinker-type. In Bruce Almighty, he did a better job of convincing me that God really exists than the Bible could ever hope to do.

Anthony Hopkins should be Richard Halley; nice and aged and distinctive; probably looks really good in a tuxedo too.

I like Ed Norton for Eddie Willers. Ed Norton kicks ass. Might have to age him a few years but he works.

If he pulls off the Ceasare Borga role [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0358241/] Colin Farrell may have the chops neccessary to be our Ellis Wyatt. If not, I may have to revise this pick. He's sort of on the fence, but his performance in Minority Report was good; seemed similar personality-wise too.

For Midas Mulligan, I'm all about Bruce McGill--the guy who played the boxing promoter in Cinderella Man.

Now for the villains [exceptiing Taggart who I've already covered]:

Alan Rickman for Dr. Ferris.

Ian Holm for Stadler. I think he'd do a good job of losing his mind near the end.

Alex Norton for Wesley Mouch. Can't find a pic of him offhand, but he's a sort of pudgy, balding bookish-looking type dude. He was in Patriot Games and The Count of Monte Cristo--he played Dennis Cooley and Napoleon, respectively. I'm told hes in the Pirates sequal coming out this week, but I am unaware in what capacity.

I think Philip Seymour Hoffman would make a good Mr. Mowen. I had suggsted him to myself originally as Orren Boyle, but Hoffman is a little too sly for that, I think.

Now I might be a bit biased with this next pick, but Bertram Scudder is the worst character in the book to me--I've found him so far to be the most consistently irritating, obnoxious and depraved character: I dont want anyone who watches this movie to take him seriously so if I were producing this I'd write an obscenely large check to Gilbert Godfried and hope he'd jump aboard for something of a pseudoserious role. Intellectually, he [Scudder] is what I consider to be the comic relief anyway; his ideas are so ridiculous that my mind almost refuses to consider anyone else for the role.

Geoffrey Rush is my pick for Orren Boyle, since he's not exactly a face you could get attached to, and he's a good enough actor to not screw up the role. He's also a pretty good villain in Pirates of the Carribean [he was Barbossa], so I'm pretty confident with this one. Completely age appropriate too.

I think that just about covers it; if I left anyone out I'm sure I'll rush back here to add my two cents.

Jack Black should never play anyone. Ever. Haha.
Surely, even Nacho Libre can be forgiven...

Listen, I'm not in favor of welfare. I'm a capitalist but I'm also a Christian. The way I see it is that, despite how some people view it, you do not have to give up earthly wealth in order for God to "accept" you. Infact, if everyone were in a poor, desolate state, then no one could help each other. If people were in such a wretched state on earth, just to please God, then I doubt that it would simply be content and say the people have understood my message. I know priests and nuns do this but I think you can be both successful on earth and be a decent christian, if your actions show that.

I understand this concept you speak of and it is the precise reason I left my old church because of it promotion of this poor life on earth in order to obtain the riches of heaven. I see where that thinking leads and it isn't anywhere good.
Heehee. You're silly. Try reading some New Testament. Like Matthew 19:16-24
Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"
"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."
"Which ones?" the man inquired.
Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'"
"All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?"
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Yes, selling possessions is horrible and wrong because then everyone would be poor... and why is poor bad? I thought Jesus said that earthly possessions were the bad thing? Hey, wait a minute, Jesus didn't think so highly of wealth! Maybe some rethinking is in order. Just because your old church was following Jesus' teachings doesn't mean you should leave. Maybe you should listen.

Who is ann rand?

Surely, even Nacho Libre can be forgiven...


Heehee. You're silly. Try reading some New Testament. Like Matthew 19:16-24

Yes, selling possessions is horrible and wrong because then everyone would be poor... and why is poor bad? I thought Jesus said that earthly possessions were the bad thing? Hey, wait a minute, Jesus didn't think so highly of wealth! Maybe some rethinking is in order. Just because your old church was following Jesus' teachings doesn't mean you should leave. Maybe you should listen.

The Prosperity Gospel, which I'm sure you've heard of. My old church was a bunch of socialist who believed welfare was a good thing and prayed for unions.

I think that just about covers it; if I left anyone out I'm sure I'll rush back here to add my two cents.

I knew it! I knew it and I almost posted it but got distracted!

I almost said, "Hey just wait for Melkor to show up" .... damn damn damn ...

Oh well. Nice work, though. :D

Though I'd place Gary Oldman as Stadler.

Who is ann rand?

Robert McNamara's boyfriend.

Who is ann rand?

She's a batshit insane "writer-philosopher." I use both of those terms lightly, because she wasn't really competent at either. Few, if any, academics take her seriously because of the utter nonsense most of her philosophy comprises and the drab mediocrity of her writing style.

1. Foremost, she's not an actual academician, although she and her pretensious randroid followers would have you believe otherwise. Her philosophy is essentially a secular cult resembling Scientology. It's a closed-system situated around the personality of Ayn Rand and her heir Leonard Peikof.

2. Basically, all her writings are literary representations of her completely inane philosophy, which is basically LOLbertarianism, but five-hundred times more extreme. The book doesn't even read like an actual novel, for every 5 pages, one of the 2-D, unrealistic characters bursts out into a 30 page philosophical diatribe. To make an analogy, her writing is like watching a musical where people randomly burst into song; in her case, her characters randomly burst into long, boring speeches that only serve to promote Objectivism.

3. A good example of all of this is Atlas Shrugged-- her "masterpiece" writing. More on topic of this thread, it's good, of course, only if you like Objectivism and long, drawn-out pseudo-philosophy dressed up as academics. The entire book is just one huge set of Objectivist talking points. As such, her books and writings are all horrible bifurcations of reality. essentially she paints one side as "the flawless, heroic white knights" and the other side as "the eeeeeeeeeeeevil, horribly moronic collectivists." Her characters, just like the plot, are 2-D cardboard cutouts of actual people. This again relates to her philosophy, which scores points by taking reality and actual definitions and distorting them until they are no longer recognizable.

4. Briefly mentioned above, few take her seriously in the academic world, because her ideas are not based on any actual sound philosophy, and she never actually pushes her philosophy in any credible, independent peer review system, unlike ACTUAL academics. What she instead does is create books for popular consumption; her heirs almost exclusively publish in their own "journals." Those few people who actually taut her greatness are other Objectivist robots who buy into her personality cult or her sychophantic heirs.


5. When Ayn Rand speaks of "Objectivity" and "Rationality" what she really means is "whatever Ayn Rand says is rational, is rational. What Ayn Rand doens't like, is eeeeeeeeeeevil."

Therefore, if you like really thick, preachy, and unacademic pseudo-philsophy with horribly written, boring plots and cardboard characters who burst into 30 pages speeches all the time (John "yawn" Galt), by all means--read Atlas Shrugged and become a Randroid.

I hate Ayn Rand and "Objectivism" which is anything BUT objective, unless you count whatever Rand says as "the objective truth."

Ahahaha! Are you serious? They're going to make it a movie?! Jesus, it'll end up being Battlefield Earth all over again.

I'll admit the book has some merits, but it's got some pretty fucking huge plot holes, ridiculous stereotyping, several key plot points which are now dated and obsolete thanks to modern technology and looooooong boring ass speeches which would be murder for cinema. This book suffers much the same problem as "100 Years of Solitude"; it is just physically impossible to get a decent film out of it.

My father once told me that Ayn Rand was what libertarians masturbated to every night. Well, I couldn't resist that description, but I read Anthem and then The Fountainhead and kinda got the whole idea (as I was being beaten over the head with it, page after page), and decided to not read any more Rand.

She's a batshit insane "writer-philosopher." I use both of those terms lightly, because she wasn't really competent at either. Few, if any, academics take her seriously because of the utter nonsense most of her philosophy comprises and the drab mediocrity of her writing style.

1. Foremost, she's not an actual academician, although she and her pretensious randroid followers would have you believe otherwise. Her philosophy is essentially a secular cult resembling Scientology. It's a closed-system situated around the personality of Ayn Rand and her heir Leonard Peikof.

2. Basically, all her writings are literary representations of her completely inane philosophy, which is basically LOLbertarianism, but five-hundred times more extreme. The book doesn't even read like an actual novel, for every 5 pages, one of the 2-D, unrealistic characters bursts out into a 30 page philosophical diatribe. To make an analogy, her writing is like watching a musical where people randomly burst into song; in her case, her characters randomly burst into long, boring speeches that only serve to promote Objectivism.

3. A good example of all of this is Atlas Shrugged-- her "masterpiece" writing. More on topic of this thread, it's good, of course, only if you like Objectivism and long, drawn-out pseudo-philosophy dressed up as academics. The entire book is just one huge set of Objectivist talking points. As such, her books and writings are all horrible bifurcations of reality. essentially she paints one side as "the flawless, heroic white knights" and the other side as "the eeeeeeeeeeeevil, horribly moronic collectivists." Her characters, just like the plot, are 2-D cardboard cutouts of actual people. This again relates to her philosophy, which scores points by taking reality and actual definitions and distorting them until they are no longer recognizable.

4. Briefly mentioned above, few take her seriously in the academic world, because her ideas are not based on any actual sound philosophy, and she never actually pushes her philosophy in any credible, independent peer review system, unlike ACTUAL academics. What she instead does is create books for popular consumption; her heirs almost exclusively publish in their own "journals." Those few people who actually taut her greatness are other Objectivist robots who buy into her personality cult or her sychophantic heirs.


5. When Ayn Rand speaks of "Objectivity" and "Rationality" what she really means is "whatever Ayn Rand says is rational, is rational. What Ayn Rand doens't like, is eeeeeeeeeeevil."

Therefore, if you like really thick, preachy, and unacademic pseudo-philsophy with horribly written, boring plots and cardboard characters who burst into 30 pages speeches all the time (John "yawn" Galt), by all means--read Atlas Shrugged and become a Randroid.

I hate Ayn Rand and "Objectivism" which is anything BUT objective, unless you count whatever Rand says as "the objective truth."
So basically, you're saying she's a pre-modern Ann Coulter.

So basically, you're saying she's a pre-modern Ann Coulter. She's slightly more sane, seeing as she doesn't propose we kill the heads of states of nations we don't like and convert their populations to Christianity.

But, well...they're making a movie of it.
I read it, I thought it was great. Many people don't like it, but I thought it was one of the best books I've read for some time. Really made me think too, even though I was trying my hardest to just call it a strawman.

But a movie? No, that'll be a monumental failure. It's a philosophy book, you can't make a movie out of it. And if Hollywood is making it, it'll be even worse.

She's slightly more sane, seeing as she doesn't propose we kill the heads of states of nations we don't like and convert their populations to Christianity.
Well, yeah, that's why I said "pre-modern" -- y'know, before hyperbole became stock-and-trade.

Who is John Galt?




































Clive Owen, if Melkor gets to choose...

Someone bring back a young Omar Sharif.

I would marry Ayn Rand if I lived in the 40s. :D

I love Ayn Rand's books, because anybody who reads them is totally insufferable for at least two weeks afterwards. :)

Just a general question, since I want some opinions about something. Being a Libertarian and somewhat of an Objectivist myself, I don't care if you want to yelp about Ayn Rand and how horrible she is and how greed = evil omg. Because I honestly don't care.
But, well...they're making a movie of it.
Yes. A movie.
I'm hoping for a trilogy at least, because of the length and details, but there aren't any promises...

So. My main concern here is...casting! Who would you like to see in what role? I have my opinions, but I'd rather not post them here for fear that anyone's in the process of reading the book.
So, I guess this should be fair warning:



...SPOILERS MAY BE CONTAINED WITHIN THIS THREAD.
Thank you.

They'd be better off making a movie out of Proust's Remembrance of Things Past.

The only way I see this working is if they cut out 99% of the preaching, rewrite the entire political scenario ("People's State of Norway", indeed! The way things are going, the "Islamic Republic of Norway" would be more believable), and come up with some credible characterizations, at the least.

That having been said, I agree with Jodie Foster as Dagny.

And they better keep that final gesture from the book, it'd make the whole movie :D

Considering that the characters are all completely one-dimensional, any actor or actress could play any part in the book. Some of the characters are described as being attractive, so I suppose you would actually need attractive actors and actresses, but that's about it.

Provided you accept Atlas Shrugged as a political/economic/social diatribe rather than a novel, it's O.K. In fact, some of her later comments show that this is exactly how Rand felt it should be considered.

So, it should be considered more along the lines of The Communist Manifesto, The Federalist Papers, or The Wealth of Nations. And there, frankly, I think it makes a good account of itself.

As to how they're going to do a movie - god help us! (And this from an atheist!)

No one has made a better suggetstion than mine yet.

"chicken of the sea" girl for Ayn Rand

Dennis Hastert for the book's protagonist.

Its refreshing to see that I'm about the only one that's actually bothered to stay on topic. I have a few less than pleasant words for a few people, namely Technokratishe Staaten, who has exhibited a stunning ignorance of Objectivism; but I shall reserve such comments until a thread that is appropriate for them appears.

If you want to dicuss the nuances of Objectivism or to explain why its right or why it's BS, please do so in another thread. This thread is about casting the movie, not discussing the philosophy itself.

If anyone wants to take me on, feel free. Until then, please stay on topic.

I love Ayn Rand's books, because anybody who reads them is totally insufferable for at least two weeks afterwards. :)
Absolutely true. Most then they come out of it, like being deprogrammed from an abduction into a cult.

As for casting, I'd second Jodie Foster and Omar Sharif, but since the latter is dead, perhaps Alexander Siddig for the same basic feel?

Just think of her as the ANTI CHOMSKI....:D They are both insufferable clowns with more hang ups than a bad cell phone .

I own it, but have not yet read it. How good a novel is it? I've heard it's just like a serise of essays in quotes. I've read most of her non-fiction, will I just be getting the same thing in the form of dialague, or is there a gripping story there that I'll enjoy reading?
It's a dangerous book to read. You should probably avoid it and just look at the pictures. The book may cause you to start questioning the role of government in private industry. I think that may be uncomfortable for you.

If anyone wants to take me on, feel free. Until then, please stay on topic.

Hey I offered an alternate actor to your Stadler. :p

It's a dangerous book to read. You should probably avoid it and just look at the pictures. The book may cause you to start questioning the role of government in private industry. I think that may be uncomfortable for you.

Accully, I've read The Foutainhead, as well as her non-fiction quite extensively.
I don't find them (or any book) dangerous, and I don't know why you believe it would be "uncomfertable" for me to "start questioning the roll of government in private industry."

Have me and you had some past conversation or debate that I don't remember, or were your remarks directed to the public at large, rather than me specifically?

Accully, I've read The Foutainhead, as well as her non-fiction quite extensively.
I don't find them (or any book) dangerous, and I don't know why you believe it would be "uncomfertable" for me to "start questioning the roll of government in private industry."

Have me and you had some past conversation or debate that I don't remember, or were your remarks directed to the public at large, rather than me specifically?

Condescension: Pour Homme.

Currently I'm in the process of reading Atlas Shrugged. I'm in the 550's, of a 1070 page volume. Very enjoyable to read, although it becomes painful at times because of the actions of people like Bertram Scudder and Wesley Mouch. I see Dagny Taggart and Hank Rearden being constantly abused by dishonesty and corruption and I internalize it. I actually had to put the book down for a week to cool off at one point.

A film version could be awesome or it could suck. A trilogy would be required. Give each part of the trilogy over to one of the three parts of the book. Give each film the part's name as a subtitle.

Atlas Shrugged: Non-Contradiction
Atlas Shrugged: Either-Or
Atlas Shrugged: A is A

Jack Black should never play anyone. Ever. Haha.
Macho Libre!
I tihnk he should have been the new superman, although i suppose he isn't the most aerodynamic shape.

Accully, I've read The Foutainhead, as well as her non-fiction quite extensively.
I don't find them (or any book) dangerous, and I don't know why you believe it would be "uncomfertable" for me to "start questioning the roll of government in private industry."

Have me and you had some past conversation or debate that I don't remember, or were your remarks directed to the public at large, rather than me specifically?
It's a generic you. The specific you just asked the right question. And dangerous may have needed scare quotes. I think I got started just a little too early this morning.

I have read it. It's a quick read. I remember when I finished with it the first thing I thought was that I have never been so clumsily or blatantly beaten over the head with a philosophical concept. The straw man she creates and then sets out to destroy is so unbelievable that you can't take her seriously. Even when you want to be sympathetic to her point of view, she makes it a challenge with her intellectual dishonesty.

If you are interested in determining the truth about an issue, you should find the BEST argument that your opponent presents, and address THAT issue. Not invent the worst-case scenario then parade us through the cake walk that it takes to defeat the worst argument imaginable.

I rarely think that a movie was better than the book it was based on, but in this case my money is on the movie.

I have read it. It's a quick read. I remember when I finished with it the first thing I thought was that I have never been so clumsily or blatantly beaten over the head with a philosophical concept. The straw man she creates and then sets out to destroy is so unbelievable that you can't take her seriously. Even when you want to be sympathetic to her point of view, she makes it a challenge with her intellectual dishonesty.

If you are interested in determining the truth about an issue, you should find the BEST argument that your opponent presents, and address THAT issue. Not invent the worst-case scenario then parade us through the cake walk that it takes to defeat the worst argument imaginable.

I rarely think that a movie was better than the book it was based on, but in this case my money is on the movie.
A quick read? What the hell? I started in March and I'm barely halfway done. And I read quick. Hell, I read Crime and Punishment in a week plus or minus a day.

I can't take it anymore.



If you are interested in determining the truth about an issue, you should find the BEST argument that your opponent presents, and address THAT issue. Not invent the worst-case scenario then parade us through the cake walk that it takes to defeat the worst argument imaginable.

Unfortunately for this argument, a lot of the things that happen in the book actually happen in real life too. As with most manners of fiction, things become a little more bizzare towards the end , [i]but the events that set these things in motion are plucked not from the writer's imagination but from things they've seen happen in the world around them.

The issues that confront the characters and how they are forced to interact with their businesses are not an overly obnoxious caricature of real life. They may be exaggerated in order to prove a point*, but the unifying theme--the idea that we should basically be allowed the freedom of our minds and bodies [and mind you these freedoms by their existence should allow for freedom over one's intellect and production--any attempt to limit either of those two results in the rapid destruction of any precedent you may have thought you set about rights over one's mind and body] is a fairly common-sense one.

* I'm not here to defend Rand's talents as a fiction writer; you may levy any such complaint as you should please against her abilities of, say, subtlety. Rand had some difficulty finding publishers, because many viewed her works as too intellectual; it was predicted her books would have a hard time attracting an audience.

It's actually the one Ayn Rand book I havn't read >.<

I should get around to that!

Its refreshing to see that I'm about the only one that's actually bothered to stay on topic. I have a few less than pleasant words for a few people, namely Technokratishe Staaten, who has exhibited a stunning ignorance of Objectivism

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Sure. Objectivism. LoL. Objectivists are so cute with their pseudo-intellectual handwaving,



The issues that confront the characters and how they are forced to interact with their businesses are not an overly obnoxious caricature of real life.

No, they really are strawboogiemen. Rand was so full of shit I was suprised the pressure build-up didn't blow the top of her head off. The Gospel of Rand is all adequately summed up in the following equation.

[(Romantic Idealism)+(Absolute Rights and Individualism)]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
(Altrusim is collectivism is communism is fascism is evil) - (Reality)

"<> Non-Rand = Evil.<>"

Rand had some difficulty finding publishers, because many viewed her works as too intellectual; it was predicted her books would have a hard time attracting an audience.

That's unadulturated nonsense. She wasn't rejected because her work was "too "intellectual," but because she was a unacademic, worthless crank with poorly argued crackpot ideas written for general consumption in equally poorly constructed books.

He work isn't scholarly, but it's made to SOUND good so idiots can be fooled by it. That's it. It's the classical hallmark of pseudo-science, but applied to philosophy---she's a snake-oil salesman. Like most conspiracy nuts and snake-oil salesmen, she cloaks her academic inability behind ludicrous projected defenses. The only ones who propagate the above nonsense about her being "too intellectual" are, of course, the Ayn Rand Institute and affiliates of it. It's a meme Objectivists spare no expense in spreading.

That reasoning is a lot like how those cranks on TV infomercials try to sell their "herbal supplements" by appealing to the vanity and stupidity of the watcher. "Of course the government and big pharma are going to ignore my totally untested, discredited pill that supposedly does everything! They both are secretely plotting against us and preventing us from helping YOU all because we threaten the pharmaceutical industry! Vested interests!"

Same bullshit, different package.


And my comments were very much on topic, and they were hardly "ignorant." They were quite true. Her books are nonsense, much like her philosophy; that's not suprising, since her books are just poorly written speeches about Objectivism with some dialogue thrown in.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Sure. Objectivism. LoL. Objectivists are so cute with their pseudo-intellectual handwaving,
Stunning riposte. Your powers of argumentation are nothing short of magnanimous.

No, they really are strawboogiemen.
Examples?

Rand was so full of shit I was suprised the pressure build-up didn't blow the top of her head off. The Gospel of Rand is all adequately summed up in the following equation.

[(Romantic Idealism)+(Absolute Rights and Individualism)]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
(Altrusim is collectivism is communism is fascism is evil) - (Reality)

"<> Non-Rand = Evil.<>"
I got news for you bud: If properly inclined, one may devise the same general template, change a few words, and apply it to any philosophy on the face of the planet. Not that I'm terribly surprised, but it's overly simplistic and doesn't really constitute a valid philosophical attack on... well, anything.

That's unadulturated nonsense. She wasn't rejected because her work was "too "intellectual," but because she was a unacademic, worthless crank with poorly argued crackpot ideas written for general consumption in equally poorly constructed books.
It's actually fairly well documented that her early works [specifically The Fountainhead] were rejected on the basis of their complexity and philosophical rigor. Again, I'm not here to claim she was the world's best writer anyway [or even anywhere close]; and while its possible that some publishing houses shared your opinion, philosophers often have problems being accepted during their lifetime anyway.

He work isn't scholarly, but it's made to SOUND good so idiots can be fooled by it. That's it. It's the classical hallmark of pseudo-science, but applied to philosophy---she's a snake-oil salesman. Like most conspiracy nuts and snake-oil salesmen, she cloaks her academic inability behind ludicrous projected defenses. The only ones who propagate the above nonsense about her being "too intellectual" are, of course, the Ayn Rand Institute and affiliates of it. It's a meme Objectivists spare no expense in spreading.

That reasoning is a lot like how those cranks on TV infomercials try to sell their "herbal supplements" by appealing to the vanity and stupidity of the watcher. "Of course the government and big pharma are going to ignore my totally untested, discredited pill that supposedly does everything! They both are secretely plotting against us and preventing us from helping YOU all because we threaten the pharmaceutical industry! Vested interests!"

Same bullshit, different package.
"Scholarly" and "Intellectual" don't always mean the same thing. For example, I'm a pretty smart guy, but since I'm not currently enrolled in any higher learning programs, I can't rightly describe myself as "scholarly" since I'm not really studying for anything at the moment. Likewise, Rand was never tremendously affiliated with the academic scene, save for a sprinkling of lectures delivered through the '60s and '70s.

It seems to me like you're placing an inordinate amount of strain on your concepts of "intellectualism." You speak as if acknowledging Rand as "intellectual" is some sort of concession about the validity of her ideas. I, on the other hand, can acknowledge the fact that many of my philosophical enemies--as wrong as I regard them to be--can still be classified as "intellectual" since their ideas appeal to people on a more selective, cerebral basis.

You obviously have nothing but contempt for Rand's ideas, which is fine I guess, but that doesn't suddenly make them not intellectual ideas. Communist theory is plenty intellectual, for example, but the ideas contained within it are so easily repudiated that there really isn't any need to equate it with intellectual "snake oil salesmanship."

In short, you can acknowledge something as intellectual and still disagree with it. Academic credibility doesn't always make someone right: believe me, I've met plenty of college-educated dumbasses. This country is full of them. Conversely, lack of academic credibility doesn't automatically make someone wrong. This should be obvious, but since this is the only angle which you've chosen to attack Objectivism, I have no choice but to reply to it.

If you'd ever like to, you know, cite examples and, say follow through with them, go right ahead. As it stands right now, however, you're attempting to dicredit Objectivism by saying its founder wasn't academically recognized. For the apparent disdain you have for her ideas, I've yet to see you attack a single one directly and provide any manner of adequate argument in your defense.

And my comments were very much on topic,
Actually, they're not and neither are mine. Read the first post again and tell me where, exactly, it encourages debate about the concepts advanced by Objectivism. He even goes so far as to say: "I don't care if you want to yelp about Ayn Rand and how horrible she is and how greed = evil omg. Because I honestly don't care." This thread is about casting the movie for Atlas Shrugged, not for debating the validity of the ideas contained therein. I made a good faith effort to stay on topic, but buckled like a chump when you and Judgement Sound started spewing your exasperating BS.

and they were hardly "ignorant." They were quite true. Her books are nonsense, much like her philosophy; that's not suprising, since her books are just poorly written speeches about Objectivism with some dialogue thrown in.
More power to ya. No, really, I'm not being sarcastic. I'm not asking you or anyone else to accept Rand's ideas at face value just because she said it--I wouldn't be any kind of advocate for freedom if I didn't respect your ability to disagree with these ideas with every cell of your being. I do have a problem, however, when you attempt to discredit an entire philosophy just because its progenitor isn't widely recognized in academic circles. I also tend to have problems when people make far-reaching and drastic propositions like "Her books are nonsense, much like her philosophy" without bothering to countenance a single concept advanced by said philosophy. If you want to dismantle Objectivism, the best place to start would be to discredit its core concepts [since apparently its so easy] rather than the habits or lifestyle of its founder.

EDIT: The reader may be struck [much as I was] that for all his apparent fervor my opponent responded solely to a footnote in my second post here, and a fleeting sentance and a half from my first. My assertation that "The issues that confront the characters and how they are forced to interact with their businesses are not an overly obnoxious caricature of real life" is nearly assaulted by his claims of being straw-boogiemen, but I see presented no explanation as to why, exactly. "Straw-mannery" as I like to call it, has always struck me as something of an overused charge on these forums; I've seen accusations to this effect levied hundreds of times. In most cases, the accuser seems to have little or no knowledge of what a straw man actually is.

I'm in the process of reading it, kind of, but I find it quite boring and poorly written. Especially the characters are poorly developed. They're completely one-dimensional and the pages long monologues aren't helping to make it more readable. So far I think it's crap, but I will finish it in hope of it becoming any better as it progresses.

I'm in the process of reading it, kind of, but I find it quite boring and poorly written. Especially the characters are poorly developed. They're completely one-dimensional and the pages long monologues aren't helping to make it more readable. So far I think it's crap, but I will finish it in hope of it becoming any better as it progresses.
As usual, my father put it best: "Ayn Rand writes essays in novel form." I agree with most of it, but even I had to bury my head in my hands when Francisco offered up his eighteen cents at Taggart's reception--I had a hard time believing that the partygoers would even listen to it in its entirety. Parts of Galt's speech are used nearly verbatim in her later nonfiction.

Don't read it for the plot or the characters [and for some I could see how this would make it wholly unappealing as a book in the first place, since good fiction should have strong plot and characters], read it for the philosophical thesis it presents.

A movie? Seriously?

[does a very embarassing impromptu dance]

That's awesome. I agree, though, that it really needs to be a trilogy, not a movie - it's very long, and very detailed.

But on the topic of the book, I've read it three times and absolutely love it. I know people routinely say this frivolously about a succession of books and movies, but it really altered my life - the entire way I think about politics and philosophy.

I read the whole book earlier this year, and it was alright.

I was not fond of the character development and the long narratives, which echoes a lot of what other people have said, and the writing was mediocre at best.

I did, however, enjoy the narrative that accompanied almost all of the chapters describing how the world changes as it becomes more and more collective. When I read the book, I had just begun a job with a very strong union presence, and I found that I could relate to the frusturation of having arbitrary rules imposed on me for my own good. Heck, I still lose 15 bucks a week to a union that has done very little to protect my rights as a worker. For that reason, I would suggest to those of you who find the scenario she creates to be outrageous that you check your premises. The very earliest events in the book are the types of events that I am familiar with at my place of work, and the later events are built onto the earlier events as a logical progression of the same set of beliefs.

That said, I'm only 18 years old, so my beliefs are quite likely to be radically altered at a moment's notice.

When criticizing Ayn Rand's characters, you have to remember that her artistic style was romanticism, not realism. She portrayed her heros and heroines as she felt people should be. She portrayed the antagonists in the opposite fashion. There is no human being who is purely of each form, instead there are mixes of the two. She merely distilled the two groups into individual personalities recognizable from each other, and portrayed their individual viewpoints.