So far seems to be tracking only slightly ahead of the former, despite being in 3x the number of cinemas this time around. Reviews say it still sucks. Opening weekend stats. Metacritic. Rotten Tomatoes.
Interesting tidbit: on SoloPassion, resident maniac Lindsay Perigo is denouncing fellow objectivist who dislike the movie as "trash" and that they "deserve the Islamofilth dirty bomb that's coming their way precisely because of attitudes such as theirs: a lazy, whim-worshipping refusal to get in behind what they falsely claim to be their values when those values are under attack and on the line."
http://www.solopassion.com/node/9077
Would that include Ed Cline, orthodox Objectivist from CapMag and fellow genocidal crusdader against the muslim hordes, who wrote a negative review implying that anyone who DID like the film was an idiot? Or Yaron Brook, leader of the ARI, and presumably Peikoff himself, who have all but ignored the films and mentioned them only as dismissive asides?
Does this part include the train tunnel disaster? How the producers handle that will be interesting. If they keep Rand's approach of all the victims deserved it then the movie could easily backfire. It could ealily become more repulsive on screen than in the book. On the other hand if the producers downplay this then either Rand's vision is unfilmable or they realize how unacceptable people will find it. It might be unfilmable because so much of it depnds upon the author's telling you what is going on in people's minds. If they recognize the unacceptability and gloss over it then they are being deceptive.
"It might be unfilmable because so much of it depnds upon the author's telling you what is going on in people's minds."
Well, they could just have used the perfect shorthand for moral character that Rand provides in the novel: make them all look like Dick Tracy villains.
Interesting tidbit: on SoloPassion, resident maniac Lindsay Perigo is denouncing fellow objectivist who dislike the movie as "trash" and that they "deserve the Islamofilth dirty bomb that's coming their way precisely because of attitudes such as theirs: a lazy, whim-worshipping refusal to get in behind what they falsely claim to be their values when those values are under attack and on the line."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.solopassion.com/node/9077
Would that include Ed Cline, orthodox Objectivist from CapMag and fellow genocidal crusdader against the muslim hordes, who wrote a negative review implying that anyone who DID like the film was an idiot? Or Yaron Brook, leader of the ARI, and presumably Peikoff himself, who have all but ignored the films and mentioned them only as dismissive asides?
Perigo is nothing if not inconsistent.
ReplyDeleteDoes this part include the train tunnel disaster? How the producers handle that will be interesting. If they keep Rand's approach of all the victims deserved it then the movie could easily backfire. It could ealily become more repulsive on screen than in the book. On the other hand if the producers downplay this then either Rand's vision is unfilmable or they realize how unacceptable people will find it. It might be unfilmable because so much of it depnds upon the author's telling you what is going on in people's minds. If they recognize the unacceptability and gloss over it then they are being deceptive.
ReplyDelete"It might be unfilmable because so much of it depnds upon the author's telling you what is going on in people's minds."
ReplyDeleteWell, they could just have used the perfect shorthand for moral character that Rand provides in the novel: make them all look like Dick Tracy villains.