The three-part adaptation of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged ended with a whimper this weekend. Opening at 242 theaters, Atlas Shrugged Part III: Who Is John Galt? bombed with just $461,179*. In comparison, the first two movies each opened above $1.68 million. To be fair, the second outing opened at over 1,000 theaters, and both previous movies had more marketing/publicity ahead of their launches.Never fear, the business masterplan will be to cream it on the merch!
Ultimately, the entire three-part endeavor will likely wind up with less than $10 million at the domestic box office (and not a whole lot overseas as well). The troubled production history is surely to blame for some of this—the cast changed with each installment—though it does call in to question whether the novel is as popular as it's perceived to be.
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
The Biggest Bomb Yet.
Box Office Mojo reports on Atlas Shrugged III's opening weekend:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
83 comments:
This is good stuff Daniel. You did a good job here. Your childish schadenfreude over the failure of other people's endeavors is really admirable.
I also liked how you reported this like a catty little shrew. The clowns on this site like yourself Mr. Barnes, are clearly not biased against Objectivism, or trying to tear it down or trash it.
This is clearly not a hate site, and is clearly a site that sticks to the philosophical substance and is very impartial.
(Sarcasm disengaged)
Taking pleasure in others' misfortune is schadenfreude, but mocking the predictable consequences of ineptitude is not.
@Daniel Barnes
I see you are not only petty and childish, but seriously ignorant.
You engaged in schadenfreude. How is that? Because the very fact that you are reporting this is because you like that the movie is a failure. Like is a certain degree of pleasure. Hell, for all I know, you love that it's a failure.
Thus how you are taking pleasure at the misfortune of others.
You have simply engaged in childish and petty gloating.
Then you are ignorant of movie economics. A movie is not necessarily a failure because it was inept in its screenplay or the execution of its making.
Many factors go into why certain movies are a success and others are a box office bomb. Including timing and the nation's economic health.
This is cemented when we come to know examples of movies that are considered classics, that were box office bombs like Citizen Kane, It's a Wonderful Life, and The Shawshank Redemption.
"Many factors go into why certain movies are a success and others are a box office bomb. Including timing and the nation's economic health." That and whether or not it's a crappy movie. With all the energy on the right with the Tea Party, there really couldn't have been a better time for this movie.
Kelly
I suppose being deluded, as the makers of the Atlas Shrugged series clearly are, is a form of misfortune. And I suppose my ignorance of movie economics, no matter how great, is far surpassed by the Objectivists behind the series, for I personally have never lost millions of dollars investing in movies..;-)
But who knows what point Quan is trying to make here? He seems to be arguing that the Atlas Shrugged series is a bomb…therefore it's Citizen Kane!
If his only point is that I'm a big meanie to criticise consistently badly made, financially unsuccessful films made by pretentious businessmen who are as demonstrably ignorant of film economics as they are of film aesthetics, then I plead guilty as charged.
In other words, perhaps one day Quan will learn the difference between being a big meanie, and being wrong...
Let's face it, if poking at the failure of a trainwreck of a movie trilogy (and yes, "trainwreck" was half-intentional considering the plot) is sufficient to "tear down" Objectivism, then Objectivism must not be all that robust a concept.
You'd think practitioners of the supposed superior philosophy that is Objectivism would be so above the concerns of petty shrews and clowns that they would not need to soil their hands responding to any critique. QuantumHaecceity proves that theory false. Nothing can be said but what he isn't there to call it out for, I guess, being true but unflattering...
In a depressed economy, movies are a relatively affordable escape from the mundane. Look at the enormous financial success of films this year such as "Godzilla". Audiences thrilled to the sight of a giant radioactive fire breathing mutant dinosaur battling weird insect-like mutations in gloriously rendered computer graphics. "Atlas Shrugged Part 3" failed because people simply aren't interested in Ayn Rand's ponderous tale.
It's a terrible book and now a terrible film series. The free market has spoken: "Atlas Shrugged" is a flop.
now, now, we all KNOW that the free market doesn't quite exist, even in the USA; the financial failure and the alleged aesthetic failure of the trilogy must be because of some sort of Collectivist plot.
BTW Ayn Rand was NEVER petty, NEVER shrewish, NEVER delighted in her opponents' failures, and NEVER employed sarcasm--altogether a far superior person to the major posters on and maintainers of this site.
I had a good laugh at the stupidity of this:
"But who knows what point Quan is trying to make here? He seems to be arguing that the Atlas Shrugged series is a bomb…therefore it's Citizen Kane!"
And the stupidity of this:
"Let's face it, if poking at the failure of a trainwreck of a movie trilogy (and yes, "trainwreck" was half-intentional considering the plot) is sufficient to "tear down" Objectivism, then Objectivism must not be all that robust a concept."
How about a sequel?
In "Atlas Shrugged 4: The Revenge", evil collectivist aliens from outer space invade Galt's Gulch and attempt to destroy our heroes by implanting mind control devices which force them to enjoy modern art, accept gay people and fund medicare. Godzilla and his companions from Monster Island team up to defeat the extraterrestrial collectivists....
Well Quan, what exactly *is* the point you're trying to make? It must be either:
1) That ARCHNbloggers are big meanies for saying shitty movies are, in fact, shitty movies?
2) Or, that Atlas Shrugged III is a great movie, like (your examples!) Citizen Kane and It's a Wonderful Life?
We've already copped to 1). So it kinda has to be 2), right? Only thing is, I don't think even you can quite bring yourself to say it out loud…
QH said:
"And the stupidity of this:
"Let's face it, if poking at the failure of a trainwreck of a movie trilogy (and yes, "trainwreck" was half-intentional considering the plot) is sufficient to "tear down" Objectivism, then Objectivism must not be all that robust a concept.""
Please do educate us: why is that stupid? Because you're getting on people's cases for daring to have 'schadenfreude' over the movie's failure, as if this is some kind of deadly attack on Objectivism itself, which needs to be defended! (And apparently, needs YOU to defend it!) So with you oh-so-bravely wading into battle to call out the meanies and attempt to shame people for "tearing down" Objectivism, one has to wonder how delicate Objectivism is if you feel obliged to speak out EVERY SINGLE TIME someone on this site says anything even the slightest bit critical about Rand and her philosophy. If that's not the case, you haven't made a strong case (or any case) for some alternate theory.
Besides, it's not as if you're proving yourself to be a paragon of rational, mature behavior with any of your posts. Instead of dazzling us with irrefutable, razor-sharp Objectivist logic, your stock-in-trade seems to be mostly a wet mass of limp condescension and name-calling. Assertions, but no formulae to back them up.
The saga continues!
In "Atlas Shrugged Part 5: John Galt in Space", our hero of the Gulch, using his own resources and ingenuity builds his own rocket to blast into space in pursuit of the extraterrestrial collectivists. Due to the nation's economic health, certain errors occurred in the construction of the ship, forcing Galt to land on the moon. There, he discovers a secret underground society of Objectivists who live in a society free of taxation, government regulation and homosexuality. But there is a tragic flaw in this paradise: Due to the effects of low gravity, members of the Moon-Base become irrational and begin listening to modern atonal music, even enjoying it. This enrages Galt, who then delivers a 58 minute speech on the evils of such music. Comedy relief occurs during the film when Rush Limbaugh makes a cameo as himself, joking about poor children eating from garbage dumpsters.
@Daniel Barnes
Good lord, are you really this obtuse?
My point was explicit. My point is that you are petty, childish, and you engaged in schadenfreude.
And that you are ignorant of movie economics.
All these points were explicitly stated to you, so for you to come behind that and be so obtuse as to act like you don't know what my point was, is, aptly and succinctly put, stupid.
@Anonymous
What you said was stupid because I said nothing about pointing out the failure of a train wreck of a movie is sufficient to tear down Objectivism.
That was just some stupid mess you made up and interpreted in your own mind.
"Taking pleasure in others' misfortune is schadenfreude, but mocking the predictable consequences of ineptitude is not."
BINGO!
QuantumHaecceity is comparing Atlas Shrugged Part 3 to "Citizen Kane," "It's a Wonderful Life," and "Shawshank Redemption" based on the fact that none of them did well at the box office when first released?
Haaahaaaaa!!! Those films were great *critical* successes despite being box-office disappointments, and they eventually became audience successes, too, with "Kane" being considered one of the top 10 greatest movies ever made.
Was "Atlas Shrugged Part 3" (or Parts 1 and 2, for that matter) critical successes at least? Absolutely not. In fact, critics were almost unanimous in calling them quite possibly the worst, most amateurish movies ever made.
"Show Girls" and "Even Cowgirls Get the Blues" were dismal failures with critics and audiences alike, but at least some sycophant didn't claim that they must be as great as "Citizen Kane" since "Kane" also failed commercially.
Dumb argument.
The incredibly successful “Atlas Shrugged” series takes on a terrifying new dimension in “Atlas Shrugged Part 6: The Malevolent Entity”. The story begins where the last installment concluded, on the moon. After Galt finishes his speech explaining the irrationality of modern atonal music, he senses the presence of small figure hiding in the shadows. A pale and gaunt little girl, her face ashen in a ghostly grimace steps forward and says, “You will know my name. My name is Alyssa!” She disappears into the darkness. Galt follows her, but finds only a small notebook laying on the floor in the center of the room. Curious, he begins to read. It appears to be a collection of philosophical proclamations… Or is it something more sinister? On the front cover, a warning has been scrawled: Anyone who reads these incantations aloud shall unleash the Malevolent Entity! Galt was indifferent. “No one tells me what to do”, he thought. Deliberately, he selects an incantation and recites it with vigor:
What are your masses but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it?
What comes next promises to be one of the most terrifying experiences in motion picture history - the incantation has unleashed the Malevolent Entity! Galt is almost frozen in terror as Alyssa appears and transforms into a hideous demonic adult. As in a time elapse, her face transmogrifies into a craggy, wrinkled mask of skin - old and tinged with a patina of cigarette smoke. Her hair is chopped. She opens her mouth with a toothy grin and then lets out a throaty blood curdling cackle, such that has never been heard before in cinematic history. “My name is Ayn”, she shrieks. “It rhymes with mine!” As if summoned, hoards of flesh eating zombies lunge toward Galt. As he flees, he realizes that his attackers are in fact the last survivors of the moon-base, transformed by exposure to the previously described atonal music. What comes next? Find out in the thrilling climax of “Atlas Shrugged Part 6: The Malevolent Entity”!
@Anonymous
"but at least some sycophant didn't claim that they must be as great as "Citizen Kane" since "Kane" also failed commercially."
(Shrugs shoulders) I'm not sure if you are a liar, are just this stupid, but no where did I claim that the Atlas Shrugged movie is as great as Kane?
What exactly is your mental malfunction? Why do you keep making crap up at your whim? Are you a liar or just obtuse?
Quan writes:
>My point was explicit. My point is that you are petty, childish, and you engaged in schadenfreude."
Yeah, we've already agreed that I'm a big meanie for saying badly made bombs are, in fact badly made bombs. According to you, for some reason people should really say nothing but nice things about crappily made financial failures. Is that really all you dropped by to tell us? But what you don't seem want to discuss is whether I'm right or wrong; both about the box office success of the movies, which is after all the topic of this post, and their poor quality. Whether that their failure is not only predictable, but deserved, a point that clearly distinguishes them from great movies like Citizen Kane.
You brought up Citizen Kane supposedly to demonstrate my "ignorance of movie economics", but all it really did was demonstrate your ignorance of movies, full stop. Let's see…what might be the key differences between Atlas Shrugged III and Citizen Kane, other than weak box office? What might be the differences between The Room, and Citizen Kane? Or Battlefield Earth and Citizen Kane? Gee, I wonder…
So what will Quan do? Is he now going to defend the Atlas Shrugged series financially and aesthetically? If so, he's going to look like a total movie ignoramus and ideological hack.
If not, well, he's going to find himself in an even worse position: having to say that I'm right.
So I predict he will continue to evade…;-)
>And that you are ignorant of movie economics.
I repeat my earlier point: my ignorance of movie economics must be less than the makers of Atlas Shrugged, as I have not lost millions of dollars making movies...
Quan:
> I'm not sure if you are a liar, are just this stupid, but no where did I claim that the Atlas Shrugged movie is as great as Kane?
Oh dear. Do you not understand the implications of your own comparisons?
Why on earth, then, did you bring up a selection of great movies that were box office failures whilst defending the box office failure of Atlas Shrugged III?
Or are you even defending Atlas Shrugged III in any way? Your point so far is solely that I'm mean for saying indefensibly bad movies are indefensibly bad. Is that all you've got? Do you even know what you're saying?
>(Shrugs shoulders)
Wow, I saw what you just did there.
Quantum-Sized-Mental-Capacity opined:
< @ "Are you a liar or just obtuse?"
Neither. I'm just not in denial about facts. It's called "objectivity" — ever hear of it?
< "but no where did I claim that the Atlas Shrugged movie is as great as Kane?
No, you didn't "claim" it; you implied it by means of innuendo. To "claim" such an absurd notion would be to commit yourself to expressing a complete thought in correct English — something you have yet to do.
@Anonymous
Quan is just a trivial but typical example how inept Objectivists are at arguing.
Let's see him try to make two "explicit" claims:
>My point is that you are petty, childish, and you engaged in schadenfreude.
>you are ignorant of movie economics.
Now, of course these are mere assertions. For them to resemble basic arguments, let alone good ones they have to include a "because…".
Yet this is a blank Quan consistently evades filling in. Why? Because if he does he ends up defending Atlas Shrugged III - defending the indefensible. Or alternatively…and even worse…agreeing with me…;-)
Just another example of David Ramsay Steele's bon mot about Objectivism, that it's nothing more than "bluff, buttressed by abuse of all critics".
"According to you, for some reason people should really say nothing but nice things about crappily made financial failures."
Of course the above would be a lie, since i never said that.
"Is that really all you dropped by to tell us?"
Nope. I dropped by to tell you how petty, vindictive, and childish you are for doing stuff like this.
"If not, well, he's going to find himself in an even worse position: having to say that I'm right."
Nope, my points have already been made and are correct. That this gloating you did here shows you are petty, childish and engage in schadenfreude and that this site is a hate site like I always knew it was.
"Why on earth, then, did you bring up a selection of great movies that were box office failures whilst defending the box office failure of Atlas Shrugged III"
That was already explicitly stated:
--A movie is not necessarily a failure because it was inept in its screenplay or the execution of its making.---
"Quan is just a trivial but typical example how inept Objectivists are at arguing"
The above once again cements how ignorant and bigoted you are. This is because if I remember correctly, I have said on two separate occasions that i am not an Objectivist, and I think it was to you. If so, for you to claim I am an Objectivist anyway, is dishonest.
But even more salient, your claim above is amazingly stupid and bigoted. A person always sounds stupid castigating an entire group of people. This is known as a sweeping generalization fallacy.
It would be like me saying Christians are typically racists. I actually pretty much feel that way, but never say it because it would be massively ignorant to castigate an entire group since I don't know everyone or remotely enough Christians to make such a categorical statement.
"For them to resemble basic arguments"
They don't have to include a because you idiot, because they are not arguments, but rather my observations. They are not logical arguments trying to prove that say, dark matter is the cosmological constant. They are observations about a particular person. You are an idiot Barnes.
@Anonymous
"No, you didn't "claim" it; you implied it by means of innuendo"
So then yes, you are a liar, because of course, you can't claim someone said something based off of implication or innuendo, since implication and innuendo is just your subjective interpretation, and not an objective fact of what they actually said.
What you have admitted to, further cements your dishonest nature, since it you were an honest and good person, and you really thought your opponent was claiming something, but it is initially, only by innuendo or implication, then the honest thing to do is to ask them to clarify or state it explicitly and categorically so there is no misrepresentation or misunderstanding.
Of course, being a liar and dishonest, you didn't do that. You assumed what you wanted since it suited your selfish purposes.
People following this thread may be interested to know that even the Ayn Rand Institute has no time for Atlas Shrugged 3. A review in The Objective Standard describes the film (correctly) as cheap and inept:
https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2014/09/atlas-shrugged-iii-john-galt-bad-good/
Quan:
>They don't have to include a because you idiot, because they are not arguments, but rather my observations.
Precisely my point: that Objectivists - or Randians, Randroids or whatever you want to call yourself - can't argue for toffee.
"Precisely my point: that Objectivists"
And since I'm not an Objectivist, once again you are only cementing that you are an ignorant, bigoted clown.
You might want to call this off. You are embarrassing yourself in my view. And it's a view that is well founded.
So you're here just to make us guess at what to call you? Why don't you just tell us?
Just to flip this around a minute, I've spent a lot of time over the years criticising Objectivism not just on this blog, but also at various Objectivist fora, where I've participated in discussions regularly for months, even years.
I'm just trying to imagine showing up in places like that if all I had to say is "you are mean and nasty, I have no arguments to support this, but this is just my observation".
And Quan, if you're not an Objectivist, in what way do you differ? Can you articulate that?
I mean, you seem to be fitting the script to a T.
Are you a, ahem, "student of Objectivism"…?
@Barnes
"I have no arguments to support this, but this is just my observation".
The bad things about you can certainly be explained, as far as how you are guilty of them.
In fact, that has already been done with the schadenfreude.
LOL. Mere evasive bluffing, as always buttressed by abuse of all critics.
It certainly walks and talks like a duck...
@Barnes
Hahaha! What is being evaded and what is the bluff?
Also, this website is filled with abuse towards Objectivists and Ayn Rand, so nice hypocrisy there sparky.
Also, I don't know where you get the all from, since pointing out the bad things about you hardly constitutes abuse of all critics.
You're an idiot Barnes.
Quan:
>What is being evaded and what is the bluff?
Let me count the ways.If I write a post about Atlas Shrugged III's box office failure, how does that make me "ignorant of movie economics" when the makers of the movie have lost millions on the series? Blank out.
You say "A movie is not necessarily a failure because it was inept in its screenplay or the execution of its making" and use Citizen Kane as an example. But you evade giving an explicit opinion as to the quality of Atlas Shrugged's screenplay and execution…blank out.
You don't even seem to want to explain your own position. For example, if you're not an Objectivist, what distinguishes your beliefs from Objectivist doctrine? Blank out.
>Also, this website is filled with abuse towards Objectivists and Ayn Rand, so nice hypocrisy there sparky.
Hmmm…this website is mostly filled with extensive, well researched criticism. Take a look sometime. Do you not know the difference between that, and abuse?
On reviewing this exchange, I'm beginning to gain a new regard for Ungtss, of fond memory. I thought that most of his interpretations of Rand were wrong-headed and I didn't like his manner - but at least, unlike Q, he was mostly presenting an argument rather than slobbering abuse while pretending to be an offended party.
Having said that, let's return to the topic: Atlas 3.
I'm most interested in the fact that so many admirers of Rand feel compelled to praise such a patently bad series of movies. It would be so easy to label them as the travesties that they are - and move on.
I can think of two possible explanations.
1) I think people were drawn in by the first installment. It wasn't all that good, but it wasn't laughably bad. So a lot of fans overpraised it and announced that they couldn't wait for Parts 2 and 3 - while hoping for a lift in quality that never happened. In short, they let themselves get emotionally invested in a miserably flawed product - and now prefer to get mad at "liberals" rather than revise a mistaken opinion.
2) More importantly, I think the whole thing is being driven by what I would call Objectivist Politics.
After all, David Kelley of The Atlas Society is one of the guiding lights of the Atlas Shrugged movie trilogy. He's the guru who appears on the special features of the DVD, explaining the philosophical and political significance of what viewers have just suffered through.
No doubt Kelley felt at the beginning that he'd really scored a coup at the expense of the Ayn Rand Institute. I wonder if he feels that now?
Meanwhile, as I mentioned previously, the Ayn Rand Institute, via its magazine the Objective Standard, has no problem slagging the film. Their criticisms are all true. But which is the driving motive here - telling the truth or making David Kelley look bad? A question worth asking.
"how does that make me "ignorant of movie economics"
Because you assumed that the movie is a box office failure because it is ineptly made. That is not necessarily the case, as other factors can be at play that have nothing to do with the movie being ineptly made.
Which is where the other examples came in of movies like Citizen Kane, that were box office failures, but were clearly not ineptly made.
This is not to say that the Atlas Shrugged series is as good as Citizen Kane, but simply is an example to underscore that particular point.
"But you evade giving an explicit opinion as to the quality of Atlas Shrugged's screenplay and execution"
I can't give an honest assessment of that, since I have not seen the movie.
"You don't even seem to want to explain your own position"
There is no need to explain it since that is irrelevant to my main intention of taking you to task for your pathetic behavior.
Which has long since already been achieved. I'm just humoring your foolish attempts to try and save face. And the attempts have been quite foolish indeed.
"this website is mostly filled with extensive, well researched criticism"
It's also filled with a lot of abuse.
And I'm not sure how well researched the criticism is. Heavy hitting Objectivists like Greg Perkins think this site has low grade criticisms, and that Nyquist is not honest or competent.
I love how bitter and crazy the comment war has gotten on Atlas Shrugged Runs out of Gas. After the first film failed I could not see how they could carry the series to completion, but like glass-eyed cultists ("if we pray hard enough") John Aglialoro et. al. made the dream happen.....and it turned into a wet fart.
These movies will be run at B-movie festivals for years.
@Strelnikov
"but like glass-eyed cultists"
You do realize that both Christianity and Islam, are by definition, cults? You do realize that right?
So even though Objectivism is not a cult, and that is usually said by some biased, hater buffoon, clearly humans don't really give a flying crap if they are part of a cult, as long as it's the "in cult".
So by definition, probably well over 80 percent of human beings are a part of a cult.
> "He's the guru who appears on the special features of the DVD, explaining the philosophical and political significance of what viewers have just suffered through."
Burkowski's apt comment reminds me of a line by brilliant song parodist Allan Sherman. Taking the French classic, "Alouette, gentille alouette . . ." Sherman has instead:
"Al and Yetta watched an operetta, Leonard Bernstein told them what they saw."
Gordon,
The Objective Standard hasn't been the ARI's magazine since the McCaskey schism. Yaron Brook resigned from the magazine and ARI writers for the most part have stopped contributing.
The magazine's owner, Craig Biddle, defended McCaskey and criticized Peikoff.
Neil Parille
> quantum-sized cognitive ability wrote: "Because you assumed that the movie is a box office failure because it is ineptly made. That is not necessarily the case, as other factors can be at play that have nothing to do with the movie being ineptly made."
Except any other factor that MIGHT have been at play is irrelevant compared to the one, great, overriding factor guaranteeting both financial and critical failure: the movies were ineptly made: audiences hated them; critics hated them.
In other words, inept attempts at motion picture production such as the Atlas Shrugged trilogy would fail even in Galt's Gulch, populated by super-rational producers, with a sound commodity money, no involuntary taxation, and complete economic and sexual freedom. Want to know why John Galt and Dagny Taggart themselves wouldn't pay to enter the theater, even just to make out in the dark? Here are just a few reasons (write them down, OK?):
1) Unintelligible screenplay adaptation. Only those who had read the novel could understand what was going on, which means that the movies cannot stand on their own *qua* movies.
2) Stilted dialogue. Transferring dialogue from a novel directly to the screen is a mark of a first-year film student with a tin-ear for speech rhythms.
3) Unimaginative directing. Look at the word "movie"; what root word do you see? The word "MOVE", right? So the last thing a viewer wants to see is a series of STATIC scenes, e.g., a dinner party with people standing around and talking; followed by a scene with two people in a car, sitting around and talking; followed by another scene with someone sitting behind a desk talking to someone sitting in front of a desk. Um, GET IT? Standing and talking, followed by sitting and talking, followed by eating dinner and talking, followed by piloting an airplane and talking, followed by talking on the telephone.
4) Mediocre talent. The B-list talent cast in leading roles could not, by themselves, come up with interesting choices for their characters. This production flaw was aggravated, no doubt, by simple lack of rehearsal time. Had that ass-hat, Aglialoro been more interested in producing a good movie rather than a making a propaganda statement for Tax Day or a major election, the actors might have had a chance to think about the kinds of dramatic choices that translate into something interesting and compelling to watch on screen. Actually, the only actors interesting to watch in the entire trilogy were Michael Lerner and Jon Polito, both in AS-1, neither recast in the follow-up films.
5) Choppy editing, aggravated, of course, by the poor quality of screenwriting.
An earlier screen adaptation was made by Randall Wallace (who also wrote the screenplay for "Braveheart"), and who managed to boil the entire essence of the novel — which he correctly identified as the love story between Dagny and Rearden — into a single movie. There's an online review of that screenplay, but oddly, the screenplay itself seems to have disappeared.
Contrary to what Strelnikov posted, I don't think the AS trilogy will play for years at B-movie festivals, because many B-movies — such as the famous psychological thrillers produced by Val Lewton, or Ida Lupino's excellent film "Hitchhiker" — are not ineptly made at all; they were simply low budget, B-list talent, and shot on short schedules, but the results were often high quality indeed. I think the AS trilogy will play at NO film festivals, and will be forgotten entirely (blessedly) except by Randroid cultists, who will buy multiple copies of the DVDs, as well as "Who Is John Galt" sweatshirts and coffee mugs.
Neil,
Thanks for the correction. If The Objective Standard has cut its umbilical cord to ARI, does this mean it has drawn closer to The Atlas Society? Or not?
It is a matter of record that Peikoff fell out with Aglialoro after selling him the movie rights to Atlas Shrugged. While the first of the trilogy was still being filmed, the Objectivism.Online website released the following statement:
"The Estate of Ayn Rand sold the movie rights to Atlas Shrugged many years ago, to an individual whom Dr. Peikoff thought at the time to be an Objectivist. Dr. Peikoff, however, has discarded this opinion, and no longer has any connection to, interest in, or knowledge of the project. In the light of recent articles in the Hollywood press, he has only the most dismal prediction in regard to the future product."
Peikoff was of course proven right. Doesn't happen very often.
Gordon,
I don't think The Objective Standard has moved toward The Atlas Society. It seems like a rather dogmatic orthodox magazine.
I don't recognize any of its writers as being associated with The Atlas Society. (Actually it seems like a two-man show, Biddle and Ari Armstrong.)
It's funny, last year Biddle published a video "Is Objectivism a Cult?" Of course he denied it. I don't know if it's the Stockholm Syndrome or if people like Biddle are just waiting for LP to exit the scene.
-NEIL PARILLE
Anonymous writes:
"In other words, inept attempts at motion picture production such as the Atlas Shrugged trilogy would fail even in Galt's Gulch, populated by super-rational producers, with a sound commodity money, no involuntary taxation, and complete economic and sexual freedom."
"Complete . . . sexual freedom"?
I don't get that part about Atlas, because the novel's portrayal of its heroes' sexuality conflicts what its explicit philosophy. Instead I see pervasive sexual frustration and deprivation among its heroes.
Francisco lives without sex after his teenage romance with Dagny. (At least he had his sexual debut at a developmentally appropriate age.)
Francisco's college buddy Ragnar marries an actress, but his career as a pirate means that he can only see her for one month out of the year. (What a trusting fellow.)
And Francisco's other friend, John, apparently lived as an adult virgin until he got lucky with Dagny in the railroad company's store room late in the novel.
Other examples of minor protagonists who don't have women in their lives: Eddie Willers, Richard Halley, Dr. Hendricks, Ellis Wyatt, Midas Mulligan, Hugh Akston, etc.
I can see why the novel would have to downplay its secondary characters' sex lives to leave room for the main action. But Rand's implicit backstory suggests that most Objectivist men have to live like sexually abstinent Christians for much of their lives.
Anonymous:
>I think the AS trilogy will play at NO film festivals, and will be forgotten entirely (blessedly) except by Randroid cultists, who will buy multiple copies of the DVDs, as well as "Who Is John Galt" sweatshirts and coffee mugs.
I think Anonymous's analysis has testable predictive power…
Quan:
>This is not to say that the Atlas Shrugged series is as good as Citizen Kane, but simply is an example to underscore that particular point.
You know, that line is actually a minor classic. Tempted to use it as a sidebar masthead line. Don't worry Quan, I'll credit you…;-)
The inspiring "Atlas Shrugged" franchise continues in "Atlas Shrugged Part 7: Galt vs Bigfoot". Stay tuned to this thread for the thrilling synopsis.
@Daniel Barnes
What about it exactly, makes it a minor classic, you silly clown.
And I see once again, for the second time on here, you got intellectually tore up and have thus dropped a lot of the contentions. Don't think I didnt notice that.
So much for your silly B.S. about evasion and bluffing.
Don't feel too bad Barney-boy, the anonymous person got spanked too when he was exposed as a liar, and he has backed off as well from trying to defend himself on that.
I would love to see just one of you biased cowards go onto Objectivist answers and challenge them with questions about what you think shows Objectivism is wrong.
For once, take your biased, cowardly behinds onto "enemy territory" and talk your mess about cult this and randroid that.
Like I do when I come here and have the balls to deal with enemies and deal with getting ganged up on, and handle it with ease and without breaking a figurative sweat.
You will likely never see a biased coward like a Gordon Burkowski take his snotty little butt over to Objectivist answers and try to wheel and deal when the circumstances are not in his favor. In other words, when he is not on friendly territory with the majority of people on the site feeling and thinking the exact same way he does.
Most human beings are cowards, and are too weak to deal with adversity, and rarely if ever, do they act all big and bold and froggy when they can't gang up on someone or when they don't have the decisive advantage.
Quan:
>Like I do when I come here and have the balls to deal with enemies and deal with getting ganged up on, and handle it with ease and without breaking a figurative sweat.
Quan, seriously, you are one of the most balls-free commenters we've ever had around here. Your self-perception is…how can I put this…delusional.
I mean, you claim you're not an Objectivist, yet when challenged you evade saying what you do believe, and how it differs from Objectivism.
You accuse us of being "cowardly" and "abusive", but don't even post your abuse under your own name - that's how cowardly *you* are.
In short: *you can't own up to your real beliefs even under a fake name!* All we get is evasions and excuses. Yes, quite the fearless intellectual powerhouse we have here.
In contrast, I've been a regular commenter on Objectivist boards for months, and even years at a time, with hundreds of posts and *always* under my own name. While I'm never going to win any popularity contests, at least you always know who I am when you're debating with me, and what I stand for.
Which is more than you can say for yourself.
And as it happens it's the Objectivist commenters here such as you that are almost always anonymous. After years of seeing them argue, you can see why: they are usually the easy-beats of intellectual debate, relying on bluff, word games, and suffering from a radical wit-bypass. I'm sure that's why you're so reluctant to actually put yourself to the test by providing an actual argument about anything, as opposed to mere "observations."
Sigh. Perhaps one day Quan will stand up and argue for what he believes in, perhaps one day -Galt forbid! - even become an identity, rather than just an entity. Till then, he's welcome to hang around and provide a prime example of his type.
We couldn't ask for a better live demonstration of what's wrong with Randism….;-)
@Mark Plus:
“Rand's implicit backstory suggests that most Objectivist men have to live like sexually abstinent Christians for much of their lives.”
Bingo. It would be a valuable exercise to compare Rand’s theory of sex to the actual behaviours exhibited by her heros and heroines. And perhaps to contrast that theory to the result when she applied it (as she saw it) to her own sexual choices.
Rand was once asked where the sex scenes in The Fountainhead came from. Her answer was: “Wishful thinking.” That was, I suspect, truer than she knew. That’s the reason why Dominique and Dagny are permitted multiple sexual partners - but not Roark, Francisco or Galt.
P.S. One of the interesting things about the AS movies is how timid the sex scenes are. It's almost Hayes Code stuff - and of course there's not even a breath of the S-M that figures in both Atlas and The Fountainhead. Pandering to the religious right, perhaps?
@ Daniel Barnes:
"Perhaps one day Quan will stand up and argue for what he believes in. . . Till then, he's welcome to hang around and provide a prime example of his type."
Quantum of Solace?
;)
"Like I do when I come here and have the balls to deal with enemies and deal with getting ganged up on, and handle it with ease and without breaking a figurative sweat."
Can't break a sweat if you don't do any work.
i'm still chuckling over the whole "I have the balls to come here anonymously and refuse to state my position" thing. It's gold.
"I'm still chuckling over the whole 'I have the balls to come here anonymously and refuse to state my position' thing. It's gold."
I guess the moral is: You may be wearing a mask, but that doesn't mean it's safe to lead with your face.
"Your self-perception is…how can I put this…delusional."
Nah. I already explained how I have "balls". Your denial of that doesnt mean anything to me since you're an enemy. Of course you will deny it. What else are you going to do, agree?
That would be too non-animalistic for you to do that.
"yet when challenged you evade saying what you do believe, and how it differs from Objectivism."
I already answered this. Also, it's stupid. I don't know what Burkowski believes. I don't know what you believe. I don't know what Nyquist believes.
So this objection or whatever we are to call it, is stupid, since the same accusation can be leveled at you and others.
I've never heard you or say Gordon, say what you believe. Not as far as myself personally hearing such. You both just talk crap and bash Objectivism.
"but don't even post your abuse under your own name - that's how cowardly *you* are."
The above is another stupid statement, since "real names" can be made up. How would I really know if that dude is named Gordon Burkowski for example. Which by the way, sounds like a silly made up name, though it may be genuine.
And it's a stupid statement since the same thing can be said of Strelnikov, or the anonymous person.
"All we get is evasions and excuses"
There are no evasions or excuses. I've answered all that.
"And as it happens it's the Objectivist commenters here such as you"
This is again showing you are a liar, since I already stated I'm not an Objectivist.
"I've been a regular commenter on Objectivist boards for months"
I don't have verification of that to hand. And since you are a liar, you are not to be trusted. Post some questions on Objectivist Answers under your name Daniel Barnes and prove you are not the coward you appear to be. Same challenge goes out to biased snob Burkowski and the other clowns in this clique which includes Nyquist and Parille.
Just as a heads up, I'm probably not going to respond further unless you say something I personally feel needs a response.
I'm tried of smacking around all your stupidity. You are hardheaded and a liar, and you are simply repeating things I've already answered so we're about done here unless I feel you say something that moves me to respond.
Also, the challenge to you has been laid down on posting on Objectivist Answers. Put up or shut up Barney-boy.
For not being an Objectivist, QH certainly speaks up a lot in its defense. Which is odd, because if one wasn't an Objectivist, what would be the point?
Perhaps we could call QH an "Objectivist sympathizer". He's not the first to argue from a pro-Objectivist stance and say "But I'm not an Objectivist".
The question is, then, is there really any difference? And if there is not much of a difference, then we're just spinning our wheels, splitting semantic hairs (which is a common Objectivist tactic, to focus on semantics and thereby deflect attention away from the relevant points of a discussion).
Although, I've often wondered if the "I'm not an Objectivist, but I will argue as if I was" tactic is a way for would-be Objectivists to do Objectivist-like things and believe in the parts of the philosophy they agree with - while conveniently not having to adhere to ALL the Objectivist tenets. Objectivist Lite, as it were.
Also, he still hasn't seemed to realize that when he comes onto this site with his condescending tone and calls everyone names, he really undercuts any authority he possibly had to criticize anyone else's personality or behavior. Here's a guy who comes onto this forum for the express purpose of being an antagonistic jerk, so what reason is there to take him seriously? But somehow he can't (or won't) see how that works.
"what would be the point"
I have a lot of respect and appreciation for the philosophy of Objectivism.
The book called evidence of the senses and Objectivism's explication of rights is fantastic in explaining those profound issues in naturalistic/Atheistic terms.
"which is a common Objectivist tactic, to focus on semantics and thereby deflect"
Semantics is very important to any discussion because one must know exactly what a person means by salient words. Otherwise you could talk past each other or quickly become guilty of strawmanning your opponent.
I also notice that is a common tactic among the hater-drones on here like yourself. To attribute negative behaviors or things to unnamed Objectivists. This appears to be a common tactic of Greg Nyquist.
Can you name some specific Objectivists that split semantic hairs and thereby deflect attention away from the relevant points of a discussion?
"so what reason is there to take him seriously? But somehow he can't (or won't) see how that works."
You don't have to take me seriously bro since you don't really mean anything to me. In a succinct punch, you don't pay my bills. So why then should I give a flying crap what or who, you take seriously? I don't. You can frankly kiss off.
"for the express purpose of being an antagonistic jerk"
Nah. I come on here for various reasons. Earlier it was to engage in the intellectual issues, which I did. Now, since people like Barnes and Nyquist are acting like such catty little shrews and engaging in so much childish behavior(like teenage gossip), I am pointing out their bad behavior, and taking them to task for it.
Someone should do it. Silly little sycophants like you or Burkowski would never dare say anything negative about Barnes or Parille or Nyquist. At least I've never seen it and likely never will. You are too biased for that.
Also let me point out the reason why none of your snobby, self-righteous blather phases me in the slightest. It's because, like Burkowski and Barnes and Nyquist, you are a coward.
You talk all this crap and get all froggy on friendly territory.
Get all big and bold on Objectivist Answers Jzero, when your whiny, self righteous butt isnt surrounded by people who think the same as you and hate the same things as you.
It's easy to get all fresh and froggy when you are in the majority. Until I see you get some bails and go on enemy territory and be strong in adverse conditions like I do, you're just another coward to me. And to be disregarded thus.
"You don't have to take me seriously bro"
Well, no problem there. Should ANYBODY take you seriously, then? After all, you yourself don't "pay the bills" of myself, Nyquist, Barnes, or anyone else found here, so why bother posting, if you know this already?
"Nah. I come on here for various reasons. Earlier it was to engage in the intellectual issues, which I did."
That's debatable.
"Now, since people like Barnes and Nyquist are acting like such catty little shrews and engaging in so much childish behavior(like teenage gossip), I am pointing out their bad behavior, and taking them to task for it."
Well, you're *alleging* the former, but not really connecting with the latter. Just standing up and bleating "schadenfreude!" doesn't establish that as what's actually going on, and even if it did, there's the whole pot/kettle thing going on - what makes you any better suited to "take someone to task" when there's plenty of fault to be seen in your own personality?
"Someone should do it."
Says you.
But to what end? It seems pretty obvious nobody here is much disturbed or troubled by your accusations, so what's gained? Are you just charging up your smugness for a while?
"Silly little sycophants like you or Burkowski would never dare say anything negative about Barnes or Parille or Nyquist. At least I've never seen it and likely never will. You are too biased for that."
As if your own bias isn't obvious.
"Also let me point out the reason why none of your snobby, self-righteous blather phases me in the slightest. It's because, like Burkowski and Barnes and Nyquist, you are a coward."
Oh nooo! Sick burn, bro, I may not recover from the shame.
"You talk all this crap and get all froggy on friendly territory.
Get all big and bold on Objectivist Answers Jzero, when your whiny, self righteous butt isnt surrounded by people who think the same as you and hate the same things as you."
Pfff. Yeah, go visit a place surrounded by people who think the same as Rand and hate the same things as Rand. That would be COMPLETELY different and not in ANY way a den of sycophants.
"It's easy to get all fresh and froggy when you are in the majority. Until I see you get some bails and go on enemy territory and be strong in adverse conditions like I do, you're just another coward to me. And to be disregarded thus."
How is what you're doing "strong"? You're not doing any reasoning, not presenting much in the way of logic, you're just slinging insults and double-dog-dares. It doesn't take a lot of courage or strength to pop into a forum and yell "losers!" repeatedly. I'm not about to go to this other forum to be abused, because 1) if you're an indicator of the level of discourse I can expect, I'll pass; and 2) I'm not twelve, on some school playground stomping around trying to prove how tough I am.
And by the way:
"Semantics is very important to any discussion because one must know exactly what a person means by salient words."
Except you use it to obscure, not enlighten. When we call you an Objectivist, and you deny it, that does not clarify the matter - especially since you don't bother to explain what, then, you actually are. But it's obvious to everyone involved that you're here to defend Objectivism from criticism, that you side with Objectivists, that you are, for all reasonable intents and purposes, acting as if you are an offended Objectivist. (If you act like an offended Objectivist, does it matter if you don't call yourself an offended Objectivist? A rose by any other name...) Everyone here knows what they mean when they're calling you an Objectivist, so your protests do nothing to change that, your dickering over what label to (not) call you serves nothing but to distract from more substantive matters, if any could be found in your posts.
Quan claimed:
>"Nah. I come on here for various reasons. Earlier it was to engage in the intellectual issues, which I did."
Once again this seems to be a case of Quan over promising and under delivering.
In fact we dedicated an entire post to this self-described "expert" in Objectivism. Unfortunately the quality of his engagement in "intellectual issues" was weak at best.
For example, when faced with the question of Rand's denial of man's innate instincts, and even talents, Quan wrote:
"I've never heard of Rosenbaum claiming that humans have no innate tendencies or predispositions. If you can provide a direct quote, do so."
Which we then did. In fact Rand made many well-known statements on this important issue. Not very "expert" so far.
He fares no better when faced with logical criticisms; for example Michael Huemer's premise-by-premise takedown of Rand's claim to have solved the "is-ought" problem:
Well, Quan had never heard of this either. But here's how he answered it.
"It's probably a bunch of junk, like 99% of the attacks on Objectivism...It would be nice if some similar clown would giddily volunteer to point out a so called COMPLETE demolition of Islamic morality….Rather curious that Mr. Michael Huemer chooses to attack tiny Objectivism, rather than a religious cult believed in by over a billion people. Curious that."
So his only reply to a thorough logical criticism of Objectivism is to…say the critic should attack Islam instead??? Really?
He also tried to refer questioners back to other people at the Objectivist Answers site, rather than answer himself. Beyond that.. not much, certainly nothing like a sustained intellectual engagement one would expect of an "expert". It seems quite obvious that we here at the ARCHNblog actually know a damn sight more about Rand's philosophy than he does. So his performance as it stands suggests that, despite us offering a platform for engaging on "intellectual issues" around Objectivism Quan is all hat, and no cattle. He has simply neither the knowledge or the nous required.
The "Atlas Shrugged" franchise reaches new heights of intellectual and artistic achievement in "Atlas Shrugged Part 7: Galt vs Bigfoot". Certain criticisms of earlier installments in the series reflected a dissatisfaction with the CGI effects, particularly the daytime scenes. Therefore, the makers of "Atlas Shrugged Part 7: Galt vs Bigfoot" have placed emphasis on practical effects in the movie, particularly in regards to the realization of Bigfoot. Never before in the history of cinema has Bigfoot looked so real, so lifelike and so lovable!
The film begins after Galt blows up the moon-base from "Atlas Shrugged Part 6". Using his engineering skills, he repairs his rocket ship for a solo return to Earth. Unknown to him, the Malevolent Entity has concealed herself as a stowaway. Galt was indifferent. Perhaps he could amuse himself on the long voyage home by watching some video. Luckily, the ship's library was filled with entertainment films. But curiously, every time he starts a program the video screen image is replaced by archival footage of Marilyn Monroe. Is it a malfunction of the entertainment system, or something more pernicious? Galt was pleased. After all, Marilyn was talented, beautiful and charming. Why not watch "Niagara"? But suddenly, as Galt gazes, the screen bursts into static and something hideous appears: the Malevolent Entity! Her sagging skin quivers as she screams, "The evil of a cultural atmosphere killed Marilyn!"
A wretched howl fills the ship.
What follows is a tour de force of movie making artistry. The ship explodes, but in doing so, it opens up a time portal to another dimension! Galt survives and awakens in a wooded area. Is it Earth? Distantly, an enormous shaggy figure appears. Galt was indifferent. But as the misshapen creature lurks closer, Galt recognizes the monster. It's Bigfoot! What happens next? Find out (or just be indifferent to) the thrilling climax in "Atlas Shrugged Part 7: Galt vs Bigfoot"!
@Jzero
"so why bother posting, if you know this already?"
Uh, because I want to. What a stupid question.
"It seems pretty obvious nobody here is much disturbed or troubled by your accusations"
You and Barnes and the anonymous guy were disturbed or troubled enough to bother to comment on it. And Burkowski.
You could actually have shut the hell up and it would have worked out better that way. It's not like I care too much about your self righteous whining.
"As if your own bias isn't obvious"
I haven't displayed any bias sparky. You're just repeating back what I say to you in the manner of an elementary child saying I know you are but what am I.
"Yeah, go visit a place surrounded by people who think the same as Rand and hate the same things as Rand"
They don't hate the same things as Rand you fool. A perfect example of that is Eric Maughan, who is apparently an Objectivist, but does not hate Native Americans or agree with Rand's stance on them.
The fact that you would even say that about a place and people you apparently have never directly interacted with shows how narrow-minded and bigoted you are. Which explains why you're on this hate site in the first place.
"on some school playground stomping around trying to prove how tough I am"
In other words, you're a weak ass coward. And as such, you'll continue to stay on friendly territory, where you are in the majority and are surrounded by those that think the same as you do. Shove it son.
"especially since you don't bother to explain what, then, you actually are"
That is irrelevant, as I already explained to Barnes. Have you explained what you actually are, you clown?
"Except you use it to obscure, not enlighten."
Use what to obscure? What is specifically being used, and what is it obscuring? You're just making crap up like you did earlier.
Looks like nobody took QH up on his challenge bait and so heeeeee's back!
"Use what to obscure? What is specifically being used, and what is it obscuring? You're just making crap up like you did earlier."
Semantics. You use semantics to dance around an issue instead of directly answering a question. Which I thought was perfectly obvious from the context of my earlier post, and the quote of yours I was replying to, but apparently you can't even follow that series of points, so whatever.
The rest is just name-calling, and grow the fuck up, QH.
@Jzero
"Looks like nobody took QH up on his challenge bait and so heeeeee's back!"
Of course they wouldnt since the site is made up of a bunch of cowards like yourself, proving my point.
"You use semantics"
(Laughing) What "semantics" is being used you fool? You are making accusations that you are guilty of yourself, since this claim of "semantics" is itself obscured by you giving no specificity.
"The rest is just name-calling, and grow the fuck up, QH."
No, the rest is you getting tore up and having your bigotry and stupidity exposed.
And you're low class enough to curse too? What a surprise.
"Unfortunately the quality of his engagement in "intellectual issues" was weak at best."
No, I engaged the intellectual issues, but once I realized this was a hate site, I switched to simply pointing out the bad behavior of the regular drones on here. Also, it was kind of pointless to deal with intellectual issues when Nyquist said some pretty stupid stuff on logic and reason from what I remember.
Also, Nyquist is just trying to smear Objectivism with a bunch of words that don't really say anything like Nyquist's penchant for ascribing certain claims or things to unnamed Objectivists.
"Which we then did. In fact Rand made many well-known statements on this important issue. Not very "expert" so far."
Looking back at the blog post you cited it's evident you are not giving an honest representation of the situation . Which is now the third example of you being a dishonest person.
Based on that blog post and its comments, as far as I can tell, no quote has yet been rendered that shows Rand claimed that humans have no innate tendencies or predispositions.
What was given is that she said man doesn't have any instincts.
Upon which I dropped the knowledge that Rand was not referring to instinct as in behavior, but epistemology. This is confirmed in the Lexicon when they define instinct as an unerring and automatic form of knowledge.
So your dishonest attempt to smear me as not being an expert on Objectivism fails since what I said is accurate and correct and as far as I can tell, no one on here has shown otherwise on that situation.
"But here's how he answered it."
That wasn't my answer you clown. I just made an off the cuff remark that it's probably a bunch of junk, like 99% of the attacks on Objectivism.
Which is what I've seen from several attacks against Objectivism. And it wasnt simply stated as the Is-Ought problem, but Tremblay arrogantly claimed it was a complete demolition of Objectivist morality.
Tremblay wasn't clearly talking to me and didn't ask me to refute it so I don't and didn't have an onus to do anymore than I did.
The fact that you would present that as that was my answer, again shows you are a dishonest person.
"He also tried to refer questioners back to other people at the Objectivist Answers site, rather than answer himself"
The above is also dishonest. For example, when I referred people to Andrew Dalton's answer on ObjectivistAnswers, in that very post I had fully answered the situation at hand, and simply gave an extra resource.
"we here at the ARCHNblog actually know a damn sight more about Rand's philosophy than he does"
Not really. As shown by your misunderstanding of what Rand meant when she said instincts.
If you knew Objectivism well, you would know she meant epistemology, not psychology or behavior.
So I challenged you to go to Objectivist Answers and give them what you think is a knock down argument that shows Objectivism is wrong, or to give them questions that you think are the strongest refutations of Objectivism, and you have thus far, cowardly ran from this challegne.
So given more of you talking crap here, I challenge you again.
In your own words, sum up the fatal problems with Objectivism in its metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and political philosophy so we can see who is an expert and if a person does or does not have the "nous" or knowledge to deal with it and answer it.
That shouldnt be too hard for you since I'm simply asking for a summary and your cowardly butt can stay on friendly territory with the other sycophantic like drones on here who can support you and give you pats on the back and other worthless biased support and chime in with more insults if you get smacked around like you have been getting.
"(Laughing) What "semantics" is being used you fool? You are making accusations that you are guilty of yourself, since this claim of "semantics" is itself obscured by you giving no specificity."
Thank you for proving my point perfectly.
Quan:
>Based on that blog post and its comments, as far as I can tell, no quote has yet been rendered that shows Rand claimed that humans have no innate tendencies or predispositions….What was given is that she said man doesn't have any instincts.
Well, my criticism of you so far is that you simply seem too ignorant to be regarded as any kind of authority on Rand. You are not familiar enough with her writing, nor her philosophy, to be a worthwhile interlocutor. You simply seem to be relying on others such as myself who are familiar with her thinking to clue you in. For example, here is a well known quote of Rand's on original sin, from Galt's Speech:
"A free will saddled with a tendency is like a game with loaded dice. It forces man to struggle through the effort of playing, to bear responsibility and pay for the game, but the decision is weighted in favor of a tendency that he had no power to escape. If the tendency is of his choice, he cannot possess it at birth; if it is not of his choice, his will is not free."
So right away we have Rand claiming man's "free will" means he can have no innate tendencies. So, no, it's not just playing games with the word "instinct".
So I can see what's in it for you for me to respond to this or that "challenge" - you'll improve your knowledge of Objectivism.
But I can't see what's in it for me?
(Incidentally I also showed on the same thread that the Randian definition "instinct" makes no sense and it seems even Peikoff was unable to clearly explain what she meant by the term. So in short, what Rand meant by "instinct" is bogus - she is referring to something that *no* living creature has ever possessed).
@Jzero
"Thank you for proving my point perfectly"
Fail. Worthless, and childish response that is barely even worth me writing this.
@Barney
Well my criticism of you so far is that you are a bad person that engages in schadenfreude, you're a childish catty shrew, and that you are dishonest and a liar.
So now that it's been established that we don't like each other, never will in a million years, and have no respect for each other, lets move on to the little bit of substance you rendered:
"So right away we have Rand claiming man's "free will" means he can have no innate tendencies."
This crap above is probably why you clowns and your stupid hate site here are not taken seriously or given the time of day by heavyweight Objectivists like Dr. Tara Smith, Dr. Yaron Brook, Dr. Andrew Bernstein, or Dr. Peikoff, or Dr. Diana Hsieh. Because you guys don't really know what you're talking about.
Rand wasn't saying free will means he can have no innate tendencies.
She said, or rather the Galt character said if the tendency is of his choice, he cannot possess it at birth. Emphasis on his choice. This is correct, as a person cannot choose at birth, to have a tendency, since the child was just born.
And when the Galt character says if it is not of his choice, his will is not free, that was in the context of talking about a tendency to evil. How can one, at birth, have a tendency to do and be evil, yet be said to have free will?
I am also very loathe and uninterested in hearing about what you think of Objectiivsm or what Rand said, from fiction. Fiction is not a good way to distribute or understand a philosophy. You can to a certain extent, but it's a bad way to do so for the most part, since it is embedded in fiction and thus will be skewed with the story telling, and be easily misunderstood and mangled by the narrative.
This is one of the reasons why to this day I have never read any of Ayn Rand's fictional novels.
My knowledge of the philosophy comes strictly from reading the non-fictional literature. Since that gives a mature, and sober exposition, rather than through story telling fictional novels which don't give an adult-like rigorous philosophical explication.
And I could be wrong, but I don't think you can say Rand said this and said that, when it wasn't her that said it directly, but it was one of her bloody characters in her fictional novels.
I could be wrong, but I don't think fiction works that way.
I've never heard anyone, at least with me, say Stephen King said this and that, when it was actually his character Jack Torrance that said it.
The author is writing for a character, so you cant, as far as I know, say it was the author saying this. It's the character since it's fiction.
For example, say Stephen King writes for one of his characters to say homosexuality is evil.
You cant necessarily say that is what Stephen King is saying or rather believes since it's bloody fiction. Stephen King the person could actually think homosexuality is fine and moral.
That's why it's best to refer to the nonfictional statements of the person to make sure there is no misunderstanding about their position or beliefs.
This might be why you clowns have such a problem with Objectivism. You are going off of fictional novels. Not sure.
But this is a place where I learned a great deal about Objectivism:
http://importanceofphilosophy.com/
And my understanding and conception of Objectivism is basically what's on that site since that is one of the main resources I learned Objectivism from.
Quan:
>The author is writing for a character, so you cant, as far as I know, say it was the author saying this. It's the character since it's fiction.
Well don't just take my word for it:
"Ayn Rand regarded Galt's speech as the shortest summary of her philosophy, which she called Objectivism….It was also reproduced in [her first book of essays] For the New Intellectual"
http://www.atlassociety.org/outline-john-galts-speech
The importance of Galt's speech is unparalleled in Objectivism. As demonstration of this, it is the single most referred-to text in her non-fiction essays.
So yes, you can take its contents as a literal statement of her philosophical doctrine.
"Fail. Worthless, and childish response that is barely even worth me writing this."
That's funny, since "childish response" pretty much defines every thing you've posted in comments here. Bickering, angry accusations, rhetorical evasiveness, name-calling, petty challenges - how you can think anything you've done is somehow more "grown up" than anyone else here is more damning than any bit of other people's schadenfreude.
You should get that particular obsession of yours checked out, by the way.
@ Daniel & Michael:
Thanks for this exchange. It was heartening to read. And, given the context, also cleansing.
So perhaps it's a particularly good time to raise a new and key question:
Whither ARCHN?
It has been a pleasure to follow this blog. I think of the contributions of Ellen Stuttle, Michael Prescott, Neil Parille. And many others, of course - including Echo Chamber Escapee, who has a moniker which I truly covet.
But the reality is that the blog is running down. There were over a hundred posts from 2007 to 2009; since that time, the number has steadily declined. This year there may not even be a dozen.
As I see it, you have to either remake yourselves - or sign off, with well-wishing from many and shouts of glee from the usual suspects.
But if you opt for remaking, what form would that take? I don't know - but I think it's worth finding out what ideas are out there.
Classiblogi (classiblogi@gmail.com)
is the name of data product which can easily Earn you good income!
This product is a combination of 3 different data:
1) Free Blogspot.com websites 1st Blogi Data.
2) Without Registration Free Classified websites 2nd Classi Data.
3) Register Free Classified websites 3rd Classi Data.
Why this data is unique from other data offered in net market
Because this data is without Repetition, all website are active and consist of authentic domains.
Which make you real income in minimum time.
1st Blogi Data cost each is 0.060 $ website quantity is 2500 = 150 $ (US)
2nd Classi Data cost each is 0.075 $ website quantity is 2000 = 150 $ (US)
3rd Classi Data cost each is 0.10 $ website quantity is 1500 = 150 $ (US)
The complete Classiblogi product cost is = 450 $ (US)
You can purchase Any one of the Data or can purchase complete product.
You can Avail Discount (100 $ US) on purchase of complete product called classiblogi in just= 350 $ (US)
Contact Email id : classiblogi@gmail.com
@Barney
"regarded Galt's speech as the shortest summary of her philosophy"
Which supports what I said. If it's just a summary, it's not a rigorous and in-depth philosophical exposition of the issues at hand, so not a good explication of it. Certainly I don't think it wise to come to conclusions about psychology off a speech by a character in a novel.
"So yes, you can take its contents as a literal statement of her philosophical doctrine."
Of which I then showed how it is not saying free will means we have no innate tendencies.
The Onion's "A.V. Club" did an article mentioning the "Atlas Shrugged" movies: http://www.avclub.com/article/our-option-atlas-shrugged-expires-two-days-6-plus--212280
To wit:
"....Aglialoro’s Atlas Shrugged project is intrinsically fascinating, because all three parts are essentially non-films; they aren’t creative or popular objects, but weights meant to hold down a contract. They are less movies than representations of movies—scale models of the big-budget trilogy Aglialoro was convinced he’d someday make, cast with stand-ins and filled with temp music and rough effects. They belong to a rare category of sub-commercial films: copyright extensions shaped like movies."
Nicely put.
"Nicely put." - Daniel Barnes
The reason I stuck it in the comments for "A Little Ancient History" and not here was that this comment thread has been dead since October (because the movie was DOA in theaters.)
That written, thanks. This blog needs a break from blowhard true-believers in all things Rand....if these movies could not be made well now, after fifty years of the source novel being sold, then "Atlas Shrugged" is unfilmable.
"... all three parts are essentially non-films; they aren’t creative or popular objects, but weights meant to hold down a contract."
This reminds me of the story behind the low-budget version of The Fantastic Four (1994):
"... with the option scheduled to expire on December 31, 1992, Neue Constantin asked Marvel for an extension. With none forthcoming, Eichinger planned to retain his option by producing a low-budget Fantastic Four film, reasoning, 'They didn't say I had to make a big movie.' In September 1992, he teamed with B-movie specialist Roger Corman, who agreed to produce the film on a $1 million budget."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fantastic_Four_%28film%29
The bargain basement FF was never released, unlike the three AS films, which were released as widely as possible to theaters and on video.
I think the AS producers actually do see their trilogy as finished work and not simply as a placeholder. Just filming Part 1 would have been enough to retain the rights; the choice to do all three indicates that they were serious about getting the whole story on film.
"'Atlas Shrugged' is unfilmable."
I believe a good version could be made, but it would require more talent and money than were available in this case. Reportedly, Randall Wallace (Braveheart) wrote a respectable feature film script for AS at one point. If the film had been made in the 1970s by Al Ruddy (producer of The Godfather), it might have been good. Ruddy was talking about Fay Dunaway as Dagny, Paul Newman as Rearden, and Robert Redford as Galt - it would be hard to miss with a cast like that.
I agree, though, that it's very unlikely there will be a new and better film/TV version now, after the trilogy's box-office belly-flop. Unlike many commenters here, I think that's a shame, because I still like the story.
It could have been a good series of movies had they had more resources. I think they would also have had to make more changes than I understand they did. Parially they need to change it to work in a different medium and they needed to update it to allow for technological change. But there would still have been problems with the speeches. They would irritate much more in a movie than in the book. And then of course many of the characters were distant and unsympathetic, especially Galt.
I am waiting for Atlas Shrugged 8: Chambers of Death. Where John Galt and Bigfoot team up to fight the mad scientist Dr. Buckley and his atomic powered 50 ft Wittaker Chambers. (Special guest star Richard Nixon as the clumsily waiter. )
3) Unimaginative directing. Look at the word "movie"; what root word do you see? The word "MOVE", right? So the last thing a viewer wants to see is a series of STATIC scenes, e.g., a dinner party with people standing around and talking; followed by a scene with two people in a car, sitting around and talking; followed by another scene with someone sitting behind a desk talking to someone sitting in front of a desk. Um, GET IT? Standing and talking, followed by sitting and talking, followed by eating dinner and talking, followed by piloting an airplane and talking, followed by talking on the telephone.
**
That's right; the AS movies were un-cinematic. "Pictures of people talking," to use Hitchcock's words. But as for camera movement per se, the fad these days is terrible. Too many movies look like they were made by dumb kids on speed. Every camera movement ought to be purposeful; camera movement should communicate something specific, otherwise the energy is dissipated and the viewer only gets exhausted, not interested. For example, I can't stand it when every shot of people sitting at a table is filmed from a dolly; such a shot is exactly how I *don't* perceive reality unless I'm walking around the table. (Short-dollying everything is what community college students aspiring to work for the History Channel consider "adding production values.")
That said, the AS trilogy is dreck. But not because you don't get motion sickness while watching it. (Full disclosure: I only watched 5 minutes of Part One; it was enough.)
Post a Comment