Randite producers mischaracterize Atlas Shrugged DVD

It is symptomatic of Liberals that they find these thoughts to be reprehensible.
No, these are clearly laudable and universal traits with which ‘liberals’ take no issue; rather, it’s the vilification of the working class and government as ‘the mob,’ the dissonance created between the middle class and a perceived ‘elite’ entitled to privilege and power that ‘liberals’ correctly object to.



There is no privilege assigned by any exterior power to the elite in the Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged. The only privilege reserved to the elite is that they be allowed to work as they wish, when they wish on what they wish. This is a fiercely internal and individual thing and is not "gifted to them by any authority.

The vilification of the mob is not a vilification of the working class but is a condemnation of the vile snakes in politics or opinion formation that pervert the system for their own gain.

Rand correctly and accurately states that there are those who are by virtue of their native intellect, talent, skills or abilities better at doing some things than are most. This is something that is so evident, I don't think it can be argued. Rand further states that the talented are the critical success producers of society and that without them, society is less able to achieve.

The perception of someone being elite can be real or can be an illusion.

The singer, Tiny Tim, and the physicist, albert Einstein, are two that gained elite status within society. One was actually great and the other, not so much.

Rand argues that removing the those who are actually great from society leaves us with the pretenders and the cost to society is great if this removal proceeds.

Liberals attack those who rise to elite status as undeserving and demand that the elite "give back" or "pay their fair share". Rand's belief is that by simply plying their talents, they serve society and society benefits greatly. Without the exploitation of their talents, society suffers.

The "Power" of the elite in the world of Rand's books is only that they do what they love to do and not be constrained by those who seek to pervert the talents and skills of those, like Einstein, who are actually the elite.

Einstein, incidentally, is a perfect example of this as his work enabled the Atomic Bomb and his belief system did not directly endorse the creation of the bomb. If it had to be created, though, he was certain that the Nazis would be the wrong group to possess it unilaterally.

You seem to have completely missed the point and the meaning of what Rand wrote.
 
It is pretty amusing to see right wing christians praising a devout atheist.

That assumes that all Christians are devout thus, according to you, closed-minded.

Most rightwingers are more tolerant than your average lefty any day. We just don't have a press, movie producers, and a mass-media that constantly passes off that lie as fact daily.

Witness the difference between a Tea Party rally and an Occupy Wall Street movement.

The Tea Party welcomes everybody. It doesn't matter what race you are or what political party you're with, everyone was welcome.

The Occypy Wall Street movement told some they were not welcome. If you had a Fox News sign at an OWS you would immediately come under verbal, if not physical assault. People just trying to get to work on Wall Street on the 17th were spit on because they're supposedly evil capitalists, even though every single one of them is a 99 percenter.

Sorry, most of us on the right don't care about someone's background, religion, race, or whatever. If you have something to contribute to the group we don't care if you aren't exactly like us.
 
Last edited:
Its a DROP DEAD CINCH that John Galt was not heroic for his self-sacrificing nature.

Clearly the copyrwriter didn't read the book or if he did, he completely failed to understand Rand's POV.

FWIW Dagney was somewhat self-sacrificing in her own master of the universe kinda way.
 
Last edited:
Its a DROP DEAD CINCH that John Galt was not heroic for his self-sacrificing nature.

Clearly the copyrwriter didn't read the book or if he did, he completely failed to understand Rand's POV.

FWIW Dagney was somewhat self-sacrificing in her own master of the universe kinda way.



I didn't see Galt as self sacrificing at all. His whole thing was more of a I'm taking my ball and going home. His choice. His rules.

He just got sick of playing the game that others were controlling.
 
‘Atlas Shrugged’ film producers replacing 100,000 DVD’s after mischaracterizing Ayn Rand’s novel | The Ticket - Yahoo! News
The company behind the film Atlas Shrugged Part 1 is replacing 100,000 title sheets from the film's newly released DVD and Blue Ray versions because the copy writer incorrectly described the late Ayn Rand's 1957 novel, Atlas Shrugged, as a story of "self-sacrifice."

Put simply, that's like calling Michael Moore a tea partier.

In the words of Texas Gov. Rick Perry: Oops.

that movie wasn't budget-neutral either LOL (it didn't pay for itself ;) )

Tough to make a good movie out of a lousy novel. It's got to be one of the most boring books ever written. I had to force myself to finish it to see what all the hoopla was about, but didn't find any. Besides being extremely repetitive, there isn't a single fully formed character in the book. They're all caricatures, totally noble or totally venal. You can't base a real life philosophy on an "ism" that's that far removed from reality.

That's what I hated about it. The characters are completely static and boring. The "good" are 100% good and everyone else is "bad" or "stupid/naive". As you said almost caricatures. I felt like I was having some sort of old-timey morality play forced on me.
 
So were all agreed that it was a bad idea to try to sugarcoat the description on the movie when in fact it was based on a book about an orgy of greed? Glad thats settled. :)
 
Why start a Thread on something you have no interest in, something you even refuse to read, or see the Movie?

What is your Premise, other than being false, counterfeit?
Is it that you have zero tolerance for opposing views?
Are you just trying to impress with your Witt?

Why pick something you have no interest in or understanding of?
Why ridicule? Is there something here that threatens you or challenges you to use your brain?

Maybe you should stick to something you know like the indoctrination of the Masses.

I would think the premise is: it was a lousy book, so that doesn't hold up much hope for the movie. Just because you can't handle the truth, don't go whining that we're being unfair. The whole book is unfair AND poor fiction. Not my problem that you're willing to swallow her line. As with all "isms", the more ridicule heaped upon them the better, IMO.



Rand's basic and most important ideas are about the individual being noble, strong and creative and the mob being mindlessly controlled and a danger to individual thought and liberty.

It is symptomatic of Liberals that they find these thoughts to be reprehensible.

While Atlas Shrugged is a novel, it is best read as a parable.

As far as it being unfair, that is an odd charge to level against a work of fiction. How did feel about the fairness of Star Wars?

She sets a premise as most works of fiction do, creates characters, again a pretty standard feature of fiction, and then allows the characters to live within the contrived setting.

Like every novel, it is not for everyone. Some see the value in it and others can't. It's no indictment of those who like it or of those who do not. If it speaks to you, that is great. If not, that's the way it is.

It is a very dark book. Dark like Blade Runner. Another contrived piece of fiction. Did you feel that Blade Runner was fair or unfair?

What is a work of fiction that you admire that you feel is fair?

It's not just fiction, is it? It portends to tell us what will inevitably happen due to "statism" by portraying all its proponents as venal and all its opponents as noble and virtuous. It's an absolutist vision that's not only false, but another dangerous "ism". Given the history of the last century, blind allegiance to people who "know" what's good for us, can lead to catastrophe. That's where the unfairness is found, in the lies told about Rand's political opponents.
 
I would think the premise is: it was a lousy book, so that doesn't hold up much hope for the movie. Just because you can't handle the truth, don't go whining that we're being unfair. The whole book is unfair AND poor fiction. Not my problem that you're willing to swallow her line. As with all "isms", the more ridicule heaped upon them the better, IMO.



Rand's basic and most important ideas are about the individual being noble, strong and creative and the mob being mindlessly controlled and a danger to individual thought and liberty.

It is symptomatic of Liberals that they find these thoughts to be reprehensible.

While Atlas Shrugged is a novel, it is best read as a parable.

As far as it being unfair, that is an odd charge to level against a work of fiction. How did feel about the fairness of Star Wars?

She sets a premise as most works of fiction do, creates characters, again a pretty standard feature of fiction, and then allows the characters to live within the contrived setting.

Like every novel, it is not for everyone. Some see the value in it and others can't. It's no indictment of those who like it or of those who do not. If it speaks to you, that is great. If not, that's the way it is.

It is a very dark book. Dark like Blade Runner. Another contrived piece of fiction. Did you feel that Blade Runner was fair or unfair?

What is a work of fiction that you admire that you feel is fair?

It's not just fiction, is it? It portends to tell us what will inevitably happen due to "statism" by portraying all its proponents as venal and all its opponents as noble and virtuous. It's an absolutist vision that's not only false, but another dangerous "ism". Given the history of the last century, blind allegiance to people who "know" what's good for us, can lead to catastrophe. That's where the unfairness is found, in the lies told about Rand's political opponents.



Of course it's fiction. What else might it be? It warns of what might happen given a particular course of events contrived in a person's imagination and not in the real world. If it is striking a chord with many, then, obviously, many see the warning from fiction as one to heed in the real world.

You apparently do not.

I prefer to believe that the individual is important and that any society should arrange its laws in such a way to protect the liberty of the individual. Blind allegiance to what is good for "us", that is, the whole, by definition excludes what is good for the individual. The good of the whole being placed above the dignity of the individual is in strict opposition to the whole Bill of Rights and to the lessons presented by Atlas Shrugged.

"Isms" that you say you fear are all constructed to reign in and restrict the rights and the responsibilities of individuals and to contrive outcomes based on the opinion of some ruling elite with regard to what will benefit "the whole". This is what you endorse.

Rand exhorts us to pursue vigorously personal freedom and personal achievement. What is it about this exhortation that you find to be bad? If every individual achieves the absolute best that he can achieve, what is the danger to society in this?
 
Last edited:
Rand's basic and most important ideas are about the individual being noble, strong and creative and the mob being mindlessly controlled and a danger to individual thought and liberty.

It is symptomatic of Liberals that they find these thoughts to be reprehensible.

While Atlas Shrugged is a novel, it is best read as a parable.

As far as it being unfair, that is an odd charge to level against a work of fiction. How did feel about the fairness of Star Wars?

She sets a premise as most works of fiction do, creates characters, again a pretty standard feature of fiction, and then allows the characters to live within the contrived setting.

Like every novel, it is not for everyone. Some see the value in it and others can't. It's no indictment of those who like it or of those who do not. If it speaks to you, that is great. If not, that's the way it is.

It is a very dark book. Dark like Blade Runner. Another contrived piece of fiction. Did you feel that Blade Runner was fair or unfair?

What is a work of fiction that you admire that you feel is fair?

It's not just fiction, is it? It portends to tell us what will inevitably happen due to "statism" by portraying all its proponents as venal and all its opponents as noble and virtuous. It's an absolutist vision that's not only false, but another dangerous "ism". Given the history of the last century, blind allegiance to people who "know" what's good for us, can lead to catastrophe. That's where the unfairness is found, in the lies told about Rand's political opponents.



Of course it's fiction. What else might it be? It warns of what might happen given a particular course of events contrived in a person's imagination and not in the real world. If it is striking a chord with many, then, obviously, many see the warning from fiction as one to heed in the real world.

You apparently do not.

I prefer to believe that the individual is important and that any society should arrange its laws in such a way to protect the liberty of the individual. Blind allegiance to what is good for "us", that is, the whole, by definition excludes what is good for the individual. The good of the whole being placed above the dignity of the individual is in strict opposition to the whole Bill of Rights and to the lessons presented by Atlas Shrugged.

"Isms" that you say you fear are all constructed to reign in and restrict the rights and the responsibilities of individuals and to contrive outcomes based on the opinion of some ruling elite with regard to what will benefit "the whole". This is what you endorse.

Rand exhorts us to pursue vigorously personal freedom and personal achievement. What is it about this exhortation that you find to be bad? If every individual achieves the absolute best that he can achieve, what is the danger to society in this?

It's the unintended consequences of giving in to "total freedom". What's to prevent the strong from preying on the weak, if government is whittled down to the bone on the rose-colored promise personal freedom?
 
It's not just fiction, is it? It portends to tell us what will inevitably happen due to "statism" by portraying all its proponents as venal and all its opponents as noble and virtuous. It's an absolutist vision that's not only false, but another dangerous "ism". Given the history of the last century, blind allegiance to people who "know" what's good for us, can lead to catastrophe. That's where the unfairness is found, in the lies told about Rand's political opponents.



Of course it's fiction. What else might it be? It warns of what might happen given a particular course of events contrived in a person's imagination and not in the real world. If it is striking a chord with many, then, obviously, many see the warning from fiction as one to heed in the real world.

You apparently do not.

I prefer to believe that the individual is important and that any society should arrange its laws in such a way to protect the liberty of the individual. Blind allegiance to what is good for "us", that is, the whole, by definition excludes what is good for the individual. The good of the whole being placed above the dignity of the individual is in strict opposition to the whole Bill of Rights and to the lessons presented by Atlas Shrugged.

"Isms" that you say you fear are all constructed to reign in and restrict the rights and the responsibilities of individuals and to contrive outcomes based on the opinion of some ruling elite with regard to what will benefit "the whole". This is what you endorse.

Rand exhorts us to pursue vigorously personal freedom and personal achievement. What is it about this exhortation that you find to be bad? If every individual achieves the absolute best that he can achieve, what is the danger to society in this?

It's the unintended consequences of giving in to "total freedom". What's to prevent the strong from preying on the weak, if government is whittled down to the bone on the rose-colored promise personal freedom?



If laws are written to preserve the dignity of the individual, that protection extends across all lines of societal divisions.

Total freedom cannot be tolerated in any society as the society is a living entity as much as the individuals that comprise it are living entities. I am sometimes struck by the amazing cooperation that must occur in all activities for a society to even drive as individuals to work or school. It's really breathtaking that a million or so people can all decide as one to relocate from where they are to where they need to be, all within a fairly closed and restricted space of some miles, and not kill each other in the process.

The government required to make this occur is really very limited.

Imagine the same endeavor if all were waiting to be ferried from where they were to where they needed to be and the whole thing was a contrived and government run program.

We'd all be out of work by noon on the first day.

Government is simply the act of governing, not controlling, not directing, not strangling. Yet, strangling is where the course of Liberalism leads inevitably. Minimal government is required to govern reasonably and fairly. Maximum government is required to control absolutely. The greater the control, the greater amount of government is required.

Conversely, the greater the amount of government there is, the greater is the control it will exert.
 
whats your view on optional wars/big government?



Are the two intertwined?

Opposed to big government. It just keeps getting bigger. there are more than 50 programs conducted by the Feds that are aimed at teaching citizens how to budget their money.

RU kdg? What entity on earth is less qualified to teach this discipline?

Optional wars are not wise. The trick is to determine what is optional. To me, most wars are, but I'm old and I have friends and relatives missing body parts left in countries that we should never have been fighting in.

That said, if Europe had started WW2 in 1936, maybe the world could have been spared a nasty and destructive 7 years up to 1945.

At that time it was hard to go to war. As it should be. Now, not so much. Our current President ran on an anti war platform and yet is conducting two wars, has bombed an ally in Pakistan, actively participates in the overthrows of foreign governments and does all of this with the demonstrated mind set that he abhors the Constitutional restraint against foreign intervention.

The Congress sits by idly.

We are Rome in the year zero. As long as our representative surrender their rightful power to the executive, they are the willing dupes of the executive.

Maybe the Dictator is waiting to be elected. He may be currently seated. This is a good argument to only elect old men as Presidents given that they will die soon. At least then we won't be saddled with a 20 year reign like the one that ruined Germany with a young Hitler or installed the Imperial reigns of Rome.

The Founders, if they can, look at their country and weep.
 
Our current President ran on an anti war platform and yet is conducting two wars, has bombed an ally in Pakistan, actively participates in the overthrows of foreign governments and does all of this with the demonstrated mind set that he abhors the Constitutional restraint against foreign intervention.

He's ending/drawing- down two wars started by his Rightie predecessor codester :rolleyes:
 
Our current President ran on an anti war platform and yet is conducting two wars, has bombed an ally in Pakistan, actively participates in the overthrows of foreign governments and does all of this with the demonstrated mind set that he abhors the Constitutional restraint against foreign intervention.

He's ending/drawing- down two wars started by his Rightie predecessor codester :rolleyes:


He's following in the footsteps laid before him by his predecessor. However, W did not bomb Pakistan as the Big 0 is doing. In this as in most things, the Big 0 is predicting one action and pursuing a different one altogether.

I would rather we stand back and lob bombs into the enemy territory as did Clinton, but to have boots on the ground and to do this is the worst of two worlds.

Obviously, I don't appreciate the work of the Big 0. He has failed to do the work of the office, is absolutely political in all that he does and either cannot or will not engage those in Congress to address the needs of the country. The Big 0 has one lonely skill and that is to divide and to create divisions and envy and hatred. He does this with exceptional regularity and vigor.

We're still waiting for the Democrats to turn in a budget and the Big 0 is chief among the slackers. They all seem long on finger pointing and short on work submitted.
 
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZmVRI8Ptv4&feature=endscreen&NR=1]The Simpsons: oooo, The Fountainhead - YouTube[/ame]​
 

Forum List

Back
Top