"Atlas Shrugged, Part One" finished filming, now in post production

[Czarcasm]

@John_Mace

@A Monkey With a Gun

I’ll take that bet. Remember that this things budget is only five million dollars and it has no “name” actors. I doubt that they are going to spend a whole lot of money to market it. There is no way this thing is going to hit #1. It probably won’t even be in wide release. It may very well make a decent enough profit, but remember that it only needs to make 15 mil worldwide to completely fund the next two. The filmmakers have set their sights pretty low.

Ah, missed the part about the low budget.

Well, I’ll honor that bet, since you were the first. I didn’t have $ amount in mind, but what about $25?

I’m guessing they’re thinking of non-traditional marketing techniques. So, unless it’s a limited release film, then I still think it has a chance at getting #1.

And I will counter-bet that it will not hit #1 in any major city, and I’ll even trust you to define “major city”. If I’m wrong, I’ll ship you a six-pack of Arrogant Bastard ale.

[snoopygal]

@msmith537

But it is considered a “classic” of literature.

It is not considered a classic anywhere outside of America, as far as I am aware.

[armedmonkey]

@John_Mace

@A Monkey With a Gun

I’ll take that bet.

Well, I’ll honor that bet, since you were the first. I didn’t have $ amount in mind, but what about $25?

That’s not acceptable. I don’t know who you thought you entered into this agreement with, but I require something far more precious than money. This debt must be settled in blood.

So go donate a pint and we’ll call it even. Seriously, do that. Hell, I want everybody reading this to do that.

[asterion]

@Sampiro

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Lord of the Teabags?

Several neocon little people go on a quest where they encounter evil trees aligned with the conservation movement, an army of gay elves who want to be married, illegal immigrant dwarves and Obama’s Reform & Control Sentries (ORCS) who want their guns and insist on sending them to publicly funded hospitals all while en route to the Kenyan volcano where the birth certificate is stored. Features Sarah Palin as Gal Adriel and Glenn Beck as Gundolf.

Make that movie. Now. I’ll even chip in a few bucks as long as I get credited somewhere.

[Darth_Panda]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

As I said before Left Behind had a much wider fan base than Ayn rand, and it still took a shit at the box office.

Right now Amazon has Left Behind ranked at #7,118 in Books and #59 in Fiction.

Left Behind: A Novel of the Earth’s Last Days (Left Behind Series Book 1) The...

*Atlas Shurgged *is ranked at #168 in Books, #30 in Literary, # 9 in Classics, and #8 in Political.

Atlas Shrugged: Rand, Ayn: 9780451191144: Amazon.com: Books

I’m not convinced that Left behind has a bigger fan base.

That said, I don’t see Atlas Shrugged even sniffing around the #1 film spot.

And I must add that that Ben Stein movie you referred to was one of the buggest pieces of crap that I ever saw in my life. It would be awfully hard not to punch him in the face if I saw him.

[Tim_R.Mortiss]

Well, I’m learning something with this thread. I knew we had a lot of liberals in the Doper community, but I didn’t know we had so many non-fans of Rand. I kind of though the book was thought-provoking and interesting, even if you didn’t agree with it.

[woodstockbirdybird]

@Tim_R.Mortiss

Well, I’m learning something with this thread. I knew we had a lot of liberals in the Doper community, but I didn’t know we had so many non-fans of Rand. I kind of though the book was thought-provoking and interesting, even if you didn’t agree with it.

I thought it was somewhat thought-provoking, as well - when I was 14.

It makes no difference if Rand was homophobic or racist or testified in front of HUAC when discussing Atlas Shrugged. All that really matters is that it was a poorly-written, preachy, boring pile of shit.

[Czarcasm]

@Tim_R.Mortiss

Well, I’m learning something with this thread. I knew we had a lot of liberals in the Doper community, but I didn’t know we had so many non-fans of Rand. I kind of though the book was thought-provoking and interesting, even if you didn’t agree with it.

Really? Could you please give us a one paragraph outline of the first third of the book? I’d like to see how interesting this movie would be.

[msmith537]

@snoopygal

@msmith537

But it is considered a “classic” of literature.

It is not considered a classic anywhere outside of America, as far as I am aware.

How do you know?

So what if it is?

[BMalion]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

…She also had that icky “real men don’t court or ask for sex, they just rape” thing going on. …

Dang, all these years doing it wrong, who knew?

[pravnik]

@FriarTed

This is an Indie film, almost a glorified fan film, done on a tight budget with TV actors in order to keep hold of the rights which were due to revert back to the Ayn Rand estate in June. Filming started about two days before the deadline.

So is it possible the movie is just a placeholder movie like the 1994 Fantastic Four and the real big budget version everybody was expecting is still down the road?

[armedmonkey]

@Tim_R.Mortiss

Well, I’m learning something with this thread. I knew we had a lot of liberals in the Doper community, but I didn’t know we had so many non-fans of Rand. I kind of though the book was thought-provoking and interesting, even if you didn’t agree with it.

It’s not just liberals that don’t like the book, though. For one, I didn’t like it. I thought The Fountainhead was alright, but Atlas Shrugged is a bloated piece of crap with two dimensional characters, a poor plot, and a seeming belief by the author that she must repeat the same damn points over and over and over and over.

It’s not just the politics that make the book so bad - it’s the book itself. You want an interesting book about the evils of collectivism? Read Animal Farm. That’s a good book. Orwell’s allegorical farm animals are meant to be archetypes, and yet they are still more believable and multi-dimensional than Rand’s characters. He also managed to say more and dig deeper into politics in that tiny 100 some-odd page novella than Rand did in her entire 1000 page doorstop.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Animal Farm is a great example of a book that tries to make some of the same points that Rand wanted to make, but did it in a much mor concise and engaging manner. Orwell, in my opinion, also did a good job of showing how and why Communist ideals can be compelling and appealing at first.

[armedmonkey]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Animal Farm is a great example of a book that tries to make some of the same points that Rand wanted to make, but did it in a much more concise and engaging manner. Orwell, in my opinion, also did a good job of showing how and why Communist ideals can be compelling and appealing at first.

(bolding mine) That’s exactly the thing. Rand never did that. In fact, I think she may have missed Orwell’s point entirely, even though she must have read him because Animal Farm predates Atlas Shrugged by twelve years.

Rand has her heroes leave society because they, the producers, know what is best. The whole novel is about an elite that knows what’s best. She doesn’t fucking get it. Orwell famously said that “some men are more equal than others”, but he knew that a cabal of the “more equal that others” is elitist and a very bad, bad thing. The pigs were the smartest animals on the farm, and look where that got everybody. The power structure should never be held by an elite.

Rand never understood that. If you look past all the speeches and monologues, Atlas Shrugged is a story about a group of people (some of the most powerful in the nation) who allow a society to be destroyed so they can remake it in their own image. She wanted an elite; the whole novel is about that. Orwell was trying to prevent one, which is why I’m a little nonplussed when my fellow conservatives support Rand.

[BrainGlutton]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Animal Farm is a great example of a book that tries to make some of the same points that Rand wanted to make, but did it in a much mor concise and engaging manner. Orwell, in my opinion, also did a good job of showing how and why Communist ideals can be compelling and appealing at first.

And at last. That is, Orwell never even suggests Old Major was in any way wrong, in saying the animals had no need of humans and should revolt against their rule; rather, it’s all about The Revolution Betrayed. Many fans of Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four do not appreciate that Orwell remained a socialist to the end of his life.

[Tim_R.Mortiss]

I think you misread the novel, Monkey With A Gun. Rand never said that there were elite; only that some people chose to pursue perfection, and others did not bother. It is a matter of personal choice, not assigned caste.

[The_Second_Stone]

Well, John Mace, Monkey With a Gun Turned down your $25 bet. I will up my offer from $10 to $25, since that may be your minimum, and since I was second, do we have book? Number one film in the country during the week it comes out, per Variety. Do you accept at $10 or $25?

[armedmonkey]

@BrainGlutton

Many fans of Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four do not appreciate that Orwell remained a socialist to the end of his life.

Although that’s true, we must remember that the label of “socialism” was a bit different back then. I think the word has been corrupted. His big thing was that he hated totalitarianism. It’s true that he was a lefty in his day, but Hell, the right was true fascism. Literally. The guy wanted small government - he was never the “socialist” as we seem to define the word today. Check the following quote:

“I worked out an anarchistic theory that all government is evil, that the punishment always does more harm than the crime and the people can be trusted to behave decently if you will only let them alone.”

-George Orwell, from The Road to Wigan Pier

[armedmonkey]

@Tim_R.Mortiss

I think you misread the novel, Monkey With A Gun. Rand never said that there were elite; only that some people chose to pursue perfection, and others did not bother. It is a matter of personal choice, not assigned caste.

I know she didn’t say it, but come on. If somebody was truly pursuing perfection, would they go hide in the mountains?

No, painters don’t count.

[BrainGlutton]

@A Monkey With a Gun

@BrainGlutton

Many fans of Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four do not appreciate that Orwell remained a socialist to the end of his life.

Although that’s true, we must remember that the label of “socialism” was a bit different back then. I think the word has been corrupted. His big thing was that he hated totalitarianism. It’s true that he was a lefty in his day, but Hell, the right was true fascism. Literally. The guy wanted small government - he was never the “socialist” as we seem to define the word today.

No? Check out his comments in The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius (1941):

Socialism is usually defined as “common ownership of the means of production”. Crudely: the State, representing the whole nation, owns everything, and everyone is a State employee. This does NOT mean that people are stripped of private possessions such as clothes and furniture, but it DOES mean that all productive goods, such as land, mines, ships and machinery, are the property of the State. The State is the sole large-scale producer. It is not certain that Socialism is in all ways superior to capitalism, but it is certain that, unlike capitalism, it can solve the problems of production and consumption. At normal times a capitalist economy can never consume all that it produces, so that there is always a wasted surplus (wheat burned in furnaces, herrings dumped back into the sea etc etc) and always unemployment. In time of war, on the other hand, it has difficulty in producing all that it needs, because nothing is produced unless someone sees his way to making a profit out of it. In a Socialist economy these problems do not exist. The State simply calculates what goods will be needed and does its best to produce them. Production is only limited by the amount of labour and raw materials. Money, for internal purposes, ceases to be a mysterious all-powerful thing and becomes a sort of coupon or ration-ticket, issued in sufficient quantities to buy up such consumption goods as may be available at the moment.

However, it has become clear in the last few years that “common ownership of the means of production” is not in itself a sufficient definition of Socialism. One must also add the following: approximate equality of incomes (it need be no more than approximate), political democracy, and abolition of all hereditary privilege, especially in education. These are simply the necessary safeguards against the reappearance of a class system. Centralised ownership has very little meaning unless the mass of the people are living roughly upon an equal level, and have some kind of control over the government. “The State” may come to mean no more than a self-elected political party, and oligarchy and privilege can return, based on power rather than on money.

<snip>

I suggest that the following six-point programme is the kind of thing we need. The first three points deal with England’s internal policy, the other three with the Empire and the world:

1. Nationalisation of land, mines, railways, banks and major industries.

2. Limitation of incomes, on such a scale that the highest tax free income in Britain does not exceed the lowest by more than ten to one.

3. Reform of the educational system along democratic lines.

4. Immediate Dominion status for India, with power to secede when the war is over.

5. Formation of an Imperial General Council, in which the coloured peoples are to be represented.

6. Declaration of formal alliance with China, Abyssinia and all other victims of the Fascist powers.

The general tendency of this programme is unmistakable. It aims quite frankly at turning this war into a revolutionary war and England into a Socialist democracy. I have deliberately included in it nothing that the simplest person could not understand and see the reason for. In the form in which I have put it, it could be printed on the front page of the DAILY MIRROR. But for the purposes of this book a certain amount of amplification is needed.

1. NATIONALISATION. One can “nationalise” industry by the stroke of a pen, but the actual process is slow and complicated. What is needed is that the ownership of all major industry shall be formally vested in the State, representing the common people. Once that is done it becomes possible to eliminate the class of mere OWNERS who live not by virtue of anything they produce but by the possession of title-deeds and share certificates. State-ownership implies, therefore, that nobody shall live without working. How sudden a change in the conduct of industry it implies is less certain. In a country like England we cannot rip down the whole structure and build again from the bottom, least of all in time of war. Inevitably the majority of industrial concerns will continue with much the same personnel as before, the one-time owners or managing directors carrying on with their jobs as State employees. There is reason to think that many of the smaller capitalists would actually welcome some such arrangement. The resistance will come from the big capitalists, the bankers, the landlords and the idle rich, roughly speaking the class with over £2,000 a year–and even if one counts in all their dependants there are not more than half a million of these people in England. Nationalisation of agricultural land implies cutting out the landlord and the tithe drawer, but not necessarily interfering with the farmer. It is difficult to imagine any reorganisation of English agriculture that would not retain most of the existing farms as units, at any rate at the beginning. The farmer, when he is competent, will continue as a salaried manager. He is virtually that already, with the added disadvantage of having to make a profit and being permanently in debt to the bank. With certain kinds of petty trading, and even the small-scale ownership of land, the State will probably not interfere at all. It would be a great mistake to start by victimising the smallholder class, for instance. These people are necessary, on the whole they are competent, and the amount of work they do depends on the feeling that they are “their own masters”. But the State will certainly impose an upward limit to the ownership of land (probably fifteen acres at the very most), and will never permit any ownership of land in town areas.

From the moment that all productive goods have been declared the property of the State, the common people will feel, as they cannot feel now, that the State is THEMSELVES. They will be ready then to endure the sacrifices that are ahead of us, war or no war. And even if the face of England hardly seems to change, on the day that our main industries are formally nationalised the dominance of a single class will have been broken. From then onwards the emphasis will be shifted from ownership to management, from privilege to competence. It is quite possible that State-ownership will in itself bring about less social change than will be forced upon us by the common hardships of war. But it is the necessary first step without which any REAL reconstruction is impossible.

2. INCOMES. Limitation of incomes implies the fixing of a minimum wage, which implies a managed internal currency based simply on the amount of consumption goods available. And this again implies a stricter rationing scheme than is now in operation. It is no use at this stage of the world’s history to suggest that all human beings should have EXACTLY equal incomes. It has been shown over and over again that without some kind of money reward there is no incentive to undertake certain jobs. On the other hand the money reward need not be very large. In practice it is impossible that earnings should be limited quite as rigidly as I have suggested. There will always be anomalies and evasions. But there is no reason why ten to one should not be the maximum normal variation. And within those limits some sense of equality is possible. A man with £3 a week and a man with £1,500 a year can feel themselves fellow creatures, which the Duke of Westminster and the sleepers on the Embankment benches cannot.

3. EDUCATION. In wartime, educational reform must necessarily be promise rather than performance. At the moment we are not in a position to raise the school-leaving age or increase the teaching staffs of the elementary schools. But there are certain immediate steps that we could take towards a democratic educational system. We could start by abolishing the autonomy of the public schools and the older universities and flooding them with State-aided pupils chosen simply on grounds of ability. At present, public-school education is partly a training in class prejudice and partly a sort of tax that the middle classes pay to the upper class in return for the right to enter certain professions. It is true that that state of affairs is altering. The middle classes have begun to rebel against the expensiveness of education, and the war will bankrupt the majority of the public schools if it continues for another year or two. The evacuation is also producing certain minor changes. But there is a danger that some of the older schools, which will be able to weather the financial storm longest, will survive in some form or another as festering centres of snobbery. As for the 10,000 “private” schools that England possesses, the vast majority of them deserve nothing except suppression. They are simply commercial undertakings, and in many cases their educational level is actually lower than that of the elementary schools. They merely exist because of a widespread idea that there is something disgraceful in being educated by the public authorities. The State could quell this idea by declaring itself responsible for all education, even if at the start this were no more than a gesture. We need gestures as well as actions. It is all too obvious that our talk of “defending democracy” is nonsense while it is a mere accident of birth that decides whether a gifted child shall or shall not get the education it deserves.