OHSNAP. Atlas Shrugged Trailer -

[Shadowtheweak]

Much of that is unsubstantiated sensationalism. GMU is one of the premier economic schools in the world and private funding is never a bad thing. Also a funny thing to indict a company because they operate in a subsidized industry. The same things could have been said about Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, and Hill; all great men. I don't have any knowledge of eminent domain abuse or other nonsense, so I can't refute that, but I've already left your scathing diatribe much diminished.

Yeah...It did sorta sound like the lefty claims, and with them, most of it is selective...stuff they like in solar and wind (subsidies) is evil in other industries (oil) whereas, I'll bet the Koch attitude is that they don't make the rules, they just compete in the current environment (something we all struggle with) and they'd prefer a truly free market.  That's the feeling I get anyway.  The eminent domain thing may be interesting, if there's actually anything to it.  Same goes for the environmental claims.

Yeah that could be right, but I tend to think they use it as a means to gain power and reap profits.  Especially when they are granted a no bid contract on Wisconsin energy, which is the opposite of free market practices.

[LTKoblinsky]

Much of that is unsubstantiated sensationalism. GMU is one of the premier economic schools in the world and private funding is never a bad thing. Also a funny thing to indict a company because they operate in a subsidized industry. The same things could have been said about Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, and Hill; all great men. I don't have any knowledge of eminent domain abuse or other nonsense, so I can't refute that, but I've already left your scathing diatribe much diminished.

Yeah...It did sorta sound like the lefty claims, and with them, most of it is selective...stuff they like in solar and wind (subsidies) is evil in other industries (oil) whereas, I'll bet the Koch attitude is that they don't make the rules, they just compete in the current environment (something we all struggle with) and they'd prefer a truly free market.  That's the feeling I get anyway.  The eminent domain thing may be interesting, if there's actually anything to it.  Same goes for the environmental claims.

Yeah that could be right, but I tend to think they use it as a means to gain power and reap profits.  Especially when they are granted a no bid contract on Wisconsin energy, which is the opposite of free market practices.

For some reason, that no bid contract doesn't worry me too much about whether the Koch organization would prefer free markets. Besides, you still haven't shown any supporting evidence on this contract.

[AbstractVagabond]

No, this isn't libertarian PotC. First, production value was way lower in this movie than PotC. Second, there are some good aspects of this movie. Third, all art has some kind of message, but I think you're referring to being beaten over the head with cliches, tired platitudes, and dogmatic assertion.

Well, beaten over the head with a soapbox. Any form of art that sacrifices art for message becomes a disgrace to art. Not to say that this movie is like that, but that's what my impression is given how the real rabid Rand fans praise the movie the same way real rabid Christians praised PotC. "Forget how well the movie really was, it's pushing our agenda. Over 9000 stars." I will concede that AS is unlike PotC in that AS isn't a snuff film. However, when the message is the only thing praised, quality be damned, the comparison is valid.

OK, so the biggest fans will like it no matter what anybody says? Doesn't any form of art have that contingent? I've mainly seen, "good movie, but the (insert issue here) wasn't so good."

All forms of art has it in one form or another. Many of which are too trivial to take seriously. It's the art with a "message" that bugs me the most. Not to say that it has one primarily, but that's the only thing that would seem to matter. It ceases being a movie and becomes a sermon. You've seen "Good movie, but..." and not see what is being said as to what makes it "good" in their minds. I dare say that if they took out the "message" from the equation, hardly anyone would say AS was a good movie. Same goes with anything where the message is primary focus.

Now, perhaps AS was never intended the message to be the primary focus (I don't know, never read the book, don't care to) and if that was the case, than the fans made it so. For the longest time, I thought AS was a political book and not an actual novel. Call that misunderstanding ignorance, but the diehard fans of Rand fed that ignorance to me. Unintentionally, of course.

[Cognitive Dissident]

Hmm...art with a message.  The opposite would be something like Diebenkorn's Ocean Park series...and I'd say that is the kind of art I hate.

[LTKoblinsky]

No, this isn't libertarian PotC. First, production value was way lower in this movie than PotC. Second, there are some good aspects of this movie. Third, all art has some kind of message, but I think you're referring to being beaten over the head with cliches, tired platitudes, and dogmatic assertion.

Well, beaten over the head with a soapbox. Any form of art that sacrifices art for message becomes a disgrace to art. Not to say that this movie is like that, but that's what my impression is given how the real rabid Rand fans praise the movie the same way real rabid Christians praised PotC. "Forget how well the movie really was, it's pushing our agenda. Over 9000 stars." I will concede that AS is unlike PotC in that AS isn't a snuff film. However, when the message is the only thing praised, quality be damned, the comparison is valid.

OK, so the biggest fans will like it no matter what anybody says? Doesn't any form of art have that contingent? I've mainly seen, "good movie, but the (insert issue here) wasn't so good."

All forms of art has it in one form or another. Many of which are too trivial to take seriously. It's the art with a "message" that bugs me the most. Not to say that it has one primarily, but that's the only thing that would seem to matter. It ceases being a movie and becomes a sermon. You've seen "Good movie, but..." and not see what is being said as to what makes it "good" in their minds. I dare say that if they took out the "message" from the equation, hardly anyone would say AS was a good movie. Same goes with anything where the message is primary focus.

Now, perhaps AS was never intended the message to be the primary focus (I don't know, never read the book, don't care to) and if that was the case, than the fans made it so. For the longest time, I thought AS was a political book and not an actual novel. Call that misunderstanding ignorance, but the diehard fans of Rand fed that ignorance to me. Unintentionally, of course.

I think plot and meaning are major components of whether something is 'good'. If you just want something mindless to stare at, by all means, go ahead. Good art, however, is defined differently by different people. It was a good movie because it portrayed Rand's message mildly effectively (double adverbs allowed?) and because I enjoyed the plot, Rearden's acting, and the twist on Rand's settings.

[alaric89]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfr7vzSx1lU&feature=related[/youtube]

[AbstractVagabond]

No, this isn't libertarian PotC. First, production value was way lower in this movie than PotC. Second, there are some good aspects of this movie. Third, all art has some kind of message, but I think you're referring to being beaten over the head with cliches, tired platitudes, and dogmatic assertion.

Well, beaten over the head with a soapbox. Any form of art that sacrifices art for message becomes a disgrace to art. Not to say that this movie is like that, but that's what my impression is given how the real rabid Rand fans praise the movie the same way real rabid Christians praised PotC. "Forget how well the movie really was, it's pushing our agenda. Over 9000 stars." I will concede that AS is unlike PotC in that AS isn't a snuff film. However, when the message is the only thing praised, quality be damned, the comparison is valid.

OK, so the biggest fans will like it no matter what anybody says? Doesn't any form of art have that contingent? I've mainly seen, "good movie, but the (insert issue here) wasn't so good."

All forms of art has it in one form or another. Many of which are too trivial to take seriously. It's the art with a "message" that bugs me the most. Not to say that it has one primarily, but that's the only thing that would seem to matter. It ceases being a movie and becomes a sermon. You've seen "Good movie, but..." and not see what is being said as to what makes it "good" in their minds. I dare say that if they took out the "message" from the equation, hardly anyone would say AS was a good movie. Same goes with anything where the message is primary focus.

Now, perhaps AS was never intended the message to be the primary focus (I don't know, never read the book, don't care to) and if that was the case, than the fans made it so. For the longest time, I thought AS was a political book and not an actual novel. Call that misunderstanding ignorance, but the diehard fans of Rand fed that ignorance to me. Unintentionally, of course.

I think plot and meaning are major components of whether something is 'good'. If you just want something mindless to stare at, by all means, go ahead. Good art, however, is defined differently by different people. It was a good movie because it portrayed Rand's message mildly effectively (double adverbs allowed?) and because I enjoyed the plot, Rearden's acting, and the twist on Rand's settings.

It's not a matter of something mindless or not. When it comes to movies, I simply want a story to be told. I don't want a sermon. Mindless movies commonly are just as bad as they sacrifice story for eye and ear candy. So AS has a story. Why did it take who knows how many years for someone to mention it had one? All the years prior, I could've sworn it was on the same shelf as Dianetics. Uh... Dianetics doesn't have a story, does it? I don't want a second popular book to sneak up on me as being something other than what I thought it was.

[LTKoblinsky]

So that's your misconception, and I think it biases you against the project. One of the greatest arguments that critics of Ayn Rand have is that it is a fiction novel. Randroids love the fact that she's a storyteller as well as a philospher.

[AbstractVagabond]

So that's your misconception, and I think it biases you against the project. One of the greatest arguments that critics of Ayn Rand have is that it is a fiction novel. Randroids love the fact that she's a storyteller as well as a philospher.

I'm making no bones that I've developed a misconception about the novel, but it's easy to do so when hardly anyone treats it as a novel. At least, nobody I've heard who brought it up in the past. And I've never heard any such critic. Everything I had heard about Rand was entirely political. All the same, it's impossible for me to get my head around the idea that AS is a story. Not at long as the praise and hatred remains the way it is. Not from anyone here, mind you. You guys are doing a good job in battling my ignorance. As futile as it may be.

[John Shaw]

All the same, it's impossible for me to get my head around the idea that AS is a story. Not at long as the praise and hatred remains the way it is.

If you base your opinions around what other people say rather than your own experiences, you should probably never read AS. You won't enjoy the story.

It's a story. A semi science fiction/mystery story. There is a high tech engine and choo choo trains and people backstabbing each other and people fucking and people doing what people do. There are plots, subplots, flashbacks, snarky dialog, suicides, murders, people listening to music, peopl building shit, people tearing down shit, death rays, etc.

But like I said, if you are more interested in basing your opinions on hearsay than the evidence of your own senses and experiences , then really, you probably should avoid the book.

[AbstractVagabond]

All the same, it's impossible for me to get my head around the idea that AS is a story. Not at long as the praise and hatred remains the way it is.

If you base your opinions around what other people say rather than your own experiences, you should probably never read AS. You won't enjoy the story.

It's a story. A semi science fiction/mystery story. There is a high tech engine and choo choo trains and people backstabbing each other and people fucking and people doing what people do. There are plots, subplots, flashbacks, snarky dialog, suicides, murders, people listening to music, peopl building shit, people tearing down shit, death rays, etc.

But like I said, if you are more interested in basing your opinions on hearsay than the evidence of your own senses and experiences , then really, you probably should avoid the book.

I actually based my opinion here on what I thought the book was and how the realization of what the book is has caused a creation of skepticism towards its worth as a story. It's not what people said, it's how the book was treated. Doesn't matter by whom. Positive or negative, it was treated the same way. Keep in mind that I never read or heard any reviews of the novel prior to the movie. No opinions on if someone liked it or not, but I've been barraged with an abundance of AS references in political discussions. The use of the book as a measuring stick on how "libertarian" one is. Or even the recent acknowledgement of problems in this country causing an increase in AS book sales. How can anyone expect me to think differently than I currently do when AS is shrouded in a messiah environment?

I do not, DO NOT, want my opinion to feel like a discrediting of AS. I like that people take to heart the message in the book (based on how it's treated, it's not rocket science to figure out the gist of what that message is). This is only my reason why I'm not caring to see the movie. You say that I should avoid it. All I've done was explain why I am.

[John Shaw]

All the same, it's impossible for me to get my head around the idea that AS is a story. Not at long as the praise and hatred remains the way it is.

If you base your opinions around what other people say rather than your own experiences, you should probably never read AS. You won't enjoy the story.

It's a story. A semi science fiction/mystery story. There is a high tech engine and choo choo trains and people backstabbing each other and people fucking and people doing what people do. There are plots, subplots, flashbacks, snarky dialog, suicides, murders, people listening to music, peopl building shit, people tearing down shit, death rays, etc.

But like I said, if you are more interested in basing your opinions on hearsay than the evidence of your own senses and experiences , then really, you probably should avoid the book.

I actually based my opinion here on what I thought the book was and how the realization of what the book is has caused a creation of skepticism towards its worth as a story. It's not what people said, it's how the book was treated. Doesn't matter by whom. Positive or negative, it was treated the same way. Keep in mind that I never read or heard any reviews of the novel prior to the movie. No opinions on if someone liked it or not, but I've been barraged with an abundance of AS references in political discussions. The use of the book as a measuring stick on how "libertarian" one is. Or even the recent acknowledgement of problems in this country causing an increase in AS book sales. How can anyone expect me to think differently than I currently do when AS is shrouded in a messiah environment?

I do not, DO NOT, want my opinion to feel like a discrediting of AS. I like that people take to heart the message in the book (based on how it's treated, it's not rocket science to figure out the gist of what that message is). This is only my reason why I'm not caring to see the movie. You say that I should avoid it. All I've done was explain why I am.

I hear ya.

Besides, Objectivists aren't libertarian enough by half, which is why even though I have total respect for Rand, I can't call myself an O'ist anymore. Can't be a dirty statist anymore in good conscience.

[sillyperson]

It's a proven empirical fact: objectivists don't smoke enough pot.

[LTKoblinsky]

Funny how statists see objectivists as government hating anarchists and anarchists (whatever sect you may be, Ian) see objectivists as violent statists.

[mikehz]

Whether Objectivists are "libertarian" enough for your tastes, AS is certainly libertarian in that it promotes anarchism and denounces government. "Galt's Gulch" is about as libertarian a place as it gets!