applepansy Posted February 12, 2011 Report Posted February 12, 2011 (edited) The site didn't say when it was being released. addtion: Atlas Shrugged: Part I (2011) - IMDb Edited February 12, 2011 by applepansy Quote
slamjet Posted February 12, 2011 Report Posted February 12, 2011 Atlas Shrugged (film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Quote
NeuroTypical Posted February 13, 2011 Report Posted February 13, 2011 Looking forward to it. Atlas Shrugged had a major impact in my 180 degree swing from liberal to conservative back in the '80's. I am still amazed at how often I find someone arguing that A is not A. Quote
applepansy Posted April 24, 2011 Report Posted April 24, 2011 We saw this movie last night. GREAT MOVIE!!! I can't wait for Part 2. We went to the 3pm showing. There were most 50+-something people there. Where are the 20 and 30 year olds? Where is the generation that really needs to hear this message? Quote
miztrniceguy Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 Altho I thought the movie fairly ok, my wife cried at the ending. They did not adapt it to film well. It was like they spent the whole time quoting the book. I think it did a fair job communicating the ideals, but very stiff and forced. Especially the scene where Hank tells Dagny he is married. Having read the book last year I found myself flashing back to it the whole time. I have just started reading The Fountainhead. Quote
Connie Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 We saw this movie last night. GREAT MOVIE!!! I can't wait for Part 2.We went to the 3pm showing. There were most 50+-something people there. Where are the 20 and 30 year olds? Where is the generation that really needs to hear this message?What was the message you got out of it, Apple? Quote
prisonchaplain Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 I read Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead. There was a time in my life during which I found Rand's individualism extremely seductive. However, I had an epiphany of sorts. Objectivism commits the same error as Communism. It presumes the inherent goodness of humanity. This is a fatal flaw. She gets so much right, but her underlying spiritual message is in error. Nevertheless, I do want to see the movie...just maybe when it hits our $2 theater...or the DVD rental circuit. Quote
Guest LiterateParakeet Posted May 12, 2011 Report Posted May 12, 2011 She gets so much right, but her underlying spiritual message is in error. Nevertheless, I do want to see the movie...just maybe when it hits our $2 theater...or the DVD rental circuit.Thanks so much for saying this! My friend and I read it together (part of an online book club of sorts). My friend left the church. She is now an Atheist Objectivist. It wasn't only the book, there were other factors involved, but still...Like you I still may see it when it gets to online streaming on Netflix. Quote
applepansy Posted May 12, 2011 Report Posted May 12, 2011 What was the message you got out of it, Apple?Objectivsm is wrong and Rand's values are a bit warped. However, It is the other side of the coin to Altruism.I started exploring my thoughts on this subject in this thread: http://www.lds.net/forums/general-discussion/38911-capitalism-alturism.htmlOne without the other doesn't work very well. We need both in balance.I see our society moving towards a State enforced altruistic attitude that concerns me. I know it is probably in response to an increase in selfishness and greed on a big scale in our country. I also see our government throwing the baby out with the bathwater as a country, in trying to regulate the corporate greed.Individuality is important. Innovation is important. When a government takes the rights of the individual away in regards to his own innovative thinking/doing/creating we all lose. Charity is very important. Giving and taking care of others is very important. When a government compels its citizenry to "charitiable" acts is it really charity? I don't think so. Basically... I see a generation growing up not learning that not only should individuals be allowed to succeed but they should willingly (without laws to compel) take care of those less fortunate.IMHO, Unless we have both sides of this coin we're going to lose. Quote
Connie Posted May 20, 2011 Report Posted May 20, 2011 So in your opinion, does this movie accurately portray the balance that needs to occur with these 2 principles? or is it only one side of it? Sorry i'm a bit confused still and just trying to pick apart your brain a bit. We don't want to throw Capitalism away in favor of Altruism, but if the message of Atlas Shrugged is to throw Altruism away in favor of Capitalism, then that's just the other side of the Communism coin and will lead ultimately to the same end. If it's only one of the 2 principles it is portraying accurately, should we not seek elsewhere for a message that will bring the 2 together? Or are you just hoping that everyone who sees this will have the same good sense you do and realize that there needs to be balance rather than completely adopting the Objectivist philosophy it portrays? Unless you do feel it balances the 2 out, in which case you may completely ignore the above paragraph and just say you feel it completely balances these 2 principles. Quote
John_Galt_Lives Posted August 9, 2011 Report Posted August 9, 2011 (edited) I read Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead. There was a time in my life during which I found Rand's individualism extremely seductive. However, I had an epiphany of sorts. Objectivism commits the same error as Communism. It presumes the inherent goodness of humanity. This is a fatal flaw.She gets so much right, but her underlying spiritual message is in error. Nevertheless, I do want to see the movie...just maybe when it hits our $2 theater...or the DVD rental circuit.Actually, Ayn Rand specifically wrote in her nonfiction that humans are born tabula rasa, (without any inherent knowledge or moral tendencies.) Also, it is difficult to see how one could get from her novels that humanity is inherently good. In Atlas Shrugged, the number of good people is truly dwarfed by those who display immorality, depravity, or evil of one sort or another. This disparity in numbers frequently leads people to the opposite misconception: that Rand was a misanthropic elitist. (ie. that she hated everyone who wasn't of exceptional cognitive ability.) But, actually, the difference between the two groups is one of choice: the good people are those who think independently, and use their minds to the best of their ability, whereas the immoral are those who abandoned their minds to their corrupt, anti-reason culture, or actively engaged in attempts to get other people to surrender their minds.Ayn Rand's novels have both good characters and bad characters of higher intelligence, and good and bad characters of lower intelligence. Their intelligence is not the determinant of their moral status, and neither are they innately good for being biologically human.If my understanding of Marxist Communism is correct, they actually believe(d) that human nature, as it stands now, is corrupt. This corruption is generated by the "class system" that is an inevitable development of historical/economic forces. The current corruption of human nature and the class system is what, to them, necessitate the historical stage called the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. This dictatorship will forge human nature anew, and instead of being "naturally greedy bourgeoisie, and exploited proletariat," people will become naturally "good," (ie. altruistic) and will have no material needs beyond a basic level of sustenance and comfort. They will all be able to live by the maxim, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."(I must say that this final state reminds me a good deal of the way the Biblical apostles of Jesus behaved--minus proselytizing for God/Jesus, of course. And I fail to see how the ethic of selflessness in Christianity is consistent with the ethic of self-interest/profit-motive underlying capitalism.)As for the movie, it was okay as current movies go; but as an adaptation of the novel, it is fairly poor. This goes both for the depth of the theme and, especially, the characterization. Edited August 9, 2011 by John_Galt_Lives Quote
prisonchaplain Posted August 9, 2011 Report Posted August 9, 2011 John, the "good" characters in Rand's novels--especially in Atlas Shrugged--are shown capable of creating a utopian society, based on individual liberty. Marx believed the same was possible, if the individual succumbed to the good of the whole. So, they come from opposite directions. However, they agree that human society can be a type of Celestial Kingdom, apart from God. I guess I will adjust my analysis to say that Rand believed some people can become truly good, of their own volition. Quote
John_Galt_Lives Posted August 12, 2011 Report Posted August 12, 2011 I guess I will adjust my analysis to say that Rand believed some people can become truly good, of their own volition.Yes, that would be an accurate statement. Objectivists regard being truly good as possible to every individual man or woman without the assistance of any "supernatural" beings. For an Objectivist, people are not pathetic dependents on God, Allah, Jesus, Zeus, or Ra, but autonomous and capable of making their own moral decisions, and of making their own lives happy. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.