Atlas Shrugged Movie

[genkaus]

Most religious books are.

For some reason, religious leaders are bad storytellers.

Really? I've often found religious and mythological literature to be fantastic fiction.

---

From those on the other end of the camp, who enjoy the book, anything in particular, help me see it in a new light?

It might be a matter of personal preference - I enjoy long reflective passages in my fiction. Where the writer takes time to build up the atmosphere. Or little throwbacks to how aspects of current events relate to their childhood and how they grew up. Or which aspects of certian things appeal to the characters and why and how and if they could be mistaken. Rand does that pretty well.

---

I have to add that the heroes are not inspiring and unrealistic.

The fact that they are unrealistic is what is supposed to make them inspiring.

They basically lack any flaws and never make any real mistakes,

No, they do make mistakes.

Also there is one part of the book that particularly stuck out for me that easily could be interpreted as a criticism of literature that didn't sell very well or 'cult books'

Which part?

Ironic now that Atlas Shrugged is doing so poorly.

Not really.

[CapnAwesome]

Most religious books are.

For some reason, religious leaders are bad storytellers.

Really? I've often found religious and mythological literature to be fantastic fiction.

Well sometimes when you read an adaptation of it. I like reading adaptations of mythology. The originals though Boooring!

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Genesis-Chapter-5/

1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:

4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:

5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:

7 And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters:

8 And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.

9 And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan:

10 And Enos lived after he begat Cainan eight hundred and fifteen years, and begat sons and daughters:

11 And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years: and he died.

12 And Cainan lived seventy years, and begat Mahalaleel: etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.....

There is so much of that shit in the bible boring pointless parables. The stories might be interesting but the bible itself is not good literature. The qu'ran is maybe even worse, at least with the english translation it's so bad as to almost be unreadable. At least I could read whole chapters of Atlas Shrugged without passing out into a Coma.

[genkaus]

I think its because all the protagonists lack any real empathy and view all human relationships as an economic transaction. And that attitude rubs off onto people.

Why do you think they lack empathy?

---

Well sometimes when you read an adaptation of it. I like reading adaptations of mythology. The originals though Boooring!

Just to be clear - I'm not talking about the quran or the bible. I find those boring as fuck - even when reading the adapted, translated and abridged versions.

[CapnAwesome]

Most religious books are.

For some reason, religious leaders are bad storytellers.

Really? I've often found religious and mythological literature to be fantastic fiction.

---

From those on the other end of the camp, who enjoy the book, anything in particular, help me see it in a new light?

It might be a matter of personal preference - I enjoy long reflective passages in my fiction. Where the writer takes time to build up the atmosphere. Or little throwbacks to how aspects of current events relate to their childhood and how they grew up. Or which aspects of certian things appeal to the characters and why and how and if they could be mistaken. Rand does that pretty well.

---

I have to add that the heroes are not inspiring and unrealistic.

The fact that they are unrealistic is what is supposed to make them inspiring.

They basically lack any flaws and never make any real mistakes,

No, they do make mistakes.

Also there is one part of the book that particularly stuck out for me that easily could be interpreted as a criticism of literature that didn't sell very well or 'cult books'

Which part?

Ironic now that Atlas Shrugged is doing so poorly.

Not really.

You know that your style of responding is difficult to reply to because of all the editing of the quote tags? I don't really understand why it's so popular amongst forum people to reply to one thing at a time like this. It's annoying to read and I don't feel like spending half my time editing quote tags just to reply. I didn't type that much stuff, it doesn't need to be separated into 4 different sentences and neither does your 15 word reply. Perhaps this literary standard of yours is why you enjoy something as poorly written as Atlas Shrugged.

Most of your comments are just opinion statements, so no real need to reply to them. You find the characters to have flaws, I don't think they were written that way, unless you can provide some examples I'm not sure that there is more to say on that. Also Atlas Shrugged III is obviously doing poorly at the box office. I don't know how you can dispute that. It's budget was 5 million dollars and so far it's made a little more than 600,000. Just over 1/10th of it's budget. That is not just doing poorly, it's doing horrendously. If you want to dispute that or the other statements I've made you should probably try a little harder than just quoting a line at a time and saying 'No it's not' 'Yes they are' and then on top of it asking me to quote a specific example of something that happened in a book that I read almost 15 years ago. Nevertheless the part where Ayn Rand bashes on cult books is early in the book Dagny's brother and some of his cohorts are at a nefarious meeting of liberal intellectuals. One of them, a professor of some kind is bragging about how poorly one of his books has sold, all of the other characters meant to represent the liberal intellectuals agree that books that sell poorly have some sort of moral or intellectual credibility because of that, where as the protagonists disagree. It was a relatively minor part of the book but I always remember it. It's also consistent with Ayn Rand's views on Modern Art and such and I think it could be pretty easily interpreted as a distain for cult books and movies. In fact I think that Ayn Rand sold so well it part of what she claims gives her credibility and I think in that statement she is probably right. People only care when there are enough people reading or watching to care. Nobody is watching Atlas Shrugged III.

---

---

Well sometimes when you read an adaptation of it. I like reading adaptations of mythology. The originals though Boooring!

Just to be clear - I'm not talking about the quran or the bible. I find those boring as fuck - even when reading the adapted, translated and abridged versions.

Well what specifically are you talking about. I don't mean saying something like 'Norse Mythology' I mean specifically what original sources of mythology do you find interesting? I'd be genuinely curious. Most of the mythology books that I've read are heavily adapted from the original sources. Most of the originals that I've tried to read I've given up on. I don't know if it's because of the difficulty of translations or what but I think they are boring. It very well could just be me as boring is a subjective thing anyway. I'd be interested in maybe making another attempt if I could be pointed to something that was actually interesting.

[genkaus]

You know that your style of responding is difficult to reply to because of all the editing of the quote tags? I don't really understand why it's so popular amongst forum people to reply to one thing at a time like this.

While writing in paragraphs you can make multiple statements and arguments at once. Replying by simply disagreeing isn't helpful because it doesn't explain why you don't agree. Listing out disagreement in paragraphs is confusing because you don't know which counter-argument is addressed to which portion. Separating out different points of disagreement and addressing them separately is therefore more convenient.

Perhaps this literary standard of yours is why you enjoy something as poorly written as Atlas Shrugged.

Apart from the the comment on the quality of writing being your opinion, my writing style of taking apart an argument is something else I don't share with Rand.

Most of your comments are just opinion statements,

So are yours.

You find the characters to have flaws,

No - I said they made mistakes.

Also Atlas Shrugged III is obviously doing poorly at the box office. I don't know how you can dispute that.

I don't dispute it - I just don't find it ironic for the reason I'd already given in the previous post.

then on top of it asking me to quote a specific example of something that happened in a book that I read almost 15 years ago. Nevertheless the part where Ayn Rand bashes on cult books is early in the book Dagny's brother and some of his cohorts are at a nefarious meeting of liberal intellectuals. One of them, a professor of some kind is bragging about how poorly one of his books has sold, all of the other characters meant to represent the liberal intellectuals agree that books that sell poorly have some sort of moral or intellectual credibility because of that, where as the protagonists disagree. It was a relatively minor part of the book but I always remember it. It's also consistent with Ayn Rand's views on Modern Art and such and I think it could be pretty easily interpreted as a distain for cult books and movies. In fact I think that Ayn Rand sold so well it part of what she claims gives her credibility and I think in that statement she is probably right. People only care when there are enough people reading or watching to care. Nobody is watching Atlas Shrugged III.

I think, in bolded part, you've identified one of the practical contradictions resulting from Rand's philosophy which gives rise to one of the most common misconceptions about it - that its all about how much money you make.

Ayn Rand didn't put much stock in public opinion - she thought that things are good or bad on their own merit. So, something bad can make a lot of money if public opinion is in its favor and something good can result in losses if its unpopular. Which is why "how much money it has made" isn't always a good indicator of how good it is. The financial troubles her protagonists go through is consistent with this view - they consistently provide quality products which don't always find favor because of public opinion.

However, she also believed that people are basically rational and rationality would win out in the end - meaning eventually they would learn to appreciate a good thing and discard the bad. Simply put - if its good, sooner or later it'll start selling. Going by this metric popularity and profit generation should be indicative of the quality of the product. This is consistent with the eventual triumph of her protagonists.

So, while the principles behind the two are consistent, their application appears contradictory when profit or popularity are taken as indicative of the quality of product without considering why its profitable or popular.

Regarding the event in the book - the protagonists' position was that the book was badly written which is why its poor performance makes sense and which is why that poor performance is not indicative of any superiority on the author's part.

Regarding the movie - it is a badly made movie. The subject matter isn't movie material to begin with. They keep changing the actors. The characterizations are shoddy and adapting the descriptive nature of the books into a movie makes it prosaic. What works in a book doesn't work in a movie. The movie's popularity should be based on its own merit and not on the borrowed popularity of Rand's books or philosophy - which is why it is and should be a flop.

Well what specifically are you talking about. I don't mean saying something like 'Norse Mythology' I mean specifically what original sources of mythology do you find interesting? I'd be genuinely curious. Most of the mythology books that I've read are heavily adapted from the original sources. Most of the originals that I've tried to read I've given up on. I don't know if it's because of the difficulty of translations or what but I think they are boring. It very well could just be me as boring is a subjective thing anyway. I'd be interested in maybe making another attempt if I could be pointed to something that was actually interesting.

I don't think the stuff that worked for me would work for you. I did start with the adapted sources at a young age - comic adaptions, stories told by aunts and grandmothers, tv-shows etc. I went to the original sources because it was a part of our language curriculum. I've enjoyed reading both Ramayana and Mahabharata in their original Sanskrit versions (I hope they were the originals) - but that was after I was familiar with the whole story from other sources. Once I was done with my own cultural mythology, I then moved to reading the translated versions of Illiad and Odyssey.