Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: lasersailor184 on April 27, 2006, 11:25:43 PM
-
http://www.variety.com/VR1117942127.html
I came across this and I'm actually kind of intrigued. There are some problems introduced in the film process though.
The first of which are the actors for which roles. Currently they have Brad Pitt pegged for Galt and Angelina Jolie for Dagny. I honestly believe that Brad Pitt would fit the role of D'Anconio perfectly. I also believe that Angelina Jolie should be shot if she comes within 50 yards of the Atlas Shrugged movie set. I personally think they need someone more bookish, quite possibly nerdy. An undiscovered actress who knows her bellybutton from a hole in the ground would be great.
Who would you put in the movie roles yourself?
Also, should this movie take place over one screening? Or should it be broken up into parts?
Would it make a good movie at all?
P.S. First person to post a spoiler to the book is going to be put up infront of the firing line.
-
One of the most boring, horribly written books I've ever read in my whole entire life.
They made a dissaster out of 'Bonfire of the Vanities'... and it'd be a miracle if they could pull Atlas off.
-
Great book, and Jolie would be freakin' perfect. Think about the character.
-
...but the Fountain Head would be better.
-
I'd put Pitt in as D'Aconia but put another huge actor in as Galt... Maybe even Tom Hanks. Someone who you know can be humble but strong enough to make the sacrifice.
Reardon... That needs to be someone very strong. Maybe Hanks as Reardon? Gotta be strong but with a beliveable weakness for Dagny. Her agents would never let her do it, but I'm imagining Nicole Kidman for Mrs. Reardon. Haughty and proud...
Liberals hate me for it, but I try to live that book. Damned looters, all of them. Ayn Rand was a radical, but like Orwell she had a no-kidding crystal ball she drew from when she wrote her books.
-
Originally posted by eagl
Liberals hate me for it, but I try to live that book. Damned looters, all of them. Ayn Rand was a radical, but like Orwell she had a no-kidding crystal ball she drew from when she wrote her books.
Absolutely agree with your post. And just for the anal spelin rekord, its "Rearden". I enjoyed both books very much.
-
nash found the book "boring" (I seriously doubt that) and badly written... no... not just badly written but right up there with "one of the most" badly written books he has read...
judgeing by the drivel he has undoubtably read I find the last hard to believe also.
It was a well written and well thought out book that gave people a real insight into a very evil thing... socialism and big government... the book has inspired millions and was at one time required reading in allmost all American schools. no animal human sex or brave drug users or downtrodden masses for nash tho... no clever, witty snipes at American right wing or religion....
I think the portrayal of socilaism and liberals and their motives is one of the most realistic and powerful ever written.
Anyone who has not read the book by the ex russian Ayn Rand should do so. She knows what she is talking about. One of the few women that I really admire.
lazs
-
Yea. Agree or disagree, Ayn Rand ought to be on everyone's reading list. The critics are full of shxt. Read and decide for yourself.
-
Ron Jeremy and that chick from Rocky, Adrian.
-
Originally posted by FiLtH
Ron Jeremy and that chick from Rocky, Adrian.
Talia Shire is sixty years old.
-
is that the book about the architect and the ***** he as to rape to have sex with?
-
You're thinking of Fountainhead, which I'll be starting soon.
-
what else would you expect someone of nash's ilk to think about ayn rand and her work?
-
Originally posted by storch
what else would you expect someone of nash's ilk to think about ayn rand and her work?
I am not of "Nash's ilk", but I agree with him on this one. With some heavy editing it might be a decent read, but at it was written, well I put it down about a third of the way through and never picked it up again. And I got through Darwin's Origin. Talk about some dry reading....
-
I thought the same thing too, Holden. The first parts are really dry and slow. But about half way through the book it really picks up.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I think the portrayal of socilaism and liberals and their motives is one of the most realistic and powerful ever written.
Socialism, yes...liberals...not the way you think. Rand considered all who use government to unbalance the free market as Looters. And after 6 years of seeing how conservatives run things I can see they are Looters extraordanaire with their bridges to no where. The current crop of James Taggarts and Orren Boyles in Washington have R behind their name.
-
I see... so you feel that her portrayal of socialism and liberals was not accurate but "looters" was?
Well thank's I was wondering how liberal hollywood was gonna play this one.... Ayn is gonna turn over in her grave at this one..
Can't imagine a movie where pitt and jolie are bashing liberals.
I sure got a lot different idea of what the book was about than you did crow.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I see... so you feel that her portrayal of socialism and liberals was not accurate but "looters" was?
Is that what I said? Better go re-read the post...I believe I lumped current conservatives in with liberals at being very adept at looting. Or do you believe current conservatives in power are governmental spend thrifts?
There is no distiction for Rand between liberal or conservative. You are a producer, a looter, or a moocher. There is a whole crop of conservative looters in Washington stealing from me and giving my money to conservative moochers (otherwise known as corporate welfare).
BTW...I would say Antonio Banderas as Francisco.
-
crow... I think she has the bleeding heart liberal very well pegged.
As for conservative and liberal spending.... I will go with the conservative every time... if I am a stockholder (as are 64% of Americans) then "corprate welfare" (not taking as much of their money) is at least some benifiet to me...
A conservative president who get's into a war spends a lot of money but.... it gets paid for..
now, lets take liberals... look at what our tax money goes to... how much to social security say? how much to medicare and other "social" programs?
liberal socialist programs are never paid for... they simply grow and grow and never go away.... I think Ayn realized this.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
As for conservative and liberal spending.... I will go with the conservative every time... if I am a stockholder (as are 64% of Americans) then "corprate welfare" (not taking as much of their money) is at least some benifiet to me...
You would...cuz you're a bleeding heart conservative. ;) As for me - and Rand - we think that corporate stockholders who gain from corporations who manipulate government to unequally tax other corporations and individuals are moochers...they are the same as the welfare mom with 12 kids who hasn't worked a day in her life mooching off my tax dollars.
And don't forget the corporate welfare given to companies who use government to gain contracts with little benefit to anyone other than themselves...again stealing from me (the taxpayer) to give to someone who would not have gotten the money if the free market were allowed to work the way it should. The current conservative looters in Washington have far outdone their predicessors in that area.
Originally posted by lazs2
A conservative president who get's into a war spends a lot of money but.... it gets paid for..
How does it get paid for?? By stealing my money. And for what purpose...to give freedom to people who didn't care enough to fight for it themselves? Sorry, I'm not that altruistic (and neither was Rand)...only bleeding heart conservatives are...especially, if it means they can mooch on a nice fat government contract to supply the war effort.
And you think the current president is better than one who at least tries to promote government fiscal responsibility by balancing the budget? You are just as bad if not worse than a bleeding heart liberal. :rolleyes:
-
And you think the current president is better than one who at least tries to promote government fiscal responsibility by balancing the budget?
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
crow... I have explained that I do not beleive in taxes except for one thing... to protect the rights of individuals. I suppose that you could say that I believe in individualism...
To me... taxes and democracy are a terrible thing.. democracy can only work with an extremely strong bill of rights. The only thing the government should do is protect individual rights.
Now... lets look at spending.... allmost all government spending is for socialist welfare programs and they grow no matter what president is in... there is no choice. They were all put in place by socialist democrat presidents and they are left as a legacy for the every presicent after. They governmet robs money from us to pay for these programs.
Corprate welfare? what is it? it is merely taking less from those who produce. If it is merely takeing less taxes from them it is fine with me... if the subsidies are more than the tax burden it is not.
War... this is the reason we need a government.. this and laws to protect individuals from the socialists and the liberals and the democracy weirdos..
War should be what the government is about... taking our money to defend us is the only legitimate tax.
ayn would more agree with the above than a tax plan the made the producers pay more and more tax (higher rate) to support a government that was in debt to the hilt because of social programs put in place many years ago by liberal democrats..
some of the programs klinton put in place did not affect his budget as much as latter presidents say.... like FDR and LBJ with their massive social spending programs that have grown and swallowed the nation and drown it in debt.
lazs
-
Hi Guys,
Not to mess with the current rolicking political debate too much, but to frame Rand in terms of Liberal and Conservative, Socialist or Capitalist is to miss the mark.
At one time, I used to be a big fan of Rand and her books. Rand's philosophy is called "ethical egoism." It is a mishmash of prior philosophies (drawing heavily on Kant for Metaphysics and Nietzche for ethics). If I can smash a lot of information flat, Rand was in one sense a materialist, that is she believed only in the existence of the material universe. She also believed that man was born tabula rasa, and that information is only mediated through the senses. The source of all ethical imperatives therefore could not be found in the universe, matter gives us no information about what our principles of conduct ought to be. This could only be found in the self. To paraphrase Rand from memory, If there is no God, then men ought to be selfish - i.e. we ought to act in what we perceive to be our own self-interest.
She extended the same principle to all spheres, therefore government was for Rand an entirely voluntary association of men acting in their own self-interest alone. Rand's version of the "social contract" differed from Locke's in that she didn't believe that men should give up any liberty (coercive government and religion were her two twin evils) and she didn't believe that we should be forced to act in a utilitarian or altruistic manner. We could choose to do so if we judged it was in our best interest, but there was no ethical imperative to do so.
In terms of personal conduct, Rand's philosophy encouraged Hedonism. You only live once, so eat, drink, and be merry - enjoy your self. Rand attempted to live out that philosophy but with predictably disappointing results. In terms of economics, which is of course the most important test for any philosophy for the politically motivated, her philosophy was at loggerheads with socialism as it naturally encouraged the accumulation of personal wealth and said that no man should be compelled to "share." This is why she is often claimed as the darling of captialists and therefore by extension conservatives, but ultimately she is much closer to anarchic than conservative thought (what tradition is being conserved in her system?)
Ultimately of course her metaphysics, economics, politics, and ethics are totally opposed to any system that finds it source outside of the autonomous individual, whether that source be God or a nebulous idea of "the greater good." That is why they defy definition in terms of left and right and why she is at loggerheads both with Socialists and Christians (or any religion that emphasizes self-denial - a few of her most trenchant critics have been Buddhists.)
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by eagl
snip
Her agents would never let her do it, but I'm imagining Nicole Kidman for Mrs. Reardon. Haughty and proud...
I'm imagining Nicole Kidman nekkid.
mmmmmmmmmmm :D
culero
-
it's got a 15% chance (at best) to be even half as great as the book. I don't think Hollywood has it in them.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
The first of which are the actors for which roles. Currently they have Brad Pitt pegged for Galt and Angelina Jolie for Dagny.[/B]
I heard it was Ashton Kutcher and Britanny Spears.
-
Funny. Funny as in I'll laugh myself to sleep for a week straight funny...
-
Thanks Seagoon...spot on. Quoting the Virtue of Selfishness.
Laz...you keep listing those who are evil in Rand's eyes ("socialists and the liberals and the democracy weirdos"), but you keep leaving out the neo-cons. The current conservatives, like Cheney, are the James Taggerts and Orren Boyles of Rand's world...they are just as evil.
I also don't like individual welfare programs. But they are no different than corporate welfare (unequal taxes, subsides, tarriffs, pork contracts). You are stuck on the unequal taxes, so consider this...you say that if an unequal tax reduces a corporation's tax burden then it's OK. By that logic individual welfare must be OK too since it reduces an individual's tax burden.:huh
I do agree that the legitimate role of government is limited (and protection of individual rights is the most important role it has). Government waged war is sometimes necessary to protect the rights of it's citizens. Our current war does not fall into that category. It has been an altruistic attempt to spread democracy by those who believe it is their manifest destiny to stamp out tyrants and spread freedom to all. Bush's war on tyrants is no different than LBJ's war on poverty...only difference is at least LBJ was helping Americans! Well, I pay taxes to have our country and way of life protected...not to give democracy to Iraqis or Iranians. Don't make me a slave to pay for their freedom. Let them pay for it themselves.
-
crow... we do agree on some things but... I don't think you have adressed my main concern... that the government has no right to take from us to support those who do not produce...
I also disagree that there is "no difference" between taxing business less (taking less of their money) and giveing no producers money that is not theirs.... money extorted from other citizens... if your so called catch phrase "corporate welfare" only makes them pay less or even nothing in taxes.... that is fine with me.... if they are given more than they pay... that is corporate welfare. I am against the latter.
We also disagree or... don't agree that social programs grow... They do... allmost all the budget... all the money sucked from us by the government is used to pay for social programs and government itself.
my take is that the only legitimate function of government is to protect the rights of the individual... to protect him from the masses. If the government takes my money to support those who will not produce then it is wrong. Even if a lot of the poor "voted" in a democratic way to soak me. A legitimate government protecting my rights would not allow them to even vote on it... much like our bill of rights which is good but.... not comprehensive enough IMO.
As seagoon pointed out.. Ayn did not feel that man should be "compelled" (forced by brute stength and force of arms) to be altruistic or support altruistic programs. That would preclude any social welfare programs...
Not taxing corporations, your so called "corporate welfare" would not bother Ayn.
lazs