Atlas Shrugged II clip

[calvin]

Here is a clip from the movie, which starts Friday.
Admirers of the book will enjoy this, and it makes
the movie look promising.

'Rearden and the Wet Nurse'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d3iVaGfEsg

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, October 7, 2012 3:31:41 PM UTC-4, calvin wrote:
> Here is a clip from the movie, which starts Friday.
>
> Admirers of the book will enjoy this, and it makes
> the movie look promising.
> 'Rearden and the Wet Nurse'
>

I can't wait for Part III: Henry Rearden vs Freddy Krueger in Nightmare on Wall Street . . .

[reilloc]

A wet nurse is a woman who breast feeds an infant when its mother won't
or can't. Aside from the titillating imagery the title's apparently
intended to evoke, perhaps the only way that old men are able to obtain
arousal, what's the explanation for calling the government agent a "wet
nurse?"

LNC

[calvin]

Maybe if you weren't so literal you could imagine it.
Some of the workers in Rearden's steel mill call
the government agent that. Rearden calls him
"Non-absolute", but his real name is Tony, we
learn late in the story.

The point of the clip is not what the character
is called. At any rate, I only expect admirers of the
book to be especially interested in the clip. The
story of Rearden and the Wet Nurse is the most
touching sub-plot of the book, in my estimation,
but their best scenes are in Part III.

[Obveeus]

"calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>On Oct 7, 4:47 pm, reilloc <reil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/7/2012 2:31 PM, calvin wrote:
>> > Here is a clip from the movie, which starts Friday.
>> > Admirers of the book will enjoy this, and it makes
>> > the movie look promising.
>> > 'Rearden and the Wet Nurse'
>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d3iVaGfEsg
>>
>> A wet nurse is a woman who breast feeds an infant when its mother won't
>> or can't. Aside from the titillating imagery the title's apparently
>> intended to evoke, perhaps the only way that old men are able to obtain
>> arousal, what's the explanation for calling the government agent a "wet
>> nurse?"
>
>Maybe if you weren't so literal you could imagine it.
>Some of the workers in Rearden's steel mill call
>the government agent that.

How could it be meant any more literally than the imagery of suckling at the
government's teat?
I guess the moral of the story is that people need to grow up and not breast
feed off the government.

[reilloc]

On 10/7/2012 4:09 PM, calvin wrote:
> On Oct 7, 4:47 pm, reilloc <reil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/7/2012 2:31 PM, calvin wrote:
>>> Here is a clip from the movie, which starts Friday.
>>> Admirers of the book will enjoy this, and it makes
>>> the movie look promising.
>>> 'Rearden and the Wet Nurse'
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d3iVaGfEsg
>>
>> A wet nurse is a woman who breast feeds an infant when its mother won't
>> or can't. Aside from the titillating imagery the title's apparently
>> intended to evoke, perhaps the only way that old men are able to obtain
>> arousal, what's the explanation for calling the government agent a "wet
>> nurse?"
>
> Maybe if you weren't so literal you could imagine it.
> Some of the workers in Rearden's steel mill call
> the government agent that. Rearden calls him
> "Non-absolute", but his real name is Tony, we
> learn late in the story.

I guess that "literal" isn't important in writing, eh? That's the
"Randian" style.

LNC

[calvin]

What you say could be applied to other things, but in this
story the young man is assigned by the government to
watch the activities in Rearden's steel mills and keep
Rearden informed of current government regulations
and procedures and, by implication, to keep the
government informed of Rearden's activities. He, the
government agent, is doing the nursing, not being nursed.

In this and previous comments you seem eager to think
this story is about 'worthless' people living on the government
dole. But that's not what it's about. It's about government
and corrupt businessmen hamstringing free enterprise and
thus creating a multitude of bad effects; and among those
bad effects the eventual reduction of ordinary people to the
level of starving savages. The book is not about the common
people sucking at the government's teat, but it has a lot to
do with the government and corrupt businesses helping
out each other at the expense of the honest producers,
at every level, and at the peril of the functioning of the
country.

I know the book. People from whom you seem to be
getting your information obviously (to me) don't. The
greatest falsehood about the book, bleated by the liberal
media whenever the subject of the book or its writer
comes up, is that ... but wait ... let me give you Rachel
Maddow's exact words:

"In Ayn Rand's novels she leads her readers to see the very
wealthiest
people in society as heroes, heroes who must be protected from taxes,
from the government, from regulation, from bureaucracy, from anything
that rich people might find restrictive in any way toward them
becoming
more rich. The rich are heroes and everybody else is a 'taker', and
the
more the rich have, the better, the better for everyone."

In this book the very wealthiest people in society are both
the good and the bad, the most able and honest producers
and the most corrupt and incompetent 'crony capitalists',
though that term is not used, as well as the most corrupt
government officials. There is no moral value placed on simply
having money, though there is much moral value placed on
competent production and thus honestly making money.
And this applies as much to people of modest means as to
the most successful industrialists.

I know the book, but believe Rachel if that is what you prefer.

[calvin]

Google Groups' ridiculous margin problem messed up
Rachel Maddow's comments. To do them justice I'll
repair the damage here:

[calvin]

On Oct 7, 6:21 pm, reilloc <reil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I guess that "literal" isn't important in writing, eh? That's the
> "Randian" style.
>
> LNC

Hint: to sabotage a thread you need to do a little
better than this. So far you're only making yourself
look ridiculous. You should take lessons from
'Obveeus'. He knows how to write just a few words
that get me to reply with several paragraphs, down
onto which vultures will stoop for a feeding frenzy.

[Obveeus]

Yes, exactly as I said. The government agent is the wet nurse...how much
more literal could it possibly get than to label the government symbol in
the story as 'wet nurse'?

>In this and previous comments you seem eager to think
>this story is about 'worthless' people living on the government
>dole.

Not really. My understanding was that the story was about the 'better
people' deciding they were sick of taking care of everyone else and sick of
the government trying to force them to do so.

> But that's not what it's about. It's about government
>and corrupt businessmen hamstringing free enterprise and
>thus creating a multitude of bad effects; and among those
>bad effects the eventual reduction of ordinary people to the
>level of starving savages. The book is not about the common
>people sucking at the government's teat, but it has a lot to
>do with the government and corrupt businesses helping
>out each other at the expense of the honest producers,
>at every level, and at the peril of the functioning of the
>country.

Nothing in what you just wrote conflicts with what I said above.
Meanwhile, the faulty logic solution remains strategies like 'trickle down
economics'.

>I know the book. People from whom you seem to be
>getting your information obviously (to me) don't. The
>greatest falsehood about the book, bleated by the liberal
>media whenever the subject of the book or its writer
>comes up, is that ... but wait ... let me give you Rachel
>Maddow's exact words:
>
>"In Ayn Rand's novels she leads her readers to see the very
>wealthiest
>people in society as heroes, heroes who must be protected from taxes,
>from the government, from regulation, from bureaucracy, from anything
>that rich people might find restrictive in any way toward them
>becoming
>more rich. The rich are heroes and everybody else is a 'taker', and
>the
>more the rich have, the better, the better for everyone."
>
>In this book the very wealthiest people in society are both
>the good and the bad, the most able and honest producers
>and the most corrupt and incompetent 'crony capitalists',
>though that term is not used, as well as the most corrupt
>government officials. There is no moral value placed on simply
>having money, though there is much moral value placed on
>competent production and thus honestly making money.

If you believe what you are peddling as the entirety of the novel's thesis,
I assume you would think that it is perfectly reasonable for the government
to balance its budget (an extremely limited budget, I am sure), but having a
100% inheritence tax? After all, why should people get money for nothing?

>And this applies as much to people of modest means as to
>the most successful industrialists.
>
>I know the book, but believe Rachel if that is what you prefer.

Why would I believe her blanket statement as to what the propaganda of the
book entails? (...even if I did believe your implication that she believes
that the book is *only* about rich people who should not be encumbered).

[nick]

And if that's successful, Henry Rearden vs. Jason Vorhees in Black
Friday the 13th.

After that, the Human Centipede knock-off, where the moochers in the
back parts of the centipede are living off the hard work of the human
at the front.

[calvin]

On Oct 7, 6:58 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
> If you believe what you are peddling as the entirety of the novel's thesis,

No, I thought it was quite clear that I was disputing
what Rachel Maddow said. Let's just leave it at this.
Your 'peddling' remark is too offensive for me to maintain
interest. Think what you like. I always regret responding
to you.

[trotsky]

That's as good a description of "trickle down economics" as any I've heard.

[bermuda999]

On Sunday, October 7, 2012 5:09:16 PM UTC-4, calvin wrote:
> On Oct 7, 4:47 pm, reilloc <reil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 10/7/2012 2:31 PM, calvin wrote:
>
> > > Here is a clip from the movie, which starts Friday.
>
> > > Admirers of the book will enjoy this, and it makes
>
> > > the movie look promising.
>
> > > 'Rearden and the Wet Nurse'
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d3iVaGfEsg
>
> >
>
> > A wet nurse is a woman who breast feeds an infant when its mother won't
>
> > or can't. Aside from the titillating imagery the title's apparently
>
> > intended to evoke, perhaps the only way that old men are able to obtain
>
> > arousal, what's the explanation for calling the government agent a "wet
>
> > nurse?"
>
>
>
> Maybe if you weren't so literal you could imagine it.
> Some of the workers in Rearden's steel mill call
> the government agent that. Rearden calls him
> "Non-absolute",

Reardon also calls him "Wet Nurse." As does the narrator. As does Rand. Why do you think she chose this term?

[calvin]

On Oct 8, 8:37 am, bermuda999 <bermuda...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, October 7, 2012 5:09:16 PM UTC-4, calvin wrote:
> > On Oct 7, 4:47 pm, reilloc <reil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 10/7/2012 2:31 PM, calvin wrote:
> > > > Here is a clip from the movie, which starts Friday.
> > > > Admirers of the book will enjoy this, and it makes
> > > > the movie look promising.
> > > > 'Rearden and the Wet Nurse'
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d3iVaGfEsg
> > > A wet nurse is a woman who breast feeds an infant when its mother won't
> > > or can't. Aside from the titillating imagery the title's apparently
> > > intended to evoke, perhaps the only way that old men are able to obtain
> > > arousal, what's the explanation for calling the government agent a "wet
> > > nurse?"
>
> > Maybe if you weren't so literal you could imagine it.
> > Some of the workers in Rearden's steel mill call
> > the government agent that.  Rearden calls him

> > "Non-absolute", ...

>
> Reardon also calls him "Wet Nurse." As does the narrator. As does Rand. Why do you think she chose this term?

I don't think so, but perhaps you're right. Can you identify an
instance of it? The book has no narrator. It is written in the
third person with no intermediary between the author and the
story. Why do you distinguish 'narrator' and 'Rand'?

I have nothing more to say about the choice of the term.

[bermuda999]

You are the one who brought the term up in your original post. You have interesting insights regarding the book which you readily impart. I thought perhaps you might want to give your insight into Rand's choice of this term.

[calvin]

Okay, but let me look at a couple of books about
Atlas Shrugged and get back to you. Some of the
writers of essays in those books might have some-
thing to say on the topic.

I always assumed, maybe erroneously, that a wet
nurse was someone, other than the mother, who
took care of a baby. I had never thought about
the breast-feeding angle. To me, the term in the
book just means a person, superfluous from the
Rearden steelworkers' point of view, sent by the
government to oversee people who were far more
competent than the senders.

In the story, the Wet Nurse gradually becomes more
interesting to Rearden and to the reader, and toward
the end is shown as a poignant contrast to Rearden's
brother Philip and finally is part of one of Rand's most
deeply affecting scenes, which I don't want to spoil.

In the clip I just like the way the character is initially
presented, for example in his greeting to Rearden, his
ernestness in mouthing popular bromides, his furrowed
brow when hearing Rearden's words, the way he softly
says, "I'm not a looter."

I just hope the rest of the movie is as attentive to
detail as this promising scene is.

[calvin]

From a pre-release review of AS II in Forbes magazine:

"Rest assured, the movie will be savaged by the leftist
press, mocked by the cultural intelligentsia, and derided
by the political operatives and crony capitalists that
Ayn Rand so well portrayed in the characters of Wesley
Mouch, Bertram Scudder, Kip Chalmers, Owen Boyle,
Floyd Ferris, and many others."

[Obveeus]

Just before the text quoted above, the author raves about his longterm love
of the novel and writes:
'This movie, released a mere three weeks before the election,
deserves your support. Vote for it with your movie dollars,
if nothing else but to protest the statist madness engulfing us. '

So, the sales pitch here is to see the film as a way of sticking it to 'the
man'.
What better form of movie going welfare system could there be?

[calvin]

Not my 'sales pitch'. My interest is in how well the
movie represents the book, which I'll know by this
time Friday.

> What better form of movie going welfare system could there be?

I have no idea what you mean by that.

[Obveeus]

"calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>On Oct 8, 3:26 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>> "calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>> > From a pre-release review of AS II in Forbes magazine:
>>
>> > "Rest assured, the movie will be savaged by the leftist
>> > press, mocked by the cultural intelligentsia, and derided
>> > by the political operatives and crony capitalists that
>> > Ayn Rand so well portrayed in the characters of Wesley
>> > Mouch, Bertram Scudder, Kip Chalmers, Owen Boyle,
>> > Floyd Ferris, and many others."
>>
>> Just before the text quoted above, the author raves about his longterm
>> love
>> of the novel and writes:
>> 'This movie, released a mere three weeks before the election,
>> deserves your support. Vote for it with your movie dollars,
>> if nothing else but to protest the statist madness engulfing us. '
>>
>> So, the sales pitch here is to see the film as a way of sticking it to
>> 'the
>> man'.
>
>Not my 'sales pitch'.

The sales pitch of the Forbes article.

> My interest is in how well the
>movie represents the book, which I'll know by this
>time Friday.

I'm more likely to see ARGO or SEVEN PSYCHOPATHS, both of which will also be
easier to find given the wider releases.

>> What better form of movie going welfare system could there be?
>
>I have no idea what you mean by that.

Going to see a movie because the movie is suspected to be good:
capitalism/(quality reward) in action.
Going to see a movie in an effort to make a political statement: welfare
support for politics' sake.
The Forbes article author doesn't appear to have a firm grasp on the book's
ideas/ideals, even if he loves the story.

[calvin]

On Oct 8, 4:13 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
> I'm more likely to see ARGO or SEVEN PSYCHOPATHS, ...

What a surprise.

[Obveeus]

Other than the people who like light comedy (HERE COMES THE BOOM) and the
people who like horror (SINISTER), I'd bet that is true of nearly everyone
in America....except perhaps the people going to the theater to make a
political statement.

[calvin]

... or perhaps the people going to see a movie made from
what we think is a great book.

[trotsky]

No, that's not it.

[nick]

I don't even see how it's going to stick it to the man. If a whole
bunch of people are coerced into going to see something with politics
they already agree with, how does "the man" get sticked? If people
want to pay their hard earned money (or social security leeching
mooching money if they're no longer fit to work and contribute to
society) to see crappy movies so as to piss off liberals, more power
to them but I don't see what it's doing other than financially
rewarding the people making the crappy movies who wouldn't be able to
get people through the doors based on cinematic merit. It's a con but
on the level of cons, it's relatively harmless since the conned people
are marks and dupes anyway.

[calvin]

On Oct 9, 9:50 am, nick <leftbehindbythetalk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't even see how it's going to stick it to the man.  If a whole
> bunch of people are coerced into going to see something with politics
> they already agree with, how does "the man" get sticked?  If people
> want to pay their hard earned money (or social security leeching
> mooching money if they're no longer fit to work and contribute to
> society) to see crappy movies so as to piss off liberals, more power
> to them but I don't see what it's doing other than financially
> rewarding the people making the crappy movies who wouldn't be able to
> get people through the doors based on cinematic merit.  It's a con but
> on the level of cons, it's relatively harmless since the conned people
> are marks and dupes anyway.

Replace 'liberals' with 'conservatives' in what
you wrtote, and you're talking about a Michael
Moore movie. At least the makers of this movie
don't claim that it's non-fiction.

[Obveeus]

Yep. It is on the same level of 'stick it to the man' that we saw with all
the raving about the box office gold for '2016: Obama's America'. It shows
unwavering support for the anti-establishment (current establishment defined
only by Whitehouse/Senate) cause. Basically the same extent of a message
that the Tea Party offers.

[nick]

Give credit where credit is due. You might not like Moore (and most
leftists and liberals don't much like him either) but Fahrenheit 911
and Bowling for Columbine changed the landscape for documentaries,
populariizing them and personalizing them in a way that opened them up
to mass audiences and paved the way for something like 2016, though
I'm not expecting any "standing on the shoulders of giants" show of
gratitude from Dinesh D'Souza.

And speaking of 2016, it's coming out on DVD on October 16 and I
wonder if Walmart will provde competing shelf space to an anti-D'Souza
documentary, the way they did when Fahrenheit 911 was released to
video. making sure some Dick Morris produced piece of hackwork was
sitting right next to it. I would hope Walmart shows equal time
again but that's assuming someone's bothered to make an anti Dinesh
D'Slouza movie in the last week or so.

[calvin]

I don't know, but I have no desire to see the D'Souza
movie, and probably won't. The one I want to see is
'Occupy Unmasked'. Obama will be irrelevant within
four years or so, but the mindless rioting and anarchy
of the left will continue to grow, I believe, as the national
and world situation continues to worsen, with no solutions
in sight.

[trotsky]

The "he's just as shitty as we are!" argument is my favorite.

[nick]

I'm going to save my money for the week and go see Alex Cross the week
after. Tyler Perry as an ass-kicking action hero. Can't go wrong
with that. Too bad it's only PG-13.

[nick]

Homer Simpson's line "two wrongs make a right, Lisa" could be the
credo of the modern conservative.

[Obveeus]

"nick" <leftbehindb...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I'm going to save my money for the week and go see Alex Cross the week
>after. Tyler Perry as an ass-kicking action hero. Can't go wrong
>with that. Too bad it's only PG-13.

How is he going to 'kick ass' while dressed up as a fat, old woman?

[nick]

On Oct 9, 5:54 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:

No fat old woman this time. Tyler Perry wants to show the world he's
not gay and what better way to do that than be an action hero with all
the hot man-on-man fight scenes and such?

[Obveeus]

"nick" <leftbehindb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 9, 5:54 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>> "nick" <leftbehindbythetalk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >I'm going to save my money for the week and go see Alex Cross the week
>> >after. Tyler Perry as an ass-kicking action hero. Can't go wrong
>> >with that. Too bad it's only PG-13.
>>
>> How is he going to 'kick ass' while dressed up as a fat, old woman?
>
>No fat old woman this time. Tyler Perry wants to show the world he's
>not gay

No fat old woman sequel and no romcom 'I am not gay' theme? Yikes, he
really is stepping out of his comfort zone.

>and what better way to do that than be an action hero with all
>the hot man-on-man fight scenes and such?

Does he at least have a cool spandex costume and a secret identity?

[calvin]

On Oct 9, 8:07 pm, nick <leftbehindbythetalk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...

> the hot man-on-man fight scenes and such?

So you're in effect indicting a century of western
movies for homo-eroticism? (not to mention
about as many non-westerns, including the
fighting genre)

[nick]

Please don't make me quote the line about John Wayne from Repo Man.

[calvin]

I checked the IMDb and found this:

Miller: John Wayne was a fag.
All: The hell he was.
Miller: He was, too, you boys. I installed two-way mirrors in his pad
in Brentwood, and he come to the door in a dress.

[notbob]

Tyler Perry is in Atlas Shrugged?

--notbob puked in rec.arts.movies.current-films--

nb

--
Definition of objectivism:
"Eff you! I got mine."
http://www.nongmoproject.org/

[Obveeus]

"notbob" <not...@nothome.com> wrote in message
news:slrnk7b4pl...@nbleet.hcc.net...

The title of the film, ALEX CROSS, is contained within the text you quoted
above.

[moviePig]

God in heaven, what sneaks up on you in a week when you're not
watching. Tyler Perry as a 'PG-13' Alex Cross. Morgan Freeman must
be digging his own grave to roll over in.

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

[Obveeus]

"moviePig" <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:

>God in heaven, what sneaks up on you in a week when you're not
>watching. Tyler Perry as a 'PG-13' Alex Cross. Morgan Freeman must
>be digging his own grave to roll over in.

Digging with one hand, so he is getting a head start now?

[nick]

From the look of the trailer, it's less Morgan Freeman and more Liam
Neeson in Taken. It's blaxploitation but with that PG-13 it won't
have much blax or ploitation.

[nick]

On Oct 10, 1:08 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:

The welfare status of Atlas Shrugged 2 aside for a second, what to
made of Grave Encounters 2? It's coming out the same time as Atlas
Shrugged 2 and similarly, it's something that shouldn't be in
theaters. It's a sequel to a DVD horror that no one remembers from
the first time around and it's managed to get a limited release? The
difference though between horror fans and Randians is that horror fans
might support the cause but they're not going to organize bus trips to
prop up the numbers for Grave Encounters 2. Stick it to the people
who don't like horror movies, go see Grave Encounters 2 even if you
don't want to!

[moviePig]

It's such a curio that I thought about thinking about its DVD. But
then I checked out director Rob Cohen's resume. Starting at DAYLIGHT
and DRAGONHEART, it seems to comprise"big" movies solidly anchored to
an absolutely lowest common denominator. Iirc, STEALTH got some sort
of awards for budget/quality ratio...

[nick]

I'd say wait for it to show up on Netflix instant but I don't think
Tyler Perry does Netflix instant He's like HBO--he protects the
exclusivity of the brand.

[Obveeus]

"nick" <leftbehindb...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Oct 11, 8:42 am, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:

ALEX CROSS:

>> It's such a curio that I thought about thinking about its DVD. But
>> then I checked out director Rob Cohen's resume. Starting at DAYLIGHT
>> and DRAGONHEART, it seems to comprise"big" movies solidly anchored to
>> an absolutely lowest common denominator. Iirc, STEALTH got some sort
>> of awards for budget/quality ratio...
>>
>I'd say wait for it to show up on Netflix instant but I don't think
>Tyler Perry does Netflix instant He's like HBO--he protects the
>exclusivity of the brand.

Netflix does currently have 3 of his films streaming:
Madea's Big Happy Family
Why Did I Get Married Too?
For Colored Girls

[calvin]

On Oct 11, 8:16 am, nick <leftbehindbythetalk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The welfare status of Atlas Shrugged 2 aside for a second, what to
> made of Grave Encounters 2?  It's coming out the same time as Atlas
> Shrugged 2 and similarly, it's something that shouldn't be in
> theaters.  It's a sequel to a DVD horror that no one remembers from
> the first time around and it's managed to get a limited release?   The
> difference though between horror fans and Randians is that horror fans
> might support the cause but they're not going to organize bus trips to
> prop up the numbers for Grave Encounters 2.  Stick it to the people
> who don't like horror movies, go see Grave Encounters 2 even if you
> don't want to!

Something you might want to ponder is the fact that AS I had
a budget of $10 million and AS II had a budget of $20 million.
Don't ask me what that means. You guys are the experts on
such things. It just looks to me like it might contradict some
of your assumptions.

[Obveeus]

"calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>Something you might want to ponder is the fact that AS I had
>a budget of $10 million and AS II had a budget of $20 million.
>Don't ask me what that means. You guys are the experts on
>such things. It just looks to me like it might contradict some
>of your assumptions.

I think it means an upgrade from a cast of nobodies to a cast of TV
performers. Of course, the way to achieve a benefit would be for the film
to air some TV advertising and I haven't seen any of that yet. Maybe
tonight, since this is the last chance before the premiere? ...oh, wait, TV
is being interrupted for political debate tonight so there will be very
limited opportunity to air commercials. Ah well, maybe CW Network will have
some commercial time for films opening this weekend.

[calvin]

I've heard some AS II ads on talk radio.

As for nick's silly comment about busing, I don't
think the mooching class will want to see Atlas
Shrugged, even with free tickets and busing.

[Obveeus]

"calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:

>On Oct 11, 9:31 am, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>> "calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>> >Something you might want to ponder is the fact that AS I had
>> >a budget of $10 million and AS II had a budget of $20 million.
>> >Don't ask me what that means. You guys are the experts on
>> >such things. It just looks to me like it might contradict some
>> >of your assumptions.
>>
>> I think it means an upgrade from a cast of nobodies to a cast of TV
>> performers. Of course, the way to achieve a benefit would be for the film
>> to air some TV advertising and I haven't seen any of that yet. Maybe
>> tonight, since this is the last chance before the premiere? ...oh, wait,
>> TV
>> is being interrupted for political debate tonight so there will be very
>> limited opportunity to air commercials. Ah well, maybe CW Network will
>> have
>> some commercial time for films opening this weekend.
>
>I've heard some AS II ads on talk radio.

I doubt that radio is an effective way to transmit the facial recognition of
these TV actors to a potential moviegoing audience. Even if the ad mentions
them by name, most people won't get the 'hey I know that person' moment they
would get by seeing the face in a TV ad.

>As for nick's silly comment about busing, I don't
>think the mooching class will want to see Atlas
>Shrugged, even with free tickets and busing.

If the churches bus in people by the thousands for the anti-Obama political
films, I see no reason why they won't be doing the same for this film. Are
you suggesting that ATLAS SHRUGGED II will spend any significant screentime
badmouthing religion (Rynd wasn't a fan, right?) and that will deter the
otherwise standard busing practice?

[Obveeus]

"Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:

> (Rynd wasn't a fan, right?)

'Rand', not 'Rynd', of course.

[trotsky]

On 10/11/12 8:15 AM, calvin wrote:
> On Oct 11, 8:16 am, nick <leftbehindbythetalk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The welfare status of Atlas Shrugged 2 aside for a second, what to
>> made of Grave Encounters 2? It's coming out the same time as Atlas
>> Shrugged 2 and similarly, it's something that shouldn't be in
>> theaters. It's a sequel to a DVD horror that no one remembers from
>> the first time around and it's managed to get a limited release? The
>> difference though between horror fans and Randians is that horror fans
>> might support the cause but they're not going to organize bus trips to
>> prop up the numbers for Grave Encounters 2. Stick it to the people
>> who don't like horror movies, go see Grave Encounters 2 even if you
>> don't want to!
>
> Something you might want to ponder is the fact that AS I had
> a budget of $10 million and AS II had a budget of $20 million.

That should have been used to help fund Big Bird.

[calvin]

On Oct 11, 9:51 am, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
> ...

> If the churches bus in people by the thousands for the anti-Obama political
> films,

That's most likely an urban legend, often repeated around here.

> I see no reason why they won't be doing the same for this film.  Are
> you suggesting that ATLAS SHRUGGED II will spend any significant
> screentime badmouthing religion

Of course not, I doubt that it will mention religion.

> (Rand wasn't a fan, right?) and that will deter the
> otherwise standard busing practice?

It is well-known that Rand was an atheist, and that was
the main reason why some conservative organizations
have been against the book, though it only mentions
religion in its long philosophical speech near the end.

The churches are not likely to have forgotten it, though,
so I don't think they will be using their (imaginary) busing
practice for this movie.

[Obveeus]

"calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:

On Oct 11, 9:51 am, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
> ...
> If the churches bus in people by the thousands for the anti-Obama
> political
> films,

That's most likely an urban legend, often repeated around here.

No urban legend...I have seen it in action: not for an anti-Obama film, but
for the positive 'religious films' that crop up in theaters now and then
like 'WHAT IF...' and 'COURAGEOUS'.

[nick]

Around here the churches are tending to cut out the middle-man and run
the movies at church. Courageous appears to be the Citizen Kane of
the movies at church scene. Along with Fireproof.

To be fair to Calvin, with something like Atlas Shrugged 2 the busing
is going to be more figurative than literal but what else is it but
"busing" in the audiences when part of the film's promotion is built
around going to see it just to piss off liberals? Maybe the Atlas
Shrugged 2 crowds have cars and can get to the theater by themselves
but they're still being dispatched to the theaters for ideological
reasons.

[calvin]

On Oct 11, 3:50 pm, nick <leftbehindbythetalk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 11, 10:41 am, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
> > "calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > On Oct 11, 9:51 am, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > ...
> > > If the churches bus in people by the thousands for the anti-Obama
> > > political
> > > films,
>
> > That's most likely an urban legend, often repeated around here.
>
> > No urban legend...I have seen it in action:  not for an anti-Obama film, but
> > for the positive 'religious films' that crop up in theaters now and then
> > like 'WHAT IF...' and 'COURAGEOUS'.
>
> Around here the churches are tending to cut out the middle-man and run
> the movies at church.  Courageous appears to be the Citizen Kane of
> the movies at church scene.  Along with Fireproof.
>
> To be fair to Calvin, with something like Atlas Shrugged 2 the busing
> is going to be more figurative than literal but what else is it but
> "busing" in the audiences when part of the film's promotion is built
> around going to see it just to piss off liberals?

Maybe that's more figurative than literal too. All I've seen of
any promotion like that is what the Forbes reviewer said, quoted by
Obveeus.

> Maybe the Atlas
> Shrugged 2 crowds have cars and can get to the theater by themselves
> but they're still being dispatched to the theaters for ideological
> reasons.

Some of us do read books, and the movie is of one that
has been a big seller for 55 years now. This is only anecdotal,
but when I drove 75 miles to see AS I, I looked in an Augusta GA
mall bookstore, and couldn't believe the variety of editions of
Atlas Shrugged on the shelves there. (This time I only have to
drive 30 miles to Macon GA.)

[calvin]

This is a promotional piece about the movie, but
note the last part of Mr. Kaslow's statement,
especially his last sentence.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Recently, Atlas Shrugged Producer Harmon Kaslow was
asked who the movie would appeal to. Following is his response...

"While Ayn Rand’s heroes speak to the individual in all of us,
they do not speak for everyone. Ayn Rand’s heroes are men
and women from all walks of life - sculptors, musicians, plumbers,
steel workers, architects, industrialists - if you enjoy your work
and do it well, if you constantly strive to be better, if you work
hard every day, you will LOVE Atlas.

However, if you feel a sense of entitlement - as in the government
owes you something - simply because you exist, Atlas [Shrugged]
is not a story for you. You are whom we are warning against."
-------------------------------------------------------------------

[moviePig]

I'm a person who reads books, including AS, and who consequently would
seek out the AS2 film in a heartbeat. Ironically, my strongest
turnoff to doing so comes from the Kaslow quote you post below. To
paraphrase Dickens, what a ass...

[nick]

That's a good way to get me on a movie's side. Tell me that if I
don't like it I'm a worthless government moocher.

[nick]

But strictly on a cinematic level, with Argo coming out this weekend,
why bother going to see something as chintzy as AS2 when you've got
such an A-level politically themed alternative?

[Obveeus]

Or even the similar politically themed 'survival of the fittest' debate of
SEVEN PSYCHOPATHS.

[calvin]

On Oct 11, 5:45 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:

> ...  Ironically, my strongest

> turnoff to doing so comes from the Kaslow quote you post below.  To
> paraphrase Dickens, what a ass...

That's one way to look at it, but the way I looked at it
was that this guy has integrity. He's not going to
compromise (though that remains to be seen) his
principles just to assure us that everyone should
like the movie. Aren't businessmen thought to always
put the almighty dollar before everything else? Isn't
advertizing expected to claim that the product is for
everyone? Seems like one might think that his candid
statement is refreshing.

[Obveeus]

There is a lot of advertising not aimed at 'everyone', but instead designed
to hook a specific market segment.
Drive car X, it gets great gas mileage.
Drive car Y and you will feel like a racecar driver.
Drive car Z and the whole family will be happy.

Peddling your film as being 'anti-establishment' and 'only for the quality
people' is definitely not about having integrity.

[William Hale]

In article
<0f1fcbe3-876f-4505...@i14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

But wouldn't those who don't agree with Rand's philosophy benefit most
from seeing the movie if her philosophy is worthwhile? Why recommend to
those people not to see the movie?

[Invid Fan]

In article <billh04-D8C205...@news.eternal-september.org>,

It does come down to if you're aiming to bring people in to a movement,
or just motivate those already involved. Or, hell, sneak the philosophy
into something people will enjoy for other reasons (The Incredibles,
for example, has a wide Rand streak in it if you actually look at the
message it's telling)

--
Chris Mack "If we show any weakness, the monsters will get cocky!"
'Invid Fan' - 'Yokai Monsters Along With Ghosts'

[calvin]

On Oct 11, 9:40 pm, Invid Fan <in...@loclanet.com> wrote:
> In article <billh04-D8C205.18505511102...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> William Hale <bill...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <0f1fcbe3-876f-4505-83f3-730390bf6...@i14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

> >  calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > > On Oct 11, 5:45 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> > > > ... Ironically, my strongest
> > > > turnoff to doing so comes from the Kaslow quote you post below. To
> > > > paraphrase Dickens, what a ass...
>
> > > That's one way to look at it, but the way I looked at it
> > > was that this guy has integrity.  He's not going to
> > > compromise (though that remains to be seen) his
> > > principles just to assure us that everyone should
> > > like the movie.  Aren't businessmen thought to always
> > > put the almighty dollar before everything else?  Isn't
> > > advertizing expected to claim that the product is for
> > > everyone?  Seems like one might think that his candid
> > > statement is refreshing.
>
> > But wouldn't those who don't agree with Rand's philosophy benefit most
> > from seeing the movie if her philosophy is worthwhile? Why recommend to
> > those people not to see the movie?
>
> It does come down to if you're aiming to bring people in to a movement,
> or just motivate those already involved. Or, hell, sneak the philosophy
> into something people will enjoy for other reasons (The Incredibles,
> for example, has a wide Rand streak in it if you actually look at the
> message it's telling)

I don't think the purpose of the movie is recruitment,
and Kaslow seems to confirm that. It is a celebration
(hopefully) of the individual, and his/her liberty to earn
his/her own future. Atlas Shrugged has been called
America's Second Declaration of Independence.
There's no movement, only a plea, and hopefully an
inspiration for returning America to more individual
achievement and less dependency on government.

[Obveeus]

"Invid Fan" <in...@loclanet.com> wrote:

> It does come down to if you're aiming to bring people in to a movement,
> or just motivate those already involved. Or, hell, sneak the philosophy
> into something people will enjoy for other reasons (The Incredibles,
> for example, has a wide Rand streak in it if you actually look at the
> message it's telling)

A message in THE INCREDIBLES?

Was it something like:
'if only there weren't lawyers suing people when their property gets
destroyed, then the superior people would be free to reign supreme?'
I suppose that was the message some people could get from the film as they
viewed the superheroes as a vital component to humanity's survival that the
government 'unfairly' shut down.

Oddly, the message I saw in the film was something more like:
'do not dismiss the little guy as inferior or he will wreak havoc on your
future'.

[moviePig]

'Heartbeat' was figurative. 'Drumbeat' maybe... in a dirge...

[nick]

So having spent my viewing evening with the first episode of
Nashville, the second episode of 666 Park Avenue and currently my
zillionth viewing of John Carpenter's Halloween, I missed the VP
debate. How did our Randian superhero Paul Ryan do tonight? Did he
do his team proud? Will the minions march proudly to their Atlas
Shrugged 2 screenings tomorrow afternoon?

[Obveeus]

"nick" <leftbehindb...@gmail.com> wrote:

>So having spent my viewing evening with the first episode of
>Nashville, the second episode of 666 Park Avenue and currently my
>zillionth viewing of John Carpenter's Halloween, I missed the VP
>debate. How did our Randian superhero Paul Ryan do tonight? Did he
>do his team proud? Will the minions march proudly to their Atlas
>Shrugged 2 screenings tomorrow afternoon?

I'm not sure if this what you were wondering about, but the TV guide says
that tonight's viewing included BEAUTY AND THE BEAST.

[bermuda999]

And a wet nurse. Don't forget about the wet nurse.

[Tom]

Mr. Biden won, but Mr. Ryan landed a couple of punches.

Steve Schmidt (R) says the VP won, too.

Mr. Biden did what he does best, he made his answers personal to the
viewers and live audience. He looked straight into the camera several
times and appealed to the 47% as if he were talking to every one of
them individually. He also effectively used body language to deliver
the "He's lying" message very clearly... every time Mr. Ryan was
spinning another fish story, Mr. Biden would smile widely and shake
his head. If there was a thought balloon over his head it would have
read, "He's lying again!"

Mr. Ryan seemed confused at times and was in way over his head during
the foreign policy portions of the debate. I'm sure the wingnut branch
of the group will weigh in with a completely different perspective.

I don't think the minions will march, but if a bus shows up at their
doorstep, I'd wager they hop on gladly.

Tom

[Invid Fan]

In article <k57ulo$mhl$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:

We have people, superheroes, who are, by nature of birth, better than
everyone else. They are forced to suppress that, become "normal". The
son is forbidden from being all that he can be, from using his natural
talent to its fullest, because the weak majority wouldn't like it. By
the end, the superheroes realize that's all crap, and they should just
be their superior selves and fuck what anyone thinks.

And, who is the bad guy? Someone who's stated goal is to make EVERYONE
EQUAL. The powerful are to be killed, and the weak elevated, given
superpowers. Because, as he says, "When everyone is special... nobody
is."

At the very least, it's a nice rant against the "everyone is a winner"
culture.

[Obveeus]

"Invid Fan" <in...@loclanet.com> wrote:

> In article <k57ulo$mhl$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>

>> A message in THE INCREDIBLES?
>>
>> Was it something like:
>> 'if only there weren't lawyers suing people when their property gets
>> destroyed, then the superior people would be free to reign supreme?'
>> I suppose that was the message some people could get from the film as
>> they
>> viewed the superheroes as a vital component to humanity's survival that
>> the
>> government 'unfairly' shut down.
>>
>> Oddly, the message I saw in the film was something more like:
>> 'do not dismiss the little guy as inferior or he will wreak havoc on your
>> future'.
>>
> We have people, superheroes, who are, by nature of birth, better than
> everyone else. They are forced to suppress that, become "normal". The
> son is forbidden from being all that he can be, from using his natural
> talent to its fullest, because the weak majority wouldn't like it. By
> the end, the superheroes realize that's all crap, and they should just
> be their superior selves and fuck what anyone thinks.

But the only reason the superheroes were asked to stop was that the
government grew tired of having to bail them out every time they caused a
financial disaster. hmmmm... maybe there was a message.

> And, who is the bad guy? Someone who's stated goal is to make EVERYONE
> EQUAL. The powerful are to be killed, and the weak elevated, given
> superpowers. Because, as he says, "When everyone is special... nobody
> is."
>
> At the very least, it's a nice rant against the "everyone is a winner"
> culture.

The 'bad guy' was the 'little guy', the garage based inventor, coming up
with new ideas on his own terms without asking for help and without getting
any help...and he rose to the level of 'equal' with the privileged
superheroes, only to get knocked down for his efforts.

[moviePig]

I missed the debate, too ...and don't even have your excuses. But I
did eavesdrop on a tv-ad for AS2 ...which popped up this red-on-black
alarming question about the movie: "Will It Influence the Election ?"
I guess now I'd better reset my priority to 'instantly'...

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, October 11, 2012 11:53:30 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:

>
> I missed the debate, too ...and don't even have your excuses. But I
> did eavesdrop on a tv-ad for AS2 ...which popped up this red-on-black
> alarming question about the movie: "Will It Influence the Election ?"
> I guess now I'd better reset my priority to 'instantly'...
>

Yeah, you don't want to be left behind . . .

[calvin]

At one point Ryan mentioned a Kennedy policy being
like theirs and before he finished the sentence Biden
interrupted with, "now you're Jack Kennedy?" No
doubt it was rehearsed, but it was just the sort of
illogical zinger that people around here love. Biden
did you all proud for the whole debate.

[calvin]

Oops, I had thought we were on the same page.
My mistake.

[calvin]

On Oct 11, 11:53 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:

> ... I

> did eavesdrop on a tv-ad for AS2 ...which popped up this red-on-black
> alarming question about the movie: "Will It Influence the Election ?"
> I guess now I'd better reset my priority to 'instantly'...

Rats, my screening won't start until around 2:10 PM,
so you'll probably beat me to it again.

[bermuda999]

I'm not even sure what you are trying to convey here.I asked if you knew why Rand chose the phrase "wet nurse" to refer to one of her characters. You exhibited reverence for the scene, but had no idea what a wet nurse really was. The term (or character) appears in (among many others) War and Peace, Romeo and Juliet, Madame Bovary, and the Bible, and is the subject of works of art. Wet nurses were essential figures in Ancient Egytian royalty, French and Roman aristocracy, Asian society, and British and American upper class prior to the widespread availability of baby formula. The term appears in films as varied as The Natural, Beloved, and A Hard Day's Night. "Indian wet nurse" is a staple of crossword puzzles. The term is prevalent enough to make Wiki's list of female stock characters.

I thought perhaps you had some insight into Rand's choice of the term for one of her characters (one whose fate in the book and in the new film appears to carry importance to you). My mistake.

[Obveeus]

Does that mean that he will find out who to vote for in the next election
before you find out?

[trotsky]

On 10/11/12 4:27 PM, calvin wrote:
> This is a promotional piece about the movie, but
> note the last part of Mr. Kaslow's statement,
> especially his last sentence.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Recently, Atlas Shrugged Producer Harmon Kaslow was
> asked who the movie would appeal to. Following is his response...
>
> "While Ayn Rand’s heroes speak to the individual in all of us,
> they do not speak for everyone. Ayn Rand’s heroes are men
> and women from all walks of life - sculptors, musicians, plumbers,
> steel workers, architects, industrialists - if you enjoy your work
> and do it well, if you constantly strive to be better, if you work
> hard every day, you will LOVE Atlas.
>
> However, if you feel a sense of entitlement - as in the government
> owes you something - simply because you exist, Atlas [Shrugged]
> is not a story for you. You are whom we are warning against."

I do feel entitled--entitled not to have to discuss lesser quality
fiction as if it means something. Should we do the "Twilight" series next?

[trotsky]

I preferred the original title, "Seven Ayn Rands".

[trotsky]

Is getting in at the bargain price considered Randian, then?

Oh, you are well into the senior citizen pricing: insist on paying full
price anyway or risk the wrath of those who aren't so entitled!

[nick]

Man, not to pile on but the AS2 poster is one crap poster. It looks
like the cover art for some Leni Riefenstahl movie if she was still
alive and working for the Syfy channel.

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3079448832/tt1985017

[nick]

It's got a lot of screens in my area, one per multiplex, with theater
managers no doubt bemoaning losing a screen that could be better
utilized with Hotel Transylvania or Here Comes the Boom (which would
work as an alternate title for Atlas Shrugged 2). Rottentomatoes only
has two reviews posted so far but it's typical liberal smarm from
people on the moocher payroll:

'The faster pace, livelier cast and improved production values make
“Part II” less of a slog than the first movie. But there’s only so
much the filmmakers can do with the novel’s antiquated story and
didactic dialogue. Many of the scenes devolve into lectures on the
greatness of, well, being great. And no actor could appear plausible
while eyeing the camera and mouthing the tale’s refrain, “Who is John
Galt?"'

http://www.washingtonpost.com/gog/movies/atlas-shrugged-part-2-either-or,1233956/critic-review.html

[Obveeus]

"nick" <leftbehindb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rottentomatoes only
>has two reviews posted so far but it's typical liberal smarm from
>people on the moocher payroll:

This is one of those films where the 'agenda' of the reviewer is going to be
such that maybe no review is trustworthy. Consider IMDB: currently has 120
reviews (take a bet as to how many of those 120 have actually seen the
film). 60 of those reviews give the film a '10'....sense a bias? 33 of
those reviews give the film a '1'...sense a bias?

[moviePig]

Didn't see it ...but I'm astonished that any Republican would utter
"Jack Kennedy" until the generation that remembers Dan Quayle dies.

[moviePig]

On Oct 12, 8:54 am, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:

I sense the potential of another super-accurate poll akin to 7-11's
red-cup-blue-cup...

[calvin]

Context matters, and he didn't say 'Jack', and I've already
conceded that Biden 'won' a point there, and your assumption
that I wasn't aware of the Bentsen/Quale debate is false,
and you could have given me the benefit of the doubt
on that by noticing that I said Biden's remark was no doubt
rehearsed. So, not only do you gladly accept Biden's unoriginal
and rehearsed zinger, but you want to make it out as a sign of
Ryan's stupidity too. To sum up, you give no quarter and
you couldn't care less about context.

[calvin]

Yes, we all watch Jon Stewart.

[trotsky]

Hell, the margin of error was only 32 ounces.

[BTR1701]

On Oct 8, 4:13 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:

> I'm more likely to see ARGO or SEVEN PSYCHOPATHS, ...

I saw a screening of ARGO at Warner Bros. on Monday. Very well done
film. Affleck managed to balance the humor and the drama very well.

[BTR1701]

In article <k52eci$hsq$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:

> "nick" <leftbehindb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >On Oct 9, 5:54 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> "nick" <leftbehindbythetalk...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> >I'm going to save my money for the week and go see Alex Cross the week
> >> >after. Tyler Perry as an ass-kicking action hero. Can't go wrong
> >> >with that. Too bad it's only PG-13.
> >>
> >> How is he going to 'kick ass' while dressed up as a fat, old woman?
> >
> >No fat old woman this time. Tyler Perry wants to show the world he's
> >not gay
>
> No fat old woman sequel and no romcom 'I am not gay' theme? Yikes, he
> really is stepping out of his comfort zone.

Well, he did play a Starfleet admiral in STAR TREK...

[BTR1701]

In article <k56itl$8qj$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:

> "calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:

>
> >On Oct 11, 9:31 am, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> "calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:

> >> >Something you might want to ponder is the fact that AS I had
> >> >a budget of $10 million and AS II had a budget of $20 million.
> >> >Don't ask me what that means. You guys are the experts on
> >> >such things. It just looks to me like it might contradict some
> >> >of your assumptions.
> >>
> >> I think it means an upgrade from a cast of nobodies to a cast of TV
> >> performers. Of course, the way to achieve a benefit would be for the film
> >> to air some TV advertising and I haven't seen any of that yet. Maybe
> >> tonight, since this is the last chance before the premiere? ...oh, wait,
> >> TV
> >> is being interrupted for political debate tonight so there will be very
> >> limited opportunity to air commercials. Ah well, maybe CW Network will
> >> have
> >> some commercial time for films opening this weekend.
> >
> >I've heard some AS II ads on talk radio.
>
> I doubt that radio is an effective way to transmit the facial recognition of
> these TV actors to a potential moviegoing audience. Even if the ad mentions
> them by name, most people won't get the 'hey I know that person' moment they
> would get by seeing the face in a TV ad.
>
> >As for nick's silly comment about busing, I don't
> >think the mooching class will want to see Atlas
> >Shrugged, even with free tickets and busing.

>
> If the churches bus in people by the thousands for the anti-Obama political
> films

Where do these people live that they need to be bused to a movie theater?

[BTR1701]

In article
<5266d13c-7be7-48d6...@e18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
nick <leftbehindb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Oct 11, 10:41 am, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
> > "calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> >

> > On Oct 11, 9:51 am, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > ...

> > > If the churches bus in people by the thousands for the anti-Obama
> > > political

> > > films,
> >
> > That's most likely an urban legend, often repeated around here.
> >
> > No urban legend...I have seen it in action:  not for an anti-Obama film, but
> > for the positive 'religious films' that crop up in theaters now and then
> > like 'WHAT IF...' and 'COURAGEOUS'.
>
> Around here the churches are tending to cut out the middle-man and run
> the movies at church. Courageous appears to be the Citizen Kane of
> the movies at church scene. Along with Fireproof.
>
> To be fair to Calvin, with something like Atlas Shrugged 2 the busing
> is going to be more figurative than literal but what else is it but
> "busing" in the audiences when part of the film's promotion is built
> around going to see it just to piss off liberals?

Well, if you're gonna count that as 'busing', then Michael Moore's
entire career has been the liberal equivalent of busing.

[blutarsky]

BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in
news:atropos-376C74...@news-europe.giganews.com:

red states.

blutarsky

--

I swear: if I live to complete this autobiography, I will go through it
again and cross out all the 'Hi ho's.'
Hi ho.