Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Atlas Shrugged Part One is Worth Reading
9 views
Skip to first unread message
Paul Wharton
Apr 17, 2012, 2:53:16 PM4/17/12
to
When I went to the theater to see the first part of the Atlas Shrugged
movie trilogy, I was very disappointed. Despite my reaction, I bought
the DVD when it came out, and found myself playing the best parts over
and over again. However, I began to suspect that replacing the book's
memory with the movie version in my mind was corrupting the philosophy
of the story as I had known it. So, I embarked upon the goal to read
Atlas Shrugged for a seventh time. I finished Part One two nights
ago, and, have decided to limit myself to seeing the movie just one
more time, for a while, in order to evaluate it from the context of
the book.
OK. I watched the DVD again. The movie has changed a lot around. The
setting sequence progressed with some integrity, but, the script is
altered in many ways that it really had no reason for.
Probably the biggest problem I have is the perverted first impressions
of some of the heroic characters--from John Galt's gnarled fingers in
the opening diner, to Dagny's "pissing off" remark to James, to Hugh
Akston being a cynical nihilist. Also, the villians are portrayed as
more dangerous and competent than they are in the book. Another thing
that has me upset is the movie description on the back of the DVD
case. It says: "Ayn Rand's timeless novel of courage and self-
sacrifice..." Whoever got his hands on that design really did a
philosophical hatchet job.
I don't want to say that the flaws of Atlas Shrugged: Part One are so
bad that you shouldn't see it. The music that plays during the first
run of The John Galt Line, alone, is enough reason to watch it. As
far as the cast goes, the best character is Francisco (JSU Garcia),
and the second best in my estimation is Dagny (Taylor Schilling). I
don't usually go to romance movies, but I want to see Taylor
Schilling's new movie "The Lucky One", that comes out Friday, to see
her again.
Paul Wharton
Objectivist Capitalist Medicine Promoter
Special thanks to Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) for being the fuel of my mind
movie trilogy, I was very disappointed. Despite my reaction, I bought
the DVD when it came out, and found myself playing the best parts over
and over again. However, I began to suspect that replacing the book's
memory with the movie version in my mind was corrupting the philosophy
of the story as I had known it. So, I embarked upon the goal to read
Atlas Shrugged for a seventh time. I finished Part One two nights
ago, and, have decided to limit myself to seeing the movie just one
more time, for a while, in order to evaluate it from the context of
the book.
OK. I watched the DVD again. The movie has changed a lot around. The
setting sequence progressed with some integrity, but, the script is
altered in many ways that it really had no reason for.
Probably the biggest problem I have is the perverted first impressions
of some of the heroic characters--from John Galt's gnarled fingers in
the opening diner, to Dagny's "pissing off" remark to James, to Hugh
Akston being a cynical nihilist. Also, the villians are portrayed as
more dangerous and competent than they are in the book. Another thing
that has me upset is the movie description on the back of the DVD
case. It says: "Ayn Rand's timeless novel of courage and self-
sacrifice..." Whoever got his hands on that design really did a
philosophical hatchet job.
I don't want to say that the flaws of Atlas Shrugged: Part One are so
bad that you shouldn't see it. The music that plays during the first
run of The John Galt Line, alone, is enough reason to watch it. As
far as the cast goes, the best character is Francisco (JSU Garcia),
and the second best in my estimation is Dagny (Taylor Schilling). I
don't usually go to romance movies, but I want to see Taylor
Schilling's new movie "The Lucky One", that comes out Friday, to see
her again.
Paul Wharton
Objectivist Capitalist Medicine Promoter
Special thanks to Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) for being the fuel of my mind
Tomm Carr
Apr 19, 2012, 6:58:42 PM4/19/12
to
I saw the movie once and wasn't too terribly disappointed. But I didn't
go in with very high expectations either, so that's not really saying a
whole lot.
If I had written the movie, I would have spent more time at the opening
showing the goals and struggles from the Looter's POV. We would see them
as they see themselves, as sympathetic figures fighting to do Great
Good, and we the audience would first hear the names of Reardon, Dagney,
et al and associate them with Great Evil. We would wonder how such
terrible people could really exist.
Then, after about 15-20 minutes, we would meet Dagney...
--
TommCatt
You give superficial a bad name. -- Byron Alley
go in with very high expectations either, so that's not really saying a
whole lot.
If I had written the movie, I would have spent more time at the opening
showing the goals and struggles from the Looter's POV. We would see them
as they see themselves, as sympathetic figures fighting to do Great
Good, and we the audience would first hear the names of Reardon, Dagney,
et al and associate them with Great Evil. We would wonder how such
terrible people could really exist.
Then, after about 15-20 minutes, we would meet Dagney...
--
TommCatt
You give superficial a bad name. -- Byron Alley
Puppet_Sock
May 1, 2012, 4:36:03 PM5/1/12
to
On Apr 19, 6:58 pm, Tomm Carr <tommc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I saw the movie once and wasn't too terribly disappointed. But I didn't
> go in with very high expectations either, so that's not really saying a
> whole lot.
[snip]
> I saw the movie once and wasn't too terribly disappointed. But I didn't
> go in with very high expectations either, so that's not really saying a
> whole lot.
So I just saw an advert saying the second part of "Atlas Shrugged" is
coming out in October.
I'm surprised they made part 2. The first part was barely watchable.
Nearly all the actors they cast were way too young for the parts.
Though Armin Shimerman as Dr. Potter was pretty good. Only he can do
the oily, coy, I'm-a-sleaze-and-we-both-know-it-but-go-with-it-anyway
thing. There was one other actor who was almost as slimy. It's kind
of sad that the actors playing the bad guys were good actors, and
everybody else was a kid.
I mean, Taylor Schilling who played Dagny was born in 1984. She's like
28 and she's playing a woman in charge of a transcontinental railroad.
There's no grey hair, no wrinkles around or bags under the eyes, no
evidence of care-worn all-night work sessions etc. I don't believe
this woman out on the rail line bossing around a bunch of guys fixing
track after a derailment. They wanted somebody like Sigourney
Weaver. Though I guess if an actor is old enough and actually has
some acting skill they won't be able to afford her.
Same problem with most of the actors. Michael O'Keefe as Hugh Akston.
He should have been playing Henry Rearden. He's just about the only
guy in the whole movie who was born before 1980.
And it was whacky how they wrote the script. It was like the script
writer had read the book but refused to go back and check the
speeches to make sure he was getting them right. Or like they only had
time to do one take.
And they still have to get by the indigestible lump of Galt's speech.
If you stood and recited the speech it would take four hours. How they
think they can make a movie and deal with that I don't know.
Oh well. Hey, I've watched worse movies all the way through. Starship
Troopers to name one.
Socks
Bert
May 1, 2012, 4:53:04 PM5/1/12
to
In
news:2a578abf-7d1e-4304...@dc2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com
http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/books/rand/atlas/chronology.html
Dagny was 32 when she took the position of VP of Operations of the
railroad.
--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN
news:2a578abf-7d1e-4304...@dc2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com
Puppet_Sock <puppe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I mean, Taylor Schilling who played Dagny was born in 1984. She's like
> 28 and she's playing a woman in charge of a transcontinental railroad.
> There's no grey hair, no wrinkles around or bags under the eyes, no
> evidence of care-worn all-night work sessions etc.
If you believe the Atlas Shrugged chronology here
> I mean, Taylor Schilling who played Dagny was born in 1984. She's like
> 28 and she's playing a woman in charge of a transcontinental railroad.
> There's no grey hair, no wrinkles around or bags under the eyes, no
> evidence of care-worn all-night work sessions etc.
http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/books/rand/atlas/chronology.html
Dagny was 32 when she took the position of VP of Operations of the
railroad.
--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN
Charles Bell
May 2, 2012, 6:09:54 AM5/2/12
to
On Apr 19, 6:58 pm, Tomm Carr <tommc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I saw the movie once and wasn't too terribly disappointed. But I didn't
> go in with very high expectations either, so that's not really saying a
> whole lot.
>
> If I had written the movie, I would have spent more time at the opening
> showing the goals and struggles from the Looter's POV.
I agree that the evil other side was barely revealed, but as I recall
> go in with very high expectations either, so that's not really saying a
> whole lot.
>
> If I had written the movie, I would have spent more time at the opening
> showing the goals and struggles from the Looter's POV.
from reading the book, Rand herself takes some liberties in exposition
of "current times" with the assumption that people can read
newspapers, and those who do not will not get AS in any case. In that
way, Paul Krugman (or anyone like him fifty years from now and fifty
years ago) will be the exact model for Mouch, and Toohey of the
Fountainhead, for that matter, as all three straddle the academic-
government-news-media nexus of deceit.
Charles Bell
May 2, 2012, 6:19:48 AM5/2/12
to
On May 1, 4:36 pm, Puppet_Sock <puppet_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> And they still have to get by the indigestible lump of Galt's speech.
> If you stood and recited the speech it would take four hours. How they
> think they can make a movie and deal with that I don't know.
>
As I recall, Rand herself had condensed the speech for a movie
> And they still have to get by the indigestible lump of Galt's speech.
> If you stood and recited the speech it would take four hours. How they
> think they can make a movie and deal with that I don't know.
>
version.
Here's a tiny (964 word) version:
http://www.working-minds.com/galtmini.htm
or here
http://conservapedia.com/John_Galt#The_abridged_text
0 new messages