'Atlas Shrugged' may yet come to the screen...

[Feraud]

Yeah, I'll be questioning ethics. I'll be questioning the ethics of the Loews Corporation that is charging us $5 for .50 worth of popcorn with fake butter. :rage:

lol Yes that is where I start the line of questioning too!

 

[Senator Jack]

Being a very ethical man, priding myself on being more than fair in my business (to my own financial detriment, I'll add) I know exactly what it means.

 

[jamespowers]

Yeah, I'll be questioning ethics. I'll be questioning the ethics of the Loews Corporation that is charging us $5 for .50 worth of popcorn with fake butter. :rage:

And we go right back to the old question and logic of who is making you go see the movie or buy popcorn? No one of course so you can either stay home or eat before you get there. I personally would bring snacks with me. I have even brought in popcorn from home before.
That was years ago though and I tend to stay away from most productions today. I usually choose to stay home rather than support the latest Hollywood idiot of the day. [huh] There's a choice that doesn't make Loews or any other person one cent.

Regards,

J

 

[carebear]

Ethics or lack of it isn't the question, since an individual having wealth (acquired legally) doesn't deprive anyone else of it.

The issue that sticks in people's craw is "fairness". We have a culture that insists things should be fair, unfortunately, although that sounds nice and all, it is actually very insidious.

Fairness does not reflect reality, all people are not equally able so all people will never have equal outcomes. Yet we cling to a playground understanding of what is fair and think it should continue into real life.

In school, fairness can be enforced by those in charge so that everyone gets a chance to play, say kickball, an equal amount. Fairness says that instead of the kids choosing up teams of the best players to play a high-quality game; little Johnny, who sucks at kickball, will get assigned to a team the same as little Tommy, who is a kickball master. Even if doing so lowers the overall level of kickball being played. Tommy and others will be hampered in their play by having to carry little Johnny, who the teachers forced on them so he could "have fun too" because being left out of kickball is "unfair" to him.

That's "fair" to Johnny but terribly unjust to Tommy and the rest, and we live in a system based on legal justice not social fairness. Justice would say that Johnny is given the legal chance to try out for the team, if he doesn't measure up, he has the choice to find something else he can do* or practice and train so he can try out again later. Equality of legal opportunity, not outcome.

And it is solely legal opportunity our system of justice was and should be concerned with. If little Johnny has some physical impediment, starting out life malnourished because of poverty, he doesn't get any different chance at the tryout as any other person. However unfortunate, it is not anyone else's fault, it is his issue to deal with. Although other individuals are free, should they so choose, to assist him, none should be coerced to.

The false egalitarianism and "fairness" doctrine (socialism in word and deed) that has supplanted the Constitutional doctrine of equality before the law in this country (primarily since FDR) has led to a culture of entitlement by the "less fortunate" and the idea that those who have more should be taxed more to "help others out" and "repay society". It says that our Government should take the place of the teachers and continually meddle in business and personal lives to ensure our interactions are "fair". The consequence is those who excel are hampered, lowering the quality of life, in the end, for everyone. That, like almost everything but criminal law, is outside of their Constitutional mandate, so they resort to twisted interpretations of interstate commerce and the like to justify the intrusions in the name of "fairness". The big clue how far we have gone down the road to being treated as children in this country is that they don't bother to claim it's about justice anymore, they're upfront and actually talk about a playground doctrine like "fairness" in a grown up world.


* In fact, since he is not being forced (for his own good) to do something he apparently is not suited for nor has the will to become suited for, he is actually free to focus his efforts somewhere else, rather than being told "kickball" is the only thing worth doing. Being shoehorned in with people who are in fact better than him at a task, and who don't necessarily want him there (because he hampers their ability to enjoy their higher level of play and push each other to excel more); being allowed in, not due to ability, but rather as a sop to fairness, will (or should, if he's got character) demean his self-image more than the adult recognition that kickball just isn't his game. He's a 4-square man, or handball, or a reader, or a storyteller or something else he's free to discover, let loose from the shackles of being told he'll always be a second-rate competitor on the kickball diamond.

 

[Senator Jack]

No, no one's putting a gun to anyone's head to buy popcorn or eggs or beets or roundtrip tickets to Camden, New Jersey, but the fact is that we live in a society where one occasionally does buy popcorn or eggs or beets or roundtrip tickets to Camden, New Jersey (for what purpose who knows) and we shouldn't have to just agree to pay exhorbitant prices because someone wants to make a few extra bucks. Yes, we can live in a cave and not give our money to anyone, but that's not how normal people live, do they?

I suppose I'd like everyone to be as fair in their pricing as I am. I run my own business and never do I rake anyone over the coals in any way. Yeah, I could say to my clients, 'No one is putting a gun to your head to use a computer,' (I actually have said that to a few snide execs) and then charge them double when an entire system is down on a weekend, but to me, that's gouging. It would be nice if the consumer didn't have to continually feel like he's being gouged. That's all. Ever take kids to a ball game? Sheesh! You might as let bulls run freely through the crowd. It's this attitude of 'let's go as high as the market will bear' that drives me crazy.

I wrote an article about two motels I stayed at. The first was the Mayberry Motor Inn in Mount Airy, NC. For $47, it was the absolute cleanest motel I had ever stayed at. On the way home we stopped at a palce in WV for $46 and it was so filthy we had to demand our money back and find another motel. I turned to my girlfriend and said, 'See what's wrong with this country. Those folks in North Carolina said 'What's the most I can give you and the absolute least I can charge you, while these guys said 'what's the least I can give you and the absolute most I can charge you.'' We need more businessmen like the folks at the Mayberry Motor Inn.


Regards,

Senator Jack

 

[patrick1987]

At those prices, that must have been some time ago. Reminds me of eateries around Columbus, for the same middle price great or nauseating.

I'm wondering...Who else will be wackily cast for this movie?

 

[Senator Jack]

Actually that was only about six years ago! And yes, restaurants are another thorn in my side, and that's why I rarely take chances any more. Middling to nauseous food at four-star prices. How do these places stay in business? Are they counting on everyone going there once? (I could swear there are NY bistros that use that as a business model: 'We have eight million people here, if we rip-off half of them even once, then we're set for the next twenty years.')

 

[carebear]

Jack,

As long as everyone else makes the same decision you did about the WV motel, to not stay there again, and tells the staff why, then the market will either cause them to adjust their service or their prices; or not, it's their choice. If they don't, at the very least you will not stay there again nor recommend it to your friends, thus ensuring a wiser use of your and their money. While you will recommend the good hotel to everyone you know, in fact, you should let them know how pleased you are.

That's how it works, the market dictates and the seller is free to adjust or not. To try to dictate a price will result in the "do the least and still meet standards" mentality (think government offices), not the "do the best we can" attitude (think private industries that want to excel in order to continue to grow and succeed).

These kind of things do take time, which is why a controlled economy is attractive to the short-term thinker, you get results now.

Start removing government interference from both ends; taxes, which reduce the incentive to make more money (why make it if it just gets taken away?) from both suppliers and consumers (also gives them more money to spend, thus more influence), and regulations, which add cost for suppliers for standards which their customers may not even want and the market can adjust things faster.

It does require an intelligent and demanding consumer, which you are.

If that means deciding to deny Loews your hard won lucre until they change their pricing, so be it. There's no other way (that is both legal AND moral) to do so. In the case of the movies, the monopoly, as far as I know, isn't really government supported. They just out-competed the independant film community for good actors/directors/writers. It will probably be, as it has been throughout history, a technological innovation by an individual that allows others to compete and break the monopoly.

If we can keep government out of it, we may see change in our lifetimes.

 

[Hemingway Jones]

.

OK, we are way, way, way off topic on this one.

As long as we were in the shadow of the topics of the book, and by extension, the film, I saw merit in extending the discussion, but at this point, we are very far afield.

I don't want a thread about the film to be entirely diluted, though the discussion here was exemplary. But at this point, we can carry on this discussion through PMs or start a new topic over at the OB. This forum is about film after all.

Please keep any subsequent posts on the film.

Thank you.

 

[Dixon Cannon]

matthew carberry...

Ethics or lack of it isn't the question, since an individual having wealth (acquired legally) doesn't deprive anyone else of it.

The issue that sticks in people's craw is "fairness". We have a culture that insists things should be fair, unfortunately, although that sounds nice and all, it is actually very insidious.

Fairness does not reflect reality, all people are not equally able so all people will never have equal outcomes. Yet we cling to a playground understanding of what is fair and think it should continue into real life.

In school, fairness can be enforced by those in charge so that everyone gets a chance to play, say kickball, an equal amount. Fairness says that instead of the kids choosing up teams of the best players to play a high-quality game; little Johnny, who sucks at kickball, will get assigned to a team the same as little Tommy, who is a kickball master. Even if doing so lowers the overall level of kickball being played. Tommy and others will be hampered in their play by having to carry little Johnny, who the teachers forced on them so he could "have fun too" because being left out of kickball is "unfair" to him.

That's "fair" to Johnny but terribly unjust to Tommy and the rest, and we live in a system based on legal justice not social fairness. Justice would say that Johnny is given the legal chance to try out for the team, if he doesn't measure up, he has the choice to find something else he can do* or practice and train so he can try out again later. Equality of legal opportunity, not outcome.

And it is solely legal opportunity our system of justice was and should be concerned with. If little Johnny has some physical impediment, starting out life malnourished because of poverty, he doesn't get any different chance at the tryout as any other person. However unfortunate, it is not anyone else's fault, it is his issue to deal with. Although other individuals are free, should they so choose, to assist him, none should be coerced to.

The false egalitarianism and "fairness" doctrine (socialism in word and deed) that has supplanted the Constitutional doctrine of equality before the law in this country (primarily since FDR) has led to a culture of entitlement by the "less fortunate" and the idea that those who have more should be taxed more to "help others out" and "repay society". It says that our Government should take the place of the teachers and continually meddle in business and personal lives to ensure our interactions are "fair". The consequence is those who excel are hampered, lowering the quality of life, in the end, for everyone. That, like almost everything but criminal law, is outside of their Constitutional mandate, so they resort to twisted interpretations of interstate commerce and the like to justify the intrusions in the name of "fairness". The big clue how far we have gone down the road to being treated as children in this country is that they don't bother to claim it's about justice anymore, they're upfront and actually talk about a playground doctrine like "fairness" in a grown up world.


* In fact, since he is not being forced (for his own good) to do something he apparently is not suited for nor has the will to become suited for, he is actually free to focus his efforts somewhere else, rather than being told "kickball" is the only thing worth doing. Being shoehorned in with people who are in fact better than him at a task, and who don't necessarily want him there (because he hampers their ability to enjoy their higher level of play and push each other to excel more); being allowed in, not due to ability, but rather as a sop to fairness, will (or should, if he's got character) demean his self-image more than the adult recognition that kickball just isn't his game. He's a 4-square man, or handball, or a reader, or a storyteller or something else he's free to discover, let loose from the shackles of being told he'll always be a second-rate competitor on the kickball diamond.

..when I meet you, I wish to shake your hand, sir!

-dixon cannon

 

[carebear]

Thanks, and likewise.

My concern about this movie is that the essential philosophy will be dressed up or down to make it more palatable to an audience. Objectivism sounds harsh to ears used to a less individualistic mindset, but that is just the way it is.

I'm reminded of Paul Verhoven talking about taking out the most "fascist" elements of "Starship Troopers". What he removed gutted the philosophical underpinnings of the novel and actually turned it into an action farce, mocking much of what Heinlein was trying to say.

I can accept modifying a story to a degree to be more theatrical, but to actively reverse the intention of the author, in my eyes, is more than a bit unjust. (see the discussion on "Clockwork Orange")

Especially since most won't go read the book, or follow up on the facts, but will take what's on screen as gospel. (Michael Moore's usual tactic)

 

[jamespowers]

Thanks, and likewise.

My concern about this movie is that the essential philosophy will be dressed up or down to make it more palatable to an audience. Objectivism sounds harsh to ears used to a less individualistic mindset, but that is just the way it is.

I'm reminded of Paul Verhoven talking about taking out the most "fascist" elements of "Starship Troopers". What he removed gutted the philosophical underpinnings of the novel and actually turned it into an action farce, mocking much of what Heinlein was trying to say.

I can accept modifying a story to a degree to be more theatrical, but to actively reverse the intention of the author, in my eyes, is more than a bit unjust. (see the discussion on "Clockwork Orange")

Especially since most won't go read the book, or follow up on the facts, but will take what's on screen as gospel. (Michael Moore's usual tactic)

My thoughts about a movie on Atlas Shrugged exactly. I am suprised they haven't mentioned adding Ben Aflake and Matt Damon to the cast---maybe even Barbara Streisand and Rosie O'Donnell to really screw it up. :eusa_doh:

Regards,

J

 

[Lincsong]

OK, we are way, way, way off topic on this one.

As long as we were in the shadow of the topics of the book, and by extension, the film, I saw merit in extending the discussion, but at this point, we are very far afield.

I don't want a thread about the film to be entirely diluted, though the discussion here was exemplary. But at this point, we can carry on this discussion through PMs or start a new topic over at the OB. This forum is about film after all.

Please keep any subsequent posts on the film.

Thank you.

Out of respect to Mr. Hemmingway I'll keep my big mouth shut on this topic.

 

[thunderw21]

Update.

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/j...oducer-sets-record-straight-on-upcoming-film/

Interesting.

 

[Richard Warren]

Don't know much about Rand. I always sort of gathered that her point was that, paradoxically to some, most of what is good in life is created by people acting out of self interest, while those claiming to act for the common good generally create nothing but poverty and oppression.

 

[HodgePodge]

I just hope it will be more engaging on screen than it was on the pages. After the first ten pages of Atlas' radio broadcast I was about ready to attempt stuffing the novel down my throat to escape Rand's long-winded rhetoric.

My thoughts about a movie on Atlas Shrugged exactly. I am suprised they haven't mentioned adding Ben Aflake and Matt Damon to the cast---maybe even Barbara Streisand and Rosie O'Donnell to really screw it up.

On that note, I've actually wrangled with how I envision some of Rand's characters. For some reason I think of Dagny as resembling Melody Gardot. Out of curiosity, which actors/actresses would you all want to see playing which 'Atlas Shrugged' characters?

 

[thunderw21]

Behind the scenes look:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooOfe_-5TlY&feature=player_embedded#at=118

 

[57plymouth]

So, it's a series, and film one is 127 pages?

It's going to be a 10 part series!

Man, I hope they don't screw this up like "The Fountainhead."

 

[CitizenGenet]

From the footage and stills I've seen, this adaptation will either be terrible or very terrible, and I say this as an Objectivist.

The images that have been released indicate to me that the director (who is also playing John Galt, and who has said that they will not be showing Galt's face....) has failed to capture the essential "feel" of the books. He's fully modernized the setting and it has now lost the 1950's-era art deco touch that helped make Atlas Shrugged so special.