Rshady:
After what they did with I,Robot (i.e a converse advert) Hollywood should never adapt a classic book ever again.

i was actually hoping that I-Robot was going to have a scene where Will Smith teaches the robot how to loosen up and be "cool".

'Nah, robot. You don't walk like that with a stick up your butt. You got to swagger, like you own the place, watch me."

And maybe even a Will Smith song with a music video tie in, complete whith choreographed i-robots who are clownin and crunkin in the background.

that scene never happened though :(

I loved atlas shrugged, and i think it would be a good movie. I am not exaxtualy sure that it would be a good major budget film, maby a indipendent film. Independent film makers are the only ones intelectual enough to do it right.

Also: most hollywood actors would kill john gault

Angelina jolie would make a terrable Mis. taggart

Colton Caramihalis:
Angelina jolie would make a terrable Mis. taggart

is there any role she would be good in?

Johnn Johnston:
Link to Wikipedia article

While reading through the paper, I noticed a single line about Angelina Jolie's upcoming films. One of them was a film version of the book 'Atlas Shrugged', by Ayn Rand.

For those that don't know, this book was the foundation for the ideas that went into the best-selling game Bioshock. In 'Atlas Shrugged', every member of society that uses their mind and imagination in their work goes on strike. They do this due to the feeling that society has been hampering their progress and they do not get the rewards that are rightfully theirs. As a result, society as we know it collapses without these people contributing their works and their minds to the world around them.

As you can tell, the book tackles some serious issues. Tellingly, after finishing the novel, Ayn Rand spent the rest of her life writing works on philosophy and cultural critisism. However, Hollywood are reknowned for making a pig's ear of books with a level of depth such as this.

So, question time. Should Hollywood attempt to make a film based upon this book (or any book of this depth) and show that it can be done well, or should they avoid the risk of ruining the book's legacy by making a turkey? Discuss.

No, no please, just... no.

I can't stand that pile of words... This book feels to me like the fusion between Soviet Hyperrealism and Nazi Aryan propaganda. Yeah, I follow the analysis of Whittaker Chambers on this book... I hated it deeply.

Every "good" (ie capitalistic, materialistic, egoistical character) is a perfect Aryan, and everyone else could as well be "n-words", it would be the same... I think one of the most eye-rolling, desperating moments, is where the artists draw the Sign of the Dollar, to topple the Sign of the Cross... If art solely equals profit, then art is not only dying, it is another metastasis of the cancer killing everything. The so-called moral principles are always an expression of some kind of hyper-libertarianism, which boils down to hyper right-wing anarchism...

Following on what Anton P. Nym just said, I feel like Rapture is the proof that objectivism doesn't work, because if everyone follow only their selfish interest, thus resulting in the pursuit of profit for everyone, is bound to fail, since riches are the highest moral authority invoked by Andrew Ryan...

And to make a movie of this would be as stupid as making the Tintin films Spielberg and Peter Jackson are planning using Beowulf's technology, it's going to suck balls, I could bet our whole galaxy on this...

*This has been a troll bait by Cyclomega, please, don't put me on probation, I swear I won't do it again*

Decoy Doctorpus : you mean this Bob ? \o/
I think the strip is right on topic... Now we know what Republicans hold as their true Bible...

Cyclomega:
you mean this Bob ? \o/

Holy Hell, that was beyond good, and it made me think of something.

What if they make Atlas Shrugged as a parody of objectivism!

But then I thought that no matter what happens, this movie will bring ruin. Why? Imagine how many 'intellectuals' will be swiftly introduced to objectivism and take up its banner without having to slog through the novel...

The ironic thing about Ayn Rand's "Rational Self-Interest" is that it requires a great deal of altruism, it's usually in our best interests to cooperate. It's strange how she hit upon a pretty decent idea coming from the completely wrong direction.

No. Good GOD no! I'm all for films that make you think, but the LAST thing the world needs right now is the Republican party's wet dream brought to film.

Not to mention the fact that Atlas Shrugged was a bad read from a character standpoint. If the Main Character was any more of a Mary Sue I would've puked on my copy of the book before I took it back to the library. (Keep in mind, I read and liked Eragon and it's sequel.)

At one point it's shown that the main character has been having relationships with several men. Each of those men find out and instead of getting angry like most ANYONE in the situation would, they decide "Eh. It makes her happy." and just ignore it!

Archon:

Objectivism encourages and celebrates man's selfish, destructive impulses. It not only views man as a predatory animal, but encourages him to behave like one. Unregulated business and unadulterated greed lead to the horrors of the Victorian age with child labor, company stores, an astronomical gap between the rich and poor, near total lack of social mobility, a nonexistant middle class, and politicians debating what to do with the 'surplus population'.

She doesn't view man as a predatory animal. In fact, she sharply differentiates men from animals, and argues in the strongest possible language that among men there are no conflicts of interest, nor reason to initiate violence, and that the worst sort of people are predators. Nor does she believe in unadulterated greed. In The Fountainhead, her hero drops out of school rather than compromise his principles and turns down high-paying assignments and jobs to pursue his art. It's a paean to the integrity of art; work as spirituality. In Atlas Shrugged, her heroes abandon highly paid jobs and actively aim to lose money, again out of deep moral principle.

Not all violence is physical. Objectiveism is a Darwinian struggle where the weak starve and the strong live in opulence. Whether she though man was an animal or not, she encourages him to behave like one. If she honestly believed that her philosophy would result in a better world then she is every bit as unrealistic as Marx with his Communist Manifesto. She is either malevolent or imbecilic, take your pick.

You obviously got a much different message out of her writings than I did.

ReepNeep:

Archon:

Objectivism encourages and celebrates man's selfish, destructive impulses. It not only views man as a predatory animal, but encourages him to behave like one. Unregulated business and unadulterated greed lead to the horrors of the Victorian age with child labor, company stores, an astronomical gap between the rich and poor, near total lack of social mobility, a nonexistant middle class, and politicians debating what to do with the 'surplus population'.

She doesn't view man as a predatory animal. In fact, she sharply differentiates men from animals, and argues in the strongest possible language that among men there are no conflicts of interest, nor reason to initiate violence, and that the worst sort of people are predators. Nor does she believe in unadulterated greed. In The Fountainhead, her hero drops out of school rather than compromise his principles and turns down high-paying assignments and jobs to pursue his art. It's a paean to the integrity of art; work as spirituality. In Atlas Shrugged, her heroes abandon highly paid jobs and actively aim to lose money, again out of deep moral principle.

Not all violence is physical. Objectiveism is a Darwinian struggle where the weak starve and the strong live in opulence. Whether she though man was an animal or not, she encourages him to behave like one. If she honestly believed that her philosophy would result in a better world then she is every bit as unrealistic as Marx with his Communist Manifesto. She is either malevolent or imbecilic, take your pick.

You obviously got a much different message out of her writings than I did.

Or both...

Jolie gets the lead because she and the armPitt are both avid fans of Rand's writings.

Oh hooray, another internet forum about something else has turned into a big arguement between either people who dont know enough about objectivism to make valid points (but decide to act like they do) or die hard Rand fans who think they are so damn great for understanding such a long and complicated book/philosophy, so im not going to waste my time throwing in my measley two cents. I have read both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged and i liked them both. But the first time i saw the Fountainhead movie i was left with the feeling that about 90% of the content from the book was completely left out. I cant imagine a different outcome in our current situation with Atlas Shrugged.

dooner11:
Oh hooray, another internet forum about something else has turned into a big arguement between either people who dont know enough about objectivism to make valid points (but decide to act like they do)

Well, fuck you too, buddy. If you aren't going to contribute anything but insults to the discussion, just keep your mouth shut.

I realize this may well get me banned, so apologies in advance.

I quite liked Atlas Shrugged.

Let's see, your average Hollywood movie goes for about two hours. Atlas Shrugged has a fifty-two page long speech and a lot of the long, important bits in the book happen in someone's thought processes. One of the chapters is just a big flashback.

Unless Jesus is directing it, I can't see how this movie can be good.

dooner11:
die hard Rand fans who think they are so damn great for understanding such a long and complicated book/philosophy

Reporting in sir!

You obviously got a much different message out of her writings than I did.

I did. And I would neither call myself malevolent nor an imbecile. I won't return the favor of suggesting you are one of those, but I do think you gave her a superficial read, or were misled by wrongful summaries of what she said in other works, and that your conclusions about the philosophy are wrong. I read all of her non-fiction (Philosophy: Who Needs It, Virtue of Selfishness, etc.) as well as scholarly work building on Rand including Tara Smith's Viable Values, Ronald Merrill's The Ideas of Ayn Rand, and Doug Uyl's Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand as well as Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics and Alasdair Macintyre's Short History of Ethics and After Virtue to get a better understanding of classical virtue ethics in general.

In fact, Ayn Rand's ethics are extremely similar to Aristotle's. Her meta-ethical derivation of them is slightly different (she disregards the teleological metaphyiscs of Aristotle in favor of a functional analysis of why we have or need ethics in the first place), but the end result is the same: Classical, virtue-centered ethics focused on living a good life in accordance with reason.

Classical ethics and modern ethics are really two entirely different things. Classical ethics answers the question "How best can I live a flourishing life?" Modern ethichs answers the question "What duties do I owe to other people?" Modern ethics presumes there is no answer to how to live your life, and says do what you want as long as you uphold all your duties to others. It is inherently other-regarding. Classical ethics answers how to live a flourishing life by explaining why you have duties to yourself and is inherently self-regarding. Duties to others are secondary to classical ethics, so often a modern ethicist who looks at classical ethics sees it as saying "you owe no duties to other people" and concludes that is at best amoral and at worst vicious and evil ethics. But modern ethics is simply unequipped to see or deal with self-regarding ethics. A classical ethical code is *more demanding* than a modern ethical code and in fact leads to far more ethically proscribed behavior towards others.

Whenever I see someone reject or misunderstand classical ethics (Rand's, Aristotle's, or otherwise) I always recommend they read Alisdair Macintyre thoroughly, as he demolishes all competing ethical theories and shows why utilitarianism, intuitionism, and so on cannot stand up to the nihilistic destruction of Nietzsche. Virtue ethics, because it is rooted in function (helping a person live a good life) is the only one that can. Macintyre does a much better job than Rand in explaining why virtue ethics are worthwhile.

As for W. Chambers and his nonesense review, living one's life in accordance with principles of individualism, rationality, integrity, magnanimity, and self-reliance are not the cornerstones of genocide. History has already demonstrated which moral systems have led to the most genocidal regimes, and they are all collectivist: Nazism, Stalinism, Maoism, Racism, Tribalism. Classical ethics can produce an Alexander, but it could never produce a Hitler.

^^ You say that like Alexander was a good thing with his expansionist views powered by the need to feed his swollen ego.

Cyclomega:
Decoy Doctorpus : you mean this Bob ? \o/

No, this one.

-- Alex

Alex> Yeah, but I wanted to bring in an extra strip.

Archon> I still subscribe to Chambers's views, since it is what seized me while reading the book, prior to reading his review.

Yeah...I've always thought of Ayn Rand being to capitalism what Osama bin Laden is to Islam (An extrimest militant). Not only that, but the subject matter is far to deep for a general moviegoing populus to understand; I'm not saying people are stupid, I'm saying that film is a different form of media than the written word, and one doesn't translate well into the other(look at Harry Potter or Eragon).

In so many words, no, I'm opposed to an Atlas Shrugged movie.

Apologies to anyone offended that I would compare Osama bin Laden to Ayn Rand: Of couse, in the book, they do shoot down boats shipping vital supplies to Germany, who is in the middle fo a famine. Their logic; those Germans should be able to grow their own food. Yeah, I wanted to punch Ayn in the face at that point.

Archon:

You obviously got a much different message out of her writings than I did.

I did. And I would neither call myself malevolent nor an imbecile. I won't return the favor of suggesting you are one of those, but I do think you gave her a superficial read, or were misled by wrongful summaries of what she said in other works, and that your conclusions about the philosophy are wrong. I read all of her non-fiction (Philosophy: Who Needs It, Virtue of Selfishness, etc.) as well as scholarly work building on Rand including Tara Smith's Viable Values, Ronald Merrill's The Ideas of Ayn Rand, and Doug Uyl's Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand as well as Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics and Alasdair Macintyre's Short History of Ethics and After Virtue to get a better understanding of classical virtue ethics in general.

In fact, Ayn Rand's ethics are extremely similar to Aristotle's. Her meta-ethical derivation of them is slightly different (she disregards the teleological metaphyiscs of Aristotle in favor of a functional analysis of why we have or need ethics in the first place), but the end result is the same: Classical, virtue-centered ethics focused on living a good life in accordance with reason.

Classical ethics and modern ethics are really two entirely different things. Classical ethics answers the question "How best can I live a flourishing life?" Modern ethichs answers the question "What duties do I owe to other people?" Modern ethics presumes there is no answer to how to live your life, and says do what you want as long as you uphold all your duties to others. It is inherently other-regarding. Classical ethics answers how to live a flourishing life by explaining why you have duties to yourself and is inherently self-regarding. Duties to others are secondary to classical ethics, so often a modern ethicist who looks at classical ethics sees it as saying "you owe no duties to other people" and concludes that is at best amoral and at worst vicious and evil ethics. But modern ethics is simply unequipped to see or deal with self-regarding ethics. A classical ethical code is *more demanding* than a modern ethical code and in fact leads to far more ethically proscribed behavior towards others.

Whenever I see someone reject or misunderstand classical ethics (Rand's, Aristotle's, or otherwise) I always recommend they read Alisdair Macintyre thoroughly, as he demolishes all competing ethical theories and shows why utilitarianism, intuitionism, and so on cannot stand up to the nihilistic destruction of Nietzsche. Virtue ethics, because it is rooted in function (helping a person live a good life) is the only one that can. Macintyre does a much better job than Rand in explaining why virtue ethics are worthwhile.

As for W. Chambers and his nonesense review, living one's life in accordance with principles of individualism, rationality, integrity, magnanimity, and self-reliance are not the cornerstones of genocide. History has already demonstrated which moral systems have led to the most genocidal regimes, and they are all collectivist: Nazism, Stalinism, Maoism, Racism, Tribalism. Classical ethics can produce an Alexander, but it could never produce a Hitler.

Hmmm... I think I may have just been owned. I'm really not too keen on reading more Rand but Alisdair Macintyre does sound interesting. Any suggestions on which work to start with?

Gotta keep in mind that Hollywood is generally very liberal. I really don't think they will, because if the film gets bad press and there's backlash or a boycott, it could be disastrous.

For starters, go with "A Short History of Ethics." It's a superb introduction. If you enjoy it, go for "After Virtue". He's an exceptionally thoughtful writer (and not a militant capitalist or libertarian, by the way; he goes in a very different direction but you'll see that it's all part of the same family of thought).

Eyclonus:
^^ You say that like Alexander was a good thing with his expansionist views powered by the need to feed his swollen ego.

Well.

Alexander died undefeated on the field, having conquered the known world, been worshipped as a god in his own lifetime, founded a great city, started the Hellenistic era, and become the basis for the most widely-read literature in the pre-modern world (the Alexander Romance). Personally fearless, his magnificence was such that the mere presence of his regalia was enough to stop the fighting between his successors. Two millenium later he is still considered the greatest battle captain to have fought, and is one of a tiny handful of historical figures deemed "the great".

So I ask you, what does a guy have to accomplish to not be accused of having a swollen ego?
Jeez.

Archon:
For starters, go with "A Short History of Ethics." It's a superb introduction. If you enjoy it, go for "After Virtue". He's an exceptionally thoughtful writer (and not a militant capitalist or libertarian, by the way; he goes in a very different direction but you'll see that it's all part of the same family of thought).

Ooh, really going to have to find a copy of those books. Ayn Rand's books were a little extremist but I figure they were more or less in the right direction so this talk of classical virtues intrigues me.

Read the article, to me at least it looks boring.

Archon:

Well.

Alexander died undefeated on the field, having conquered the known world, been worshipped as a god in his own lifetime, founded a great city, started the Hellenistic era, and become the basis for the most widely-read literature in the pre-modern world (the Alexander Romance). Personally fearless, his magnificence was such that the mere presence of his regalia was enough to stop the fighting between his successors. Two millenium later he is still considered the greatest battle captain to have fought, and is one of a tiny handful of historical figures deemed "the great".

So I ask you, what does a guy have to accomplish to not be accused of having a swollen ego?
Jeez.

I would argue that Alexander did have a "swollen ego." I just don't think that there is anything unusual about that. Given the chance, I think he is simply emphasizing one of the most natural characteristics of man. But attempting immortality, which I would rather confidently point at as his ultimate goal, is certainly a rather ego-centric behavior.

Don't take me wrong here as disagreeing, but I would like to offer a slightly different view of the behavior of an Alexander, if nothing else but for discussion.

Archon:
Whenever I see someone reject or misunderstand classical ethics (Rand's, Aristotle's, or otherwise) I always recommend they read Alisdair Macintyre thoroughly, as he demolishes all competing ethical theories and shows why utilitarianism, intuitionism, and so on cannot stand up to the nihilistic destruction of Nietzsche. Virtue ethics, because it is rooted in function (helping a person live a good life) is the only one that can. Macintyre does a much better job than Rand in explaining why virtue ethics are worthwhile.

I can only see this leaning into a spirited debate of teleology versus deontology, which would undoubtably become highly confused and unsolvable. Kant, for instance, delivers enough blows to any functional or ends-based ethics for me to be quite happy with a more other-centric form of belief.

Ironically enough, its my experience that a person's preference in philosophies are based much less upon the legitimacy of arguments and much more around the author's ability to convince. An American, for instance, is much more likely to enjoy John Rawls than a Chinese reader. Why? Well it just so happens that Rawls outlines a world in which the best government is eerily similiar to the American system.

I suppose if I had a point, it would only be my own caution at the destruction of any system of philosphy. If the field had figured out the "right" path so far one would think the world would reflect that. Instead, it is still the broad educational policy to explore as many thinkers as possible, most likely because not a single thinker has said enough to make the rest shut up.

But The Escapist is where gamers go to talk about deontology and teleology!

I kid, I kid. I will now slink back to my day job of keeping the trains running on time.

Oh gosh. I didn't mean to make you go to work or anything. I'm an ass but I'm not sadistic. I just wanted to put a word of caution out there to ensure that Ayn Rand wasn't percieved to be the last voice in philosophy. Us deontologists got to eat too, y'know.

Anyway, how could I encourage someone to read Kant. The man is dryer than the Sahara, at least in his critiques.