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.

Only if it's done as a musical comedy, starring Gilbert Gotleib as Galt, because I snored through The Fountainhead even though I'm a fan of Gary Cooper. (I find Objectivist literature in general to be tedious and dreary, though, so I'm definitely not the target audience.)

-- Steve

Read the article, looks sweet. Wayyyy better than the rest of the shit being pumped out by Hollywood.

You guys are aware that the basic plot of the novel implies literally millions of deaths in the most horrible ways possible so some dipshits can justify their self-righteousness?

So are they going to make it? I really don't think so. Hollywood is many things, but tacit endorsement of genocide? No.

Well, I think first I'd argue that just because Bioshock is set in an Objectivist paradise that has failed doesn't mean that it's a core philosophy to the game. I also think it's not a particularly deep philosophy, there's nothing really wrong with it, it just attracts a lot of people who can't understand why the world doesn't realize how terribly 'special' they are. But that's all opinion, they differ(and I do like the book).

I really disagree with the base question though. There are few things that shouldn't be attempted just because failure is a possibility, even less in the arts. In specific regard to the movie you should read the literary criticism section under Ayn Rand while you are looking through Wikipedia. If her writing can survive being called sophomoric and flat and uninteresting it will probably hold up through a bad movie.

Nice poll, so totally biased that either way you vote, that atrocious novel looks good.

I want a "No, Blair Witch was bad enough, we don't need another theatrical bomb" or "I'd rather push my brains out my anus before seeing Atlas Shrugged".

Ugh, I'd rather eat my own feet.

Why is it that the followers of a philosophy that emphasizes freedom above all else veering dangerously close to organized anarchy are so slavishly devoted to the hack novelist that created the theory? If you're so big on free choice, then why can't I call dear old Saint Ayn a mediocre writer badly in need of an editor armed with a chainsaw?

On reflection, I'd like to invoke Poe's Law* here. I'm honestly unsure whether this is a troll or an honest belief.

*Poe's Law: It is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing. The law was originally defined for religious fundamentalism, but can be applied to any extreme viewpoint.

Anton P. Nym:
Only if it's done as a musical comedy, starring Gilbert Gotleib as Galt, because I snored through The Fountainhead even though I'm a fan of Gary Cooper.

Oh, yeah, just thought of something else... they have to do The Speech verbatim. That's good for an hour of hilarity right there.

-- Steve

PS: For those who don't know, Galt makes a speech justifying his actions in the latter part of the book. This speech lasts for some 40 pages...

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
Ugh, I'd rather eat my own feet.

This sounds good.

NO! BAD HOLLYWOOD!BAD!

Stay the fuck away from the few novels I actually managed to enjoy! STAY THE FUCK AWAY FROM IT!

objectivist loophole

from ED:

Ayn Randtaught that selfishness is the highest good, altruism is the ultimate evil, and that the point of life is the individual pursuit of happiness. This is a boldfaced lie, as anyone with the slightest bit of intelligence instinctively knows. After all, if Objectivism were the only true religion, a real Objectivist would keep the secret of happiness to him/herself, and not write books about it in an altruistic attempt to help others discover Objectivism! QED. Then again, she would have been making money off of the book sales so it could still be justified that she was doing it for herself to achieve moar happiness. Of course, this only applies to Rand herself and not to her basement-dwelling followers.

also, (and i've not read atlas shrugged)

wouldn't the movie be super long? i mean, isn't Galt's speech alone about 50 pages or something like that?

Actually, Ayn wasn't denouncing altruism as the ultimate evil, however, she was denouncing the concept of forcing altruism on others. There's nothing wrong with giving to charity or helping the poor, however, when you force someone to do something at their own expense, then you cross the line that Ayn drew in the sand.

While I loved the book(sure it wasn't the best written nor does her philosophy make much sense) I highly doubt that anything Hollywood will crank out will come close to book.

Did anyone see the 'Bob the Angry Flower' strip on Atlas Shrugged?

"So what are we going to eat?"
"I have no idea. All I know how to do is pay people to invent new alloys"
"YOU FOOLS. WE'LL HAVE TO TILL THE SOIL!!!!"

Decoy Doctorpus:
Did anyone see the 'Bob the Angry Flower' strip on Atlas Shrugged?

"So what are we going to eat?"
"I have no idea. All I know how to do is pay people to invent new alloys"
"YOU FOOLS. WE'LL HAVE TO TILL THE SOIL!!!!"

Possibly the best line of dialog in BioShock reminds me of that strip; "Everyone wants to be a captain of industry here, who's going to scrub the toilets?!"

-- Steve

John Galt:
Actually, Ayn wasn't denouncing altruism as the ultimate evil, however, she was denouncing the concept of forcing altruism on others. There's nothing wrong with giving to charity or helping the poor, however, when you force someone to do something at their own expense, then you cross the line that Ayn drew in the sand.

While I loved the book(sure it wasn't the best written nor does her philosophy make much sense) I highly doubt that anything Hollywood will crank out will come close to book.

like i said, i copy pasted that from ED, it's not my opinion, but whoever created the ED pages.

Anyways, it'll be interesting to see what Hollywood does.

also:
WTF Angelina Jolie is only 33? i thought she was like 40.

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'.

Give me Dickens and Steinbeck over her tripe any day. A holywood movie would only give this warped, hateful bullshit an air of legitimacy.

Where are the options for those who - to put it bluntly - like their Rand in the recycling bin?

Now, I'll agree to disagree regarding Rand's works and skip the quite lengthy and tedious argument there. Another question has been begged: does the story in the novel translate well into a movie at all? An excellent novel may not work well in a visual medium (Fahrenheit 451 leaps to mind). A poor novel may work quite well on film. Furthermore, what one means by a good movie (or novel) must be defined. Is it being a commercial success or an artsy work approved by the self-appointed critics of cinema?

while fahrenheit may not have been a good movie, the inspired adaptation of the book; "the tetragrammaton" was a decent movie. it also hosts christian bale in one of his younger roles.

on the topic of the novel, i'd rather see them do the adaptation of an adaptation. rand's books were not for everyone. have them take the philosophy of rand, and mix it with an environment not unlike bioshock's (or something equally distant). that would be a good movie, a direct adaptation will never.

ReepNeep:
Give me Dickens and Steinbeck over her tripe any day. A holywood movie would only give this warped, hateful bullshit an air of legitimacy.

What, the same way Battlefield Earth gave an air of legitimacy to Scientology? *giggle*

-- Steve

The King: Oh, yes, absolutely. I agree that the concepts can be engaged very well when expressed in a different manner. I'd add that complex novels can even be adapted into commercial blockbusters without becoming vacuous. (LotR is the obvious contender here. Tolkien's Luddite Christianity is presented with subtlety that makes Rand's presentation as understated as a sledge to the base of the skull.)

Anton P. Nym: Very funny; I almost choked when I read that!

Imitation Saccharin :
You guys are aware that the basic plot of the novel implies literally millions of deaths in the most horrible ways possible so some dipshits can justify their self-righteousness?

So are they going to make it? I really don't think so. Hollywood is many things, but tacit endorsement of genocide? No.

*Cough*WW2*Cough*Vietnam*Cough*Gulf Wars*Cough*

I personally don't think its possible. Or to be more accurate you couldn't make a good movie out of it.

Also

Johnn Johnston:
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.

Might I point out that the book's legacy amongst several things is being the butt of every joke an economist makes that doesn't laugh at Marxist based governance. Secondly you can stop talking like a teacher to bunch of junior high school kids.

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

Hollywood? They could never make a great rendition of Atlas Shrugged!

Bollywood? Now that I would go see.

(for what it's worth I've never read the book but a foreign language musical with spinny dance sequences about the complex philosophical problems at the center of a capatilist economy just makes me smile.)

Anthem would make for a better movie. It's an escape story mainly, with the Objectivism pretty well disguised. And it's short enough to practically weigh as a screenplay already.

No, I'm not an Objectivist; Anthem was assigned reading for me in high school, and I remember it being the most approachable thing Ayn Rand ever wrote.

I think that the film will give the wider population such a piss poor interpretation, of a poor philosophy, that many people will now claim Objectivism instead of say, Emo?

Khedive Rex:
Hollywood? They could never make a great rendition of Atlas Shrugged!

Bollywood? Now that I would go see.

Genius! Sheer genius!

-- Steve

Eyclonus:

Imitation Saccharin :
You guys are aware that the basic plot of the novel implies literally millions of deaths in the most horrible ways possible so some dipshits can justify their self-righteousness?

So are they going to make it? I really don't think so. Hollywood is many things, but tacit endorsement of genocide? No.

*Cough*WW2*Cough*Vietnam*Cough*Gulf Wars*Cough*

I personally don't think its possible. Or to be more accurate you couldn't make a good movie out of it.

Also

Johnn Johnston:
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.

Might I point out that the book's legacy amongst several things is being the butt of every joke an economist makes that doesn't laugh at Marxist based governance. Secondly you can stop talking like a teacher to bunch of junior high school kids.

When I signed up, I was promised people OUT of high school. I feel out of place :(

HAHAHAAHA. A movie? HAHAHAHAAH. About an Ayn Rand novel? HAHAHAAHAH.

I imagine the movie pitch went something like this:
FIRST EXEC: "I know, guys, let's make a movie that only appeals to a select few members of the middle class, and us! It could be an adaptation of Atlas Shrugged!"

SECOND EXEC: "That's great! A Celebration of how civilization would fail w/o leaders in industry, because we're clearly an invaluable, limited, natural resource!"

THIRD EXEC: "Man, this is the best circle jerk/brainstorm I've ever been to."

I have appeased the masses, and added an option for those that hated the book.

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.

Johnn Johnston:
I have appeased the masses, and added an option for those that hated the book.

Hooray, my voice has been heard.

Khell_Sennet:

Johnn Johnston:
I have appeased the masses, and added an option for those that hated the book.

Hooray, my voice has been heard.

That option has only been up for an hour, and already it has the same number of votes as the 'Yes' option.

Imitation Saccharin:
You guys are aware that the basic plot of the novel implies literally millions of deaths in the most horrible ways possible so some dipshits can justify their self-righteousness?

So are they going to make it? I really don't think so. Hollywood is many things, but tacit endorsement of genocide? No.

i also couldn't see Hollywood endorsing the perspective of an iconic pro-capitalist figure like Ayn Rand.