Atlas Shrugged the Movie

[MsElena]

I don't understand how someone could bash a book that they haven't read. I haven't read it because I have no interest in it.

[john_galt]

So I guess not reading the book or seeing the movie precludes any comments from the peanut gallery? If only that were true.

[john_galt]

For Catnipper; some of the travails of the producers
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/atla...ral-hollywood/

[BottomFeederKC]

I read the book. I saw the movie. I enjoyed it a lot.

I felt that the film's screenplay was fairly true to both the original story and Rand's philosophies in general.

The acting was very good. A couple roles were played by some of my fave American character actors.

The direction felt rushed or incomplete. Certain scenes were less than perfect. But they shot it in 6 weeks with only a couple days of advance planning. Very little rehearsing etc. They claim to have shot 10 takes per scene.

The worst thing was the editing. A lot of bad cuts. Made it feel like a made-for-TV drama to me at times. Supposedly they spent a long time in post production, not sure why it felt so jagged to me.

I'm looking forward to parts 2 & 3.

If you want to see a great interview with the producers, check this out

http://www.atlas-shrugged-movie.com/

[Longermonger]

Originally Posted by john_galt

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nq9udFmsNO0
The Howard Roark trial defense written by Ayn Rand spoken by Gary Cooper.

Roark blew up buildings that were the property of other people (hypocrite), then swore on a Bible (Rand was an Atheist) and testified in court (submitting to the law of the people) that he served no man (exact opposite teachings of Jesus in the Bible that he just swore on).

CAN YOU NOT SEE THE CONTRADICTIONS, MAN?!?

[john_galt]

Howard Roark was a fictitious character (I thought someone told Longer that) and his dialog was written by Rand to make a statement of a man in a trial in the America of 1949. What ever Rand believed is one thing and whatever Roark said he believed is fiction. By the way, that man was really called Gary Cooper and he was an actor. He was not really an architect and he didn't really blow up a building.

[dirty dog]

Originally Posted by john_galt

Howard Roark was a fictitious character (I thought someone told Longer that) and his dialog was written by Rand to make a statement of a man in a trial in the America of 1949. What ever Rand believed is one thing and whatever Roark said he believed is fiction. By the way, that man was really called Gary Cooper and he was an actor. He was not really an architect and he didn't really blow up a building.

A little selective isnt it John, when ever there is a negative were told its just fiction but when it's something you believe in and support than were told its something we should follow. For the record I am not casting a postion for or against either the book or the movie, because I have seen or read neither. Just love how you cherry pick points of view.

By JG, have a nice flight home

[1963Cobra]

Wow leave town for a few days and all hell breaks loose. As far as the movie I stil haven't had the pleasure of seeing it. I will make time this week just had a busy weekend.

As far as the book i agree with Ms Eleana why bash a book you haven't read?? If you don't want to read it don't, but don't bash something you haven't had the pleasure of reading. Is it for everyone ? No but it does make some very interesting points and there are some very interesting things that are in the book and things that are going on with our government currently. Car Czars? Taking over Fannie and Freddie and GM? Do i beleive all of her points no but hey I read the bible and didn't agree with everything in that book either. Bottom line is to each his/her own thoughts and comments.

[john_galt]

DD nipping at my heels, making more unsupported charges. Do you get tired with all the leaping to conclusions?

[dirty dog]

Originally Posted by john_galt

DD nipping at my heels, making more unsupported charges. Do you get tired with all the leaping to conclusions?

Well John if what Roark did was ficition and it was written by Rand, then wouldn't what Rand be fiction. So your asking that the act of fiction be ignored because he no one blew up anything, but then we are to listen and follow to what Rand wrote, which is also a book of fiction, I know you have a serious love for this John, which may be why you are like you are. Oh by the way saw your post in the Kansas City star the other day, what a tard.

[john_galt]

I posted in the Kansas City Star??? I'm better than I thought.

[Longermonger]

Originally Posted by john_galt

Howard Roark was a fictitious character (I thought someone told Longer that) and his dialog was written by Rand to make a statement of a man in a trial in the America of 1949. What ever Rand believed is one thing and whatever Roark said he believed is fiction. By the way, that man was really called Gary Cooper and he was an actor. He was not really an architect and he didn't really blow up a building.

Duh. It's ALL fiction. My point was that it was BAD fiction.

Bad fiction created by a bad writer. Funny how you condemn all Muslims for destroying buildings on 9/11, but think Roark is a hero for blowing up other people's buildings for "artistic" reasons.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by Longermonger

Funny how you condemn all Muslims for destroying buildings on 9/11, but think Roark is a hero for blowing up other people's buildings for "artistic" reasons.

Longer, leave it to you to make that completely ridiculous comparison.