Who is John Galt? Who cares?
Moderator: Edi
Re: Who is John Galt? Who cares?
Preaching can work, but it requires major filmmaking skills and excellent writing, so that the message doesn't get in your face. After first seeing the trailers for Atlass Shrugged, in which there's a scene of two guys in expensive suits sitting at a pricey restaurant complaining about how opressed they are, I remember thinking that you just couldn't make positive characters that are more out of touch with the possible audience.
It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth. I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth. I didn't feel like a giant. I felt very, very small.
- NEIL ARMSTRONG, MISSION COMMANDER, APOLLO 11
Signature dedicated to the greatest achievement of mankind.
MILDLY DERANGED PHYSICIST does not mind BREAKING the SOUND BARRIER, because it is INSURED. - Simon_Jester considering the problems of hypersonic flight for Team L.A.M.E.
-
Pelranius
- Sith Marauder
- Posts: 3539
- Joined: 2006-10-24 11:35am
- Location: Around and about the Beltway
Re: Who is John Galt? Who cares?
I watched a video where Christoper Hitchens mocked Ayn Rand for going through the trouble of telling people to be selfish.
Essentially, Ayn Rand is another one of those self help charlatans, with the added bonus of pretensions to philosophy.
Wonder where that leaves Terry Goodkind then?
Essentially, Ayn Rand is another one of those self help charlatans, with the added bonus of pretensions to philosophy.
Wonder where that leaves Terry Goodkind then?
Turns out that a five way cross over between It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, the Ali G Show, Fargo, Idiocracy and Veep is a lot less funny when you're actually living in it.
Re: Who is John Galt? Who cares?
It's crazy. People are crazy.
"Oh look, it has a 9% critical score but an 85% viewer score! The critics are out of touch! They're biased!"
Out of touch, quite possibly, except Ebert (who likes a good dumb action movie and unnecessary nudity too) but biased? Please. The thing that's being lost here is that if the movie is polling so epically well amongst viewers, why have the numbers cratered? 3.8 million dollars doesn't sound like much of a success when 10-20 million have been poured into production already. Is this is a success with the fans, why aren't the fans going to the movie? Maybe they're all waiting to watch it on DVD.
The worst condemnation is how wide the disparity is between praise for the movie and praise for the movie-that-was among Libertarian blogs and websites. I found a breathless, several-page interview with behind-the-scenes production notes that spoke of everyone involved being these crazy determined objectivist crazies and sharing their love for the material. There was some frank discussion of the production snags that it went through before this filming. But this long, dewy account ends with an uncharacteristic wet splat:
And most hilariously, that same site managed to croak out an actual 'review' of sorts once the movie came out. Two thin paragraphs trying to put a rosy shine on the numbers, using the old carnival trick of trying to point to per-theatre sales of a limited release... and then ignoring the failure since then. Oh, but it did end with something approaching a commentary on the film:
"Oh look, it has a 9% critical score but an 85% viewer score! The critics are out of touch! They're biased!"
Out of touch, quite possibly, except Ebert (who likes a good dumb action movie and unnecessary nudity too) but biased? Please. The thing that's being lost here is that if the movie is polling so epically well amongst viewers, why have the numbers cratered? 3.8 million dollars doesn't sound like much of a success when 10-20 million have been poured into production already. Is this is a success with the fans, why aren't the fans going to the movie? Maybe they're all waiting to watch it on DVD.
The worst condemnation is how wide the disparity is between praise for the movie and praise for the movie-that-was among Libertarian blogs and websites. I found a breathless, several-page interview with behind-the-scenes production notes that spoke of everyone involved being these crazy determined objectivist crazies and sharing their love for the material. There was some frank discussion of the production snags that it went through before this filming. But this long, dewy account ends with an uncharacteristic wet splat:
They were pointing at "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" as a hopeful target--they want to stress the goal being the "highest grossing indie film ever made" and hopefully directing people towards her 1000 page leviathan doorstopper that could be used to derail one of Dagny's bullet trains to Rapture. This is surely going to happen in some small amount, but since the movie lacks a lot of the deranged madman fire of the book, it's not only crazy but boring.The finished film succeeds as a professional quality filmed recreation of scenes and themes from that book. Rand fans should love it for that. If you aren't already privy to the material, it (understandably) lacks the emotional and intellectual force of the novel—as well as the resolution of the plot and theme. But if this film succeeds, Aglialoro intends to finish up with two more films over the next two years.
And most hilariously, that same site managed to croak out an actual 'review' of sorts once the movie came out. Two thin paragraphs trying to put a rosy shine on the numbers, using the old carnival trick of trying to point to per-theatre sales of a limited release... and then ignoring the failure since then. Oh, but it did end with something approaching a commentary on the film:
Damning with faint praise. As the last sentence in that short little review, it's clear to see that the people really clinging to bias are the ones propping up this lead balloon.Oh, and for the record, I thought it was a good movie, better than the reviews, and much better than merely "competent."