Pajiba

That it's "Part One" is particularly disturbing.

Who does John Galt think he is, Harry Potter?

But...I thought it was just about not paying your taxes!

Was it just me, or was that one of the most boring trailers ever?

The hook is that there's going to be an unfair business policy imposed on a company? This is like Phantom Menace without the lightsabres, space battles, podracing, interesting aliens, the Force...

Oh my Lord.

I'm a huge Ayn Rand fan. I heard tale of an attempted adaptation of this novel, but...my God. This doesn't look good. No. Not in the least.

And boy, won't people be disappointed when they show up to the theater and find out this isn't a corporate espionage thriller like the trailer carves it out to be.

Hit the nail on the head. That's EXACTLY what they're trying to convince people it is. Yep. There will be some pissed off movie-goers for sure.

If you haven't read it, there is enough material in Atlas Shrugged to warrant two movies; movies I never wanted to be made, but alas, like an illegitimate pregnancy half way to term, we're stuck with it. One film would have forced the makers to condense the book until it was unrecognizable.

If Atlas Shrugged was an RPG instead, Galt's speech would be the worst minigame ever.

Am I the only one that got a sort of "Battlefield Earth" vibe to this trailer?

Am I the only one that got a sort of "Battlefield Earth" vibe to this trailer?

No.

God, not every Tea Party person is an illiterate redneck. I'm not a Tea Partier myself, but if you choose to only look at the most unintelligent members of a political movement, you would also think Obama's supporters just want money from "the stash".

Diablo,

Heh, I am so NOT in line with anything having to do with the Tea Party. I'm a complete liberal. It actually kind of freaks me out to think that Tea Baggers would use her work for their own purposes, but hey, if Glenn Beck can use Thomas Paine for his own insidious message, then I guess anyone is up for grabs. I didn't think your comment was the least bit insulting. It's simply an exchange between two people.

Ultimately, I am a reader first and I happen to enjoy her books. *shoulder shrug* I can see why it wouldn't appeal to everyone; it comes down to personal taste. I won't argue for or against her general philosophy. That's for individuals to decide.

So I posted this on Youtube and I'll probably get slayed for it but YOU Pajibians love me (I think?) so I'm safe.

Hah. WTF is this even about? Was this filmed in an alternate universe?

Yup, I'm clueless about this book, and what I do know about Ayn Rand I don't really like. Viva la socialism.

Hope I'm allowed to say that. Is the s-word on the banned list?

I was afraid I came off like this. Its not that I don't believe people have read the book (I myself have). I think the majority of the people who claim to have read it and it somehow changed their lives are full of shit. I have a hard time believing that the core constituents of the tea party movement, who have claimed this woman's legacy, could possibly get through it.

The problem with Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism is the same as the problem with Socialism - both could only exist on paper or in a vaccuum state. For these philosophies to truly work, 100% of the people would need to subscribe to the ideologies, otherwise their tenets are undermined by those who do not subscribe to them. It's utterly impossible in the real world.
For me, these two philosophies exist on either ends of the same spectrum: Objectivism would support 'selfishness' to the extreme detriment of the most of society and Socialism would support 'the collective' to the detriment of most of society.
Reality exists somewhere in the middle, but the middle does not sell books.

Fully prepared for the flaming that will follow this but as fall as I'm concerned Atlas Shrugged can suck a d.

I've never gotten past page 100 (of 1463) but as far as I can tell objectivism is bullshit. Rest In Peace is right. She was entirely into the "let corporations freely pursue what they may, because they know what's best." That sounds almost exactly like the Reaganomics mantra that has proven itself false (despite O'Reilly, the Tea Party and Pailin's insistences.)

Corporations will 100 % of the time protect their own interests and look out for their profits.

I hope they split this movie into 3 parts and 1 makes 2 million dollars and 2 and 3 are never released. Not even on DVD. Not even as a miniseries on Fox News.

/Rant over.

Oh, Armin Shimerman, I know Star Trek and Buffy aren't payin' the bills any longer, but did you have to participate in this mess?

The Left Behind Series it the Left Behind series for tea partiers.

Oh lordy....

This is a book that's been around for a good long time, and has been- for better or worse- enormously popular for most of it.

If there was the remotest chance of a decent film coming out of it, then it would have been done long before now. It wouldn't even be the first time a Rand was put to film. If when she was politically relevant and credible no one wanted to touch it, that should stand as the starkest warning of all.

They'd also be able to edit.

/shame

aroorda, (makes my mouth tickle when i say that. i like it)

"Corporations will 100 % of the time protect their own interests and look out for their profits."

Well, duh.
The question is, where is your objection, exactly?

With whose interests should they be primarily concerned?
Furthermore, should an entity that disagrees with you on what it should be "protect[ing]" be stripped of its right to decide for itself?

Scott:

The problem is that publicly-traded companies should be protecting the interests of their shareholders. However, so many of them are run in either senior management or board positions by people who subscribe to Rand's philosophy, therefore they protect their own narrow interests and not those of the shareholders. You only have to look at the past five years and the level of discontent among shareholder groups to see that most companies flip the bird to their shareholders constantly.

I would also argue that at least in US terms since SCOTUS has determined that companies are individuals, corporations hold the same level of civic responsibility as the rest of us and since I cannot randomly pollute my neighbor's water supply (by way of example) neither should they. Yet they indulge in such uncivic practices much the time.

And for the record, I work in corporate America and deal with pretty senior levels so I'm not guessing about this: I have seen it in practice.

@BonesawIsReady,
It may be strange, but it's the reality. A corporation is recognized by the state as an entity with rights. Therefore it can make it's own decisions.
aroorda seems put off by the mere existence of corporations and as such, the no-brainer assumption that they exist to protect interests and pursue profits. i'm curious as to where aroorda would prefer a corporation's interests lie.

@Paddydog,
Most companies flip the bird? Or most executives? You can't use those terms interchangeably if you're going to make the distinction between what a company should be doing, and what it's senior management ends up doing.
But to back up a bit... You're disagreeing with aroorda as well. Your corporate America experience with "pretty senior levels" has shown you that corporations do not:
"100 % of the time protect their own interests and look out for their profits."
- because a corporation's interests would be that of its shareholders.
And you're saying:
"...senior management or board positions [...] protect their own narrow interests and not those of the shareholders."
Yes?

Atlas Shrugged - the Book of Revelations for assholes.

I've seen this move before, it was called Bioshock, and it also showed the end result of said ideas.

@ Scott:

"A corporation is recognized by the state as an entity with rights. Therefore it can make it's own decisions."

No, it can't. If the Scalia-Alito-Roberts-Thomas-Kennedy bloc declares cars to be entities with rights, it does not magically empower cars with the ability to make their own decisions. It is the responsibility of the driver to decide how to drive the car, and the responsibility of the state to ensure that the driver does not drive the car in ways that violate the rights of others. Similarly, it is the responsibility of the state to ensure that decision-makers within corporations respect the rights of others.

This is gonna be a trainwreck.

It is a perfect philosophy (although quite arrogant) for perfect human beings, who ofcourse do not exist.

I've never liked Ayn Rand's socio-philosophy. I'm opposed to it on so many levels that, when talking about it, I tend to make over-sweeping statements like the one I'm about to make:

Ayn Rand and her objectivism is an immature, glib, and ultimately unrealistic world-view. It's the last word in dangerously simplistic thinking: it's a round and absolute philosophy that's easily grasped. It's been my opinion for a while that the anti-altruism edge to objectivism has less to do with opposing altruism as an evil and more to do with opposing it because it gets in the way of all-encompassing selfishness and greed. Want to believe in a values system where you can become something akin to a solipsist and bypass those pesky morals and ethics? Then objectivism is for you.

And besides all this, Ayn Rand was a terrible narrative writer. AND let's not forget she saw woman's place as below man's (and to worship him). Someone once told me that as a homosexual, I might like Rand's ideas about personal freedom. But that would gloss over the fact that even though she advocated for legal equality, she saw any attention to discrimination issues as "special privileges" from the government.

So... extreme selfishness, chauvinism and bigotry. Is it any wonder that I can't stand her or objectivism?

Anyway, I hope the movie tanks.

So missing the point. Of COURSE Objectivism is flat out ridiculous. And? The main thrust of Atlas is that you simply don't have the right to appropriate the production of others, no matter how sincere and big hearted you feel doing so. And don't give me that 'obligations to society' kerap. Those are mostly fulfilled by your law-abiding efforts to improve your, and your family's, lot. Society serves the individual, not the other way around.

Sorry, realized I may have skipped a few steps with that last line. Always had trouble showing my work.

I'll try to be brief: there's a reason virtually every major religion you can name enshrines the concept of charity. These are foundational documents for building a working society, and without a level of selfless behaviour a society is doomed to crumble back to the level of barbarism.

Why don't we just call it codified/legislated Enlightened Self-Interest.