So Atlas Shrugged was a failure as a movie (and despite being judged as a failure by the free market...

So Atlas Shrugged was a failure as a movie (and despite being judged as a failure by the free market, they made 2 more that were even bigger failures). Could it work as a TV mini-series? It's one of the highest-selling books in America, there's an audience for it.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged
legendsofamerica.com/na-ancientcities.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

have the wachowskis made anything worthwhile since they chopped their dicks off?

Are the Wachowskis objectivists? Is anyone in Hollywood an objectivist?

>It's one of the highest-selling books in America
it's a shit book anyways

Zach Snyder is.

is John Oliver a meme?

???

One of the mistakes the movies made was setting it in the present day. Especially since they had to come up with bullcrap excuses for how the world could be like in the novel, like why trains are still important.
It should have a retro esthetic that looks like the 50s or 60s, but not set in any particular year. It's a fictional universe that portrays a society way too different from the modern world, it's a dystopia envisioned in the 50s.

Yes, but what does that have to do with anything?

Brad Bird?

anyway they didn't need to a shot for shot filming of the terrible book.

Strip it down to the most basic plot and keep the pro-objectivist themes intact.

Why the hell would you NOT film an Ayn Rand book in Black and White? Its the most obvious way to film a objectivist movie

>Strip it down to the most basic plot and keep the pro-objectivist themes intact.
I'm not sure whoever has the rights to the book would allow that, Randians are very devoted.

if i have a magic something i could rule the world! well call it the patriarchy!

How many of the people that have bought the book have actually read it?
I tried reading it and just couldn't get through it. The characters are just too unlikeable, the plot was stupid and the prose boring.

Heard it on an audiobook. it's solid.

...

I read Atlas at least one every year (usually around new year's) I'm not an objectivist I just enjoy the story and the way it's written, art is subjective people like different things. I could never see the book translating onto the screen it's too philosophical it would need constant voice-overs to explain why people feel the way they do and most of the important speechs go on so long it would look stupid with everyone just standing around listing.

Steve Ditko, the comic book artist is a very committed objectivist and apparently Zach Snader is influenced a lot by it, with explains why BVS sucked ass, superhero's are selfless

I agree with you about the modern setting, the book never really gives a date it's more of a 50's 60's asethic

>Atlas Shrugged movie

A failure

>Ayn Rand

A failure

>This thread

A failure

Atlas Shrugged is a shit book that doesn't need an adaptation. Half of it is just uninterrupted speeches going on for endless pages, why in the fuck would someone want to watch that?

Watch 2081 instead; it's probably more immediately relevant, and only about half an hour long.
It's a short film adaptation of Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron.

Mein Kampf is one of the biggest selling books in America. Stick it on Netflix.

Non american here. What is that book?
What's the story or message and why is there such a hype or controversy about it?

How can people like Atlas Shrugged is beyond me.
From a literary perspective, it's a huge piece of shit.

Read up
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged

Some rich assholes decide to go on strike because they're tired of "looters and moochers" living off of their success. They then engineer the collapse of civilization instead of trying to actually fix it, then go off to live in their little utopia where only people like them live.
The book promotes objectivism. It calls for the eradication of the government and extolls selfishness as the greatest virtue. Self-sacrifice and helping others for no reward is vilified.
Anyone that disagrees with this philosophy is evil, stupid or both, while the good guys are all flawless Mary Sues.

Communists hate it because it reminds them they're worthless. Others hate it on literary merit. Some pretend to hate it on literary merit but actually hate it because it reminds them they're worthless.

So it's an ego trip for rich people?
And it approves of those that destroy nature, exploit 3rd world countries, caused the recent financial crisis, etc. for personal gain?

Pretty much. Anything bad in society is actually all the looters and the government's fault, and if they'd only get out of the way everything would be better.

You don't have to be a commie to hate it. No society on Earth has embraced objectivism because it's so repulsive and inefficient.

If you're going to adapt Atlas Shrugged:

1. Don't. Seriously, don't. People today grew up through an economic collapse and subsequent bailout by taxpayers of bankers and corporate executives. There's constant, widespread anger against the super rich that is causing a resurgence of populist political candidates. No one is going to buy that the 'captains of industry' are oppressed by evil labor unions.

2. Do animation. Characters in Atlas Shrugged are described as the human ideal and would be easier to portray in animation than live action. Make it a timeless art deco world.

>Do animation
There isn't really much of a market for animated movies for adults. Though I agree, that would be the best way to do it.

DUDE JUST BE AN ASSHOLE TO EVERYONE LMAO

I was being facetious, friend. I was bored reading Atlas Shrugged, though I agree with some objectivist ideas.

"""Dieselpunk""" would be ideal, given the setting of the book and as you mentioned, the characters. An animated adaptation might actually make the story more interesting.

to the exent the free market has been allowed is the extent people have prospered. People are naturally self focused the free market takes that natural instinct and harness it through making successful those providing a service or product. It's not perfect but it's the best system we have found.

You're conflating the free market with objectivism, they're not necessarily the same thing.
The most baffling thing to me is that someone as anti-government intervention as Ayn Rand was so gun-ho about patents, which modern libertarians loathe.

>It's one of the highest-selling books in America, there's an audience for it.

No there isn't. Atlas Shrugged is one of those books that every angsty teenager who feels that their genius is not appreciated (and for some strange reason, conservatives) buy and claim to have read, but they never did.

Those few who bothered to open it, never finished. Anyone who tells you they have read it is a liar.

Free markets are a huge part of objectivism, basically it takes free market principals and trys to create a morality out of them, I'm not saying it's a perfect theory but I do think people who haven't taken the time to learn about it are too quick to call it all bullshit.

Yeah, your statement seems more accurate

>for some strange reason, conservatives
Because it says a lot of things they like to hear: selfishness is good, rich people are awesome, a man's worth is determined by how succesful he is, taxes are bad, liberals are dumb losers, the poor are only poor because they're lazy, everything bad is big government's fault etc.
All the other stuff in the book that contradicts their usual stances such as the atheism, promiscuity, adultery, hatred of lobbyists, vilification of farm subsidies, cops and military etc. is ignored.
There aren't very many succesful books that conservatives can brag about, so they latch on to what they can.

nice strawman

OK then, why do you think conservatives like Atlas Shrugged?
And why did none of them go and see the movie?

nice complex question

If Martin Scorsese directed the movie it'd work.

better off getting zack snyder, he'll be available soon

>infantile system of metaphysics, epistemology and an irrational system of ethics

lmao, of course free shrugs failed as a film

Rand was writing at the time of the cold war and had witnessed first hand the horrors of communism. She moved to America and became a best selling author writing in a language that wasn't her first. She spoke about individualism and self-esteem when American intellectuals were wanking over how much better the USSR was in comparison to the Racist American system. That appeals to a lot of people mostly conservatives because liberals are more concerned at talking about how everyone is an asshole, homophobic racist. Rand paints an heroic vision of humanity, even if you don't agree with her she's someone to admire.
>And why did none of them go and see the movie?
Because it looked like shit and anyone who has read it has already received her message through the best medium possible. Why watch a shitty film when the book is already on your shelf.

>Rand paints an heroic vision of humanity
No she doesn't. Rand tore down the concept of heroism. She said that men should only live for themselves and nobody should ever risk their life for another or give charity expecting nothing in return (in the Gulch it the word "give" was actually banned). Ayn Rand didn't believe in heroes, she belived in men of ability being awesome and didn't have to answer to or help anyone.

>witnessed first hand the horrors of communism
She was the daughter of a rich family and was offered education in the USSR, but she denied it all to go live in America because "i'm rich i'm better than everyone"

First problem is they shouldn't have set it in modern day, and should have made it a period piece.

And if they WERE going to set it in current day, they should have re-wrote the dialogue to not be so stilted.

Next up, Atlas Shrugged is "meh". They should make another Fountainhead or "We the Living" as a film/series.

Yeah, I mean, all the bourgeois were pretty well-heeled after the october revolution. What could she possibly have had to complain about?

I don't mean heroic as in superhero, don't confuse being a hero as being selfless (that's not what Rand believed to be heroic) I mean the idea of a single man and his mind shaping the world to his need.
>Only live for themselves
Not really she meant living on his own terms no one else. If you want to live your life helping charities and living to improve the lives of others your free to do that, but forcing others to do that and calling that moral is, in her word's evil. I'm hardly going to convince you about her ideas on Sup Forums but I'd recommend reading 'The Virtue of selfishness' if you want a better understanding of what she actually said and meant, don't let the title turn you off it's a small book and if you still don't agree fine, but at least you'll understand where she was coming from other than just misrepresenting her.
She was middle class, hardly rich and if your trying to say that the USSR stole her father's business but it's OK because they offered to educate her through propaganda schools than that's messed up

I'd actually watch a fountainhead re-make

>selfishness is good,

Siphoning wealth off the masses is seriously selfish.

>rich people are awesome

Most 'rich' people are. The super rich are not.

>a man's worth is determined by how succesful he is

It is. You could be a fat blob covered in boils or a handsome but dressed like a tramp Clooney. But if the blob has a really expensive car, the woman is going to pick him. A mans worth will always be judged by his successes no matter what society you live in.

>taxes are bad

They usually are. Siphoning off wealth or crony corporates and quasi-Marxist spending is an awful way to spend peoples money which you took using force.

>liberals are dumb losers

Horrifically misguided, unable to defend their position and hypocritical.

>the poor are only poor because they're lazy

The poor are usually kept down by lack of social and economic freedom. Or they are niggers.

>everything bad is big government's fault etc.

They hold the power, whose fault is it if not the state which dictates the economy?

No it means the USA was better than shithole USSR. Because Communism is shit. Crony socialism is shit. Your Marxist ideals are shit.

To me the worst part is that she only managed to get into America and receive an education and job thanks to some relatives, whom she never thanked or payed back. Later in life she would then have the gal to claim that "nobody helped her"

Sounds like a selfish person.

>Or they are niggers.
You do realize that casual racism makes it hard to take you seriously.
That's another problem with Ayn Rand, she was pretty racist against Native Americans and any other races she considered "savage" or "uncivilized"

and preadolescents or those who still think like teenagers

Native Americans didn't have a government before colonization, seems pretty Objectivistic.

>superhero's are selfless
>batman willing to die in order to get rid of superman
>superman sacrifices himself in BvS

BvS had a lot of problems. Superheroes not being selfless was not one of them.

>state dictates economy

>what is a command economy

Not according to Rand. She thought that the Natives had no right to their Land because they were savages that didn't exploit it by building cities and bending nature to their will. Therefore, according to her Europeans were morally justified in taking their land since they weren't doing anything with it.

To be fair from the point of view of libertarians everything that is not libertarianism is marxism-communism.

>You do realize that casual racism makes it hard to take you seriously.

It's also the truth.

>That's another problem with Ayn Rand, she was pretty racist against Native Americans and any other races she considered "savage" or "uncivilized"

Nothing wrong with racism. Be offended, I don't care. Times are a changin'.

That seems ignorant as some native american tribes did build cities; they were just terrible at it. It might not have been well known at the time.

All civilizations conquered. All peoples have conquered. And for some reason, evil whitey gets the guilt trip for doing the same thing everyone else did. Natives conquered each other, even while being conquered.

One city, it was around 20k in pop in the 1300s. It fell apart, likely due to disease due to no sewage systems. Weakened society was then raided and butchered by other native tribes.

Native conquest is OK, but not when Whitey does it.

>Nothing wrong with racism. Be offended, I don't care. Times are a changin'.
Times have been changin' for decades, and the change has been making racists like you more and more irrelevant. Why are you quoting Bob Dylan of all people? He'd hate your guts.

You're missing the point. Ayn Rand was saying that the conquest and near genocide of Native Americans was morally justified even though she was usually very much against conquest and the use of military force by anyone.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. What you have seen over the past 70 years will be undone very quickly and very suddenly.

She's an old Jew who supported Israel, what do you expect?

Cahokia was the largest of them discovered, but there were many smaller settlements numbering in the thousands.
legendsofamerica.com/na-ancientcities.html

It's interesting that many of the precolombian settlements across north america seem to have failed at about the same time.

>What you have seen over the past 70 years will be undone very quickly and very suddenly.
How? In a few decades white people will no longer be the majority in America, Sup Forums has been lamenting it for years. What are you gonna do? Kick out everyone that isn't white? Nothing you can do is going to make white supremacy OK again.

The problem is that the book isn't popular because it's good. It's popular purely on ideological ground. It's only good if you're an edgy teen goth or a manchild who thinks Rorschach was the hero of Watchmen. It's a shit book that can only make a shit movie.

Mel Gibson playing lead.

It's like Scientology without aliens,

>Could it work as a TV mini-series?
Yes. Probably the only way it would work. And as I recall, the films were only made by the dude that played Galt so he could keep the film rights. It is an Objectivist 90s Fantastic Four situation.

(reCAPTCHA: eat shit, I selected all the right ones the first fucking time, tardbot)

On the most recent "What the fuck is the title of the show With John Oliver", he bitched and moaned about how Ayn Rand is still a thing.

Free market isn't the same as full laissez-faire capitalism.

>she's someone to admire.
I'm not gonna admire someone who admired serial killers.

The problem was it was rated R so its target audience couldn't even get into the movie.

And this is why Zack Snyder is incapable of making a super-hero movie.

>If you want to live your life helping charities and living to improve the lives of others your free to do that
Free but discouraged.

Who do you admire user?

You're the only one, Zack.

>implying the dollar isn't going to fail long before then
>implying Europe isn't getting close to a civil war

Trump is only the start. Reconquista is real and resource scarcity is going to flick a switch you didn't know you had.

Not discouraged just not seen as something you MUST do.

The typical self-made 'man'.

...

>Three movies
>Three different casts playing the same characters

Is there a movie trilogy more of a failure then this?

It is discouraged. Hank Rearden was disgusted that his brother was using the money he gave him not for himself, but was giving it to charity.

Kek

He was disgusted that his brother didn't use his own money.

She was an ignorant selfish chain-smoking hypocritical cunt. She claimed she was justified cucking her husband because she had a right to be selfish. When her boytoy cucked her with a younger girl she went into ultimate thundercunt mode and threw him out of her cult.

I don't think she had really codified Objectivism when she wrote it, that came later when she was taking young Jew cock from Alan Greenspan.

What best selling books have you written user?

It is a good question.

Nope, that's not why

>“You don’t really care about helping the underprivileged, do you?” Philip asked – and Rearden heard, unable to believe it, that the tone of his voice was reproachful.
>“No, Phil, I don’t care about it at all. I only wanted you to be happy.”
>“But that money is not for me. I am not collecting it for any personal motive. I have no selfish interest in the matter whatever.”
>…Rearden turned away. He felt a sudden loathing: not because the words were hypocrisy, but because they were true; Philip meant them.

What kind of argument is that? By that logic you can't ever criticize anyone in any position of power because you've never held any high office yourself.

Do you even know who we're talking about or you mistook this for a BvS thread?

Ironically rich Objectivists spend huge sums of money endowing Objectivist foundations, philosophy department posts, and promoting libertarianism. How is that in their rational self-interest? The world isn't going to convert to their religion/philosophy... ever.

You sure showed me.