CNA

Members
  • Content Count

    1,200
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About CNA

  • Rank
    $$$$$$
  • Birthday 12/29/1972

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/12598441@N04/
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    So Cal

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Angie Rusher
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Recent Profile Visitors

9,636 profile views
  1. How old was he when he died? Ba'al Chatzaf Ba'al, I'm not sure how old he was. But from knowing him over the years and meeting with him, he was an older man but still young. I'd estimate in his mid 50s to early 60s.
  2. I'm absolutely floored and deeply saddened by the news. I just learned that Steve Reed passed away in early February of this year. I'm not sure if this has been posted on OL or not since I know he was active at times. I looked and searched and I saw no announcement of his passing. He was such a sweet, caring man to me. I'm not sure exactly what happened to cause his passing. I've missed his postings on my page and seeing him in my newsfeed. So much time had passed and not seeing him. I thought nothing of it because everyone takes breaks now and again. Too much time had passed and not seeing him so I went to his FB page and sadly saw he was no longer with us. I'm at a total loss for words right now. I met him through OL and he was so very kind to me. I finally had the pleasure of meeting him in person where we talked for many hours, such an intelligent caring man. It was a wonderful meeting. We interacted through email as well as on our FB pages over the years. I truly don't know what to say. He'll be missed tremendously. My deepest condolences goes to his family and friends. May he rest in peace.
  3. Nothing like statistical density.

  4. The entire review can be found here: Iris Bell: Upon seeing Atlas Shrugged a second time Of course, I wanted to see it again and I did but this time a much better impression this time around. I noticed there are quite a few changes, changes that span the entire movie. There wasn't a substantial emotional draw that you see with some movies but the emotional draw is there definitely. I wasn't crying obviously at the end or the need for tissue but tears this time around came to my eyes at the end and there is some type of psychological "visibility" and identification with Dagny -- knowing her struggle, what she's going through, and the viewer being able to understand it, putting these two together!! The other characters in the movie, there's not much of this visibility and still lacks but Dagny is the main character and their focussed attention was well chosen and bringing Dagny into the realm of visibility. The closing monologue rewrite is substantial and giving it more "meat" and "substance" closing it out wonderfully. It helped tie in and integrating just enough of some of the events of the movie and WHY (not a full explanation but more than enough), especially the ending and seeing Dagny frantically going through the house and then her seeing Wyatt's fields ablaze while Galt is speaking, leaving the viewer drawn in with some intellectual understanding and curiosity and food for thought at the same time, making them yearn to see the next installment. Wonderful!!! I am now wanting to see part 2 and looking forward to its release!!!!! I would like to write more and in-depth but always not having a lot of time for forums and such. But scenes were added. Scenes were deleted. Dialogue was changed. It flows so much better from scene to scene and I wasn't left with the photographer's shots of seeing the what, what, what and that is it and nothing to lead into the next scene. It bogs down in some areas and drags but the changes definitely are for the better and the editing they did overrides these flaws. Some of the issues weren't fixed entirely but they were lessened tremendously and improved. Since the money speech is not in Part 1, Galt's speech at the end and seeing the closing monologue of his, instead of thinking what the hell and that's a bit creepy and weird factor that I got from my viewing in February in Los Angeles was changed to thoughts of Yes, Yes, Yes upon seeing it this time around. He did a good job with the rewrite. These changes that were made to the movie have taken the movie out of the ranks of mediocrity!!! It won't be a life changer. That may come in Part 2 or Part 3, depending on how they handle it. But they did a good job with the revamp and it definitely shows!!!! Job well done!!! Hopefully it will get tremendous amounts of coverage because the impact this movie can have, especially now and much needed, is substantial and a political shift in this country. I will definitely recommend the movie now. Angie "rewrote the closing monologue...." Huh? What "closing monologue?" Galt (which, in the version I saw, fit in with P.J. O'Rourke's quip that the character was "played by a raincoat" ) barely appears at all, and then only in shadows, issues a few words to his chosen targets, and then quickly disappears. I saw A.S. about a month or so ago in Washington, and I don't remember any "monologue" at the end of the movie. (Has senility already set in? Was I in a fugue state?? Exactly how many different versions of this movie are now in print?? ). The movie I recall seeing has the ending scene of Dagny screaming, "Nooo! as she watches Wyatt's oil fields on fire. I haven't had the chance to see the movie since it opened, but now I also want to see the "original" (or at least the one shown in D.C., when I last saw it) to see what I missed. I too would like to see the one I saw in February. There is closing monologue in the first one by Galt when Dagny is running through the house and then out to the fields but it wasn't substantial at all the first time I saw it. Being a photographer and remembering some of the comps in the shots of Dagny screaming, this has also been changed a bit and what I can remember from the first time to this time. The closing monologue by Galt at the end in the first one gave me a creep factor and thinking, eek, that was weird. But this one is soooo much better. Two partial sentences from his speaking in that closing monologue stands out in my mind and that is......who choose to be heroes...and then...I can take you to Atlantis at the closing of it. Thinking to myself after hearing it which is "meatier" and gives a bit of an explanation, not a lot, but enough, I thought, Yes, Yes, Yes....so much better and tied in events. Angie
  5. The differences between the two versions aren't completely different. The two versions are the same for the most part but the minor changes made to it throughout were noticeable obviously for myself and for Iris Bell as well. It's not choppy and it flows so much easier now. I noticed a few scenes where the dialogue had changed, not a lot, but enough. I also saw a few scenes that I don't remember seeing in the first version and remember thinking to myself, "That's new." These changes made throughout enhanced it A LOT. But the biggest change was the ending monologue and tying some of the events together as to the what and why. There's not a full explanation of course but it's so much "meatier." At the preview screening and seeing this part, there was very little said by Galt but enough to give me, Wow, that was creepy and a bit weird. I'm wanting to see it again!!! And looking forward to Part 2!! Much different response from the first time. Angie
  6. I was sent a link to a review yesterday that sparked interest for me and piqued my curiosity of course. When reading the review in particular the part below, I wanted to see the movie again and what changes had been made in turn making it more marketable, successful, and appealing to their target audience: The entire review can be found here: Iris Bell: Upon seeing Atlas Shrugged a second time Of course, I wanted to see it again and I did but this time a much better impression this time around. I noticed there are quite a few changes, changes that span the entire movie. There wasn't a substantial emotional draw that you see with some movies but the emotional draw is there definitely. I wasn't crying obviously at the end or the need for tissue but tears this time around came to my eyes at the end and there is some type of psychological "visibility" and identification with Dagny -- knowing her struggle, what she's going through, and the viewer being able to understand it, putting these two together!! The other characters in the movie, there's not much of this visibility and still lacks but Dagny is the main character and their focussed attention was well chosen and bringing Dagny into the realm of visibility. The closing monologue rewrite is substantial and giving it more "meat" and "substance" closing it out wonderfully. It helped tie in and integrating just enough of some of the events of the movie and WHY (not a full explanation but more than enough), especially the ending and seeing Dagny frantically going through the house and then her seeing Wyatt's fields ablaze while Galt is speaking, leaving the viewer drawn in with some intellectual understanding and curiosity and food for thought at the same time, making them yearn to see the next installment. Wonderful!!! I am now wanting to see part 2 and looking forward to its release!!!!! I would like to write more and in-depth but always not having a lot of time for forums and such. But scenes were added. Scenes were deleted. Dialogue was changed. It flows so much better from scene to scene and I wasn't left with the photographer's shots of seeing the what, what, what and that is it and nothing to lead into the next scene. It bogs down in some areas and drags but the changes definitely are for the better and the editing they did overrides these flaws. Some of the issues weren't fixed entirely but they were lessened tremendously and improved. Since the money speech is not in Part 1, Galt's speech at the end and seeing the closing monologue of his, instead of thinking what the hell and that's a bit creepy and weird factor that I got from my viewing in February in Los Angeles was changed to thoughts of Yes, Yes, Yes upon seeing it this time around. He did a good job with the rewrite. These changes that were made to the movie have taken the movie out of the ranks of mediocrity!!! It won't be a life changer. That may come in Part 2 or Part 3, depending on how they handle it. But they did a good job with the revamp and it definitely shows!!!! Job well done!!! Hopefully it will get tremendous amounts of coverage because the impact this movie can have, especially now and much needed, is substantial and a political shift in this country. I will definitely recommend the movie now. Angie
  7. HaHa...there may not be a secret billionaire amongst OLers but there sure in the hell are at least 2 secret millionaires who are amongst OLers. I'm not joking either. I know both of them personally.... Over fifty years ago there was a TV show called The Millionaire. Each week a schmuck--someone who wasn't rich--would get a million dollars from a rich guy. Today that'd be worth as much as ten million. Today a million does not make people rich, even if it's that plus their home. They tend to be comfortably retired. Many of these people will be wiped out financially in the next ten years for not understanding the need to get out of paper currencies and bonds purchased at par or plus par if not any wealth that is no more than an electronic entity. --Brant Brant, I didn't say that these two people that I know only have a million, including their home or not. When I read what I did, it made me chuckle and thought of them because they frequent OL at times. I don't know if they still post or not as I don't browse the forum enough to know. Whether they will be financially ruined in 10 years, it may happen or it may not. You are right. A million nowadays doesn't make a person rich by any means. But what I do know of them and being around them personally, there are business ventures for both of them that have proven to be very lucrative and continue to be very lucrative and bringing in a lot of money for both of them, more so than just being comfortably retired. Neither one are stupid by any means. They obviously know what they are doing. As I said, given the comment that was made, my chuckling a bit, and thinking of them -- as I've learned on these forums as many others have as well over the years, you never quite know who frequents the forums, who they are, etc., not until getting to know them personally, meeting them in person, and becoming friends. I had no intention of hi-jacking the thread so I guess back to the topic being discussed -- woman being more emotional and men being more rational or some such deal. Haven't read all the posts, only a few. Angie
  8. HaHa...there may not be a secret billionaire amongst OLers but there sure in the hell are at least 2 secret millionaires who are amongst OLers. I'm not joking either. I know both of them personally....
  9. Not something from the Orthodox Church in Irvine, but a creation (clearly of long standing, with Taylor and Neal no longer alive) of the man who produced the re-release of the film of We the Living, and the more recent oral histories of the Objectivist movement. All the movers and shakers in such projects seem to have nothing to do with Pope Leonard I. That's hardly a coincidence. Also, to elaborate on their appeal for support, as their Kickstarter page says, time is of the essence: "This project will only be funded if at least $34,000 is pledged by Tuesday May 10, 6:55 pm EDT." They have, at the moment, $1,420. ... Well, $1,430. I'm pledging $10 and qualifying for a digital download of the film. Several other levels of support, with premiums for them, are available. Thank you, Steve, for the clarification and add on and also thank you for helping as well. I've done the same and put up 500. It's been an expensive month for me....LOL...put up 500 to sponsor Kat and her walk for autism and another very very worthy cause, especially since we both have sons that are high functioning autistics. Well worth it. But I'm going to watch it and hopefully it'll get very very close by deadline, if not well exceeding it I hope. If not too much shy by deadline, within a 1,000 or so and able to do it, will put up the remainder to help get it going. I know the first doc I saw I was very very impressed and wanting to see more. Well done and I thoroughly enjoyed watching and I hold and expect, given who the individual is creating it, that this doc will be equally if not more so impressive. Any amount helps and gets that much closer to the goal. It's an absolutely fabulous idea and the kickstart website and getting the word out and many backers -- from your everyday individuals such as ourselves to those who are involved in the industry and do this for a living -- for a film and the ideas portrayed in it to be worthy enough to be funded by them and supported. Angie
  10. A new feature film is in production and I'm very excited about this. I've seen one of the documentaries. Upon viewing that documentary, I was drawn in and riveted in my seat - couldn't wait to see what else was to come. Because of the first documentary I've seen and very much enjoyed, I'm very much in anticipation of this one. Also, if you are so inclined to help support, even just a bit, and getting Ayn's ideas out there at a time that it is much needed, absolutely wonderful and a very worthy cause. Inside the Mind of Ayn Rand - New Feature Film Also their Facebook Page Inside the Mind of Ayn Rand
  11. "When facing society, the man most concerned, the man who is to do the most and contribute the most, has the least say. It's taken for granted that he has no voice and the reasons he could offer are rejected in advance as prejudiced--since no speech is ever considered, but only the speaker. It's so much easier to pass judgment on a man than on an idea. Though how in hell one passes judgment on a man without considering the content of his brain is more than I'll ever understan...

    1. CNA

      CNA

      Since it cut off on the end and proper attribution was not given, I'll include last sentence here: "Though how in hell one passes judgment on a man without considering the content of his brain is more than I'll ever understand." — Ayn Rand (The Fountainhead)

  12. Since this is the reviews section of sorts and including reviews negative or positive have been posted, I think this should also be included here as well. I've seen a few interesting articles being posted elsewhere. Apparently since this article went up which is very insightful, to the point, and well stated, others who share similar views or whatever you want to call it and who also are Rand fans are speaking up and who also noted issues just as I did with the movie and why. *****A new feature column has just been published at the Atlasphere: WHERE THE ATLAS SHRUGGED MOVIE FALLS SHORT Review by Katheryn Schwalb The new film adaptation of Atlas Shrugged offers first-rate set design, editing, music, wardrobe, and camerawork. Overall it was much stronger than expected. Why, then, are some viewers left unfulfilled? Go here to read the full article: Where the Atlas Shrugged Movie Falls Short ***** My hat goes off to this lady for having the moral courage to step up to the plate and say, hey, I didn't like it because of such and such. Given she seems to have quite a bit of experience in film making, etc., it makes the article even more interesting.
  13. Angie, I am entirely sympathetic to your viewpoint. I have not seen the finished film, but it seems fairly obvious from the comments of those who have that the producers would do well to make some changes along the lines you suggest before the film hits the theatres. On the other hand, I was very impressed by David Kelley's comments regarding his influence on the final script: Based on the fact that a truly brilliant Objectivist intellectual like David was this closely involved in final script approval (which I did not know before), I feel the need to reserve further comments until after I have seen the film. Even so, I want you to know that I genuinely admire your courage in speaking out. Thank you, Dennis, for your comments and input. Given the nature of the movie and the philosophy itself, I doubt very seriously that anyone involved in the movement as a consultant would let it fly be the seat of someone else's pants without having input from someone who is involved in the philosophy and knows the book, so I have no doubts that David was involved. Unfortunately, time is of the essence right now. Such as the nature of my business and job and deadlines, the real world is calling and there is money to be made. Need to hit the grindstone because these deadlines need to be met very soon so my postings will more than likely drop off. I will do my best to respond when I am able. As I said, I put it out there for consideration and there are those that will have opposing views to whatever degree and expect this. But for those that think as we all know, they will be set on their own journey because of it and will have to figure out on their own why they liked it and why they didn't like it. If I am able to respond, my responses may be very short. Of course how I am, have a lot to say and expanding and elaborating more thoroughly in areas. But given time is of the essence right now, this will hinder my ability to give those types of responses. Hope everyone has a wonderful weekend!! Angie (Edit: Thinking more about what I posted and the way it was worded, I wanted to come back and make sure it was more clear and no misunderstandings.)
  14. This, really, is not analysis — it's quasi-religious fervor. It can't be argued with, because it's not an argument. It's rage and disappointment, taken out of the context of what we're talking about: a filmed dramatization, and then, only a third of its planned extent. Angie, and others thus inclined, please — take up the wisdom in a master filmmaker's perspective, before you burn yourself up over this. It's only ... I understand that, Steve. And Interesting to classify that of my so-called rage. Such a strong word to use as if my anger is boiling over when that is far from the truth. I am disappointed but in the way of being more saddened as I was highly anticipating this film and then let down because I expected it to follow her philosophy more closely and giving it more substance in the movie. I put in the bold to make it stand out to people not as an indication of my anger. Far from it. Everybody who views the movie will have to analyze and figure out why they liked it or why they didn't like it. I now know my reasons and it is done and over with, conclusion has been drawn through meticulous thinking as to why I personally did not like what I saw, so as you say burning myself up over this and figuring out why is non-existent now. It's with any problem an individual may be confronted with and their trying to figure out the what and why as to their feelings, their actions, their thoughts and integrating these and their connection to each other based on what they see in the movie. It's part of life for those who think. Those who I know who are O'ists and did not like the movie are going through the same journey I have gone through and their figuring out why they didn't like it for themselves or why they did like it and they will figure it out on their own and perhaps through the help of their friends who are going through it as well. You are right. My expectations for the movie and following Rand's philosophy was too high. I understand the adaptation, what has to be taken out and left in according to that one person's perspective and judgment and any other person who may also be a consultant on it and how they think it might be successful. But ultimately, it's the audience and how they view it that will determine how successful the movie will be in the long run and how many people it reaches, especially through word of mouth since there is not a big budget for marketing unfortunately. To my understanding and what I know, Rand did not want the book to be made into a movie. Correct me if I'm wrong but I have read this in quite a number of places. There's a reason why, especially coming from the creator of the philosophy itself. Did she ever express her reasons why? I do not know. Perhaps some here can answer. Perhaps she knew that the book is way too complex to be successfully made into a screen adaptation. Fountainhead was a lot less complex philosophically and did not do well to my understanding and Rand stated her reasons why she believed it didn't do well as far as I know. For many involved in the philosophy and those who admire Rand, there is tremendous excitement, emotion involved, to view this movie truly objectively so subjectively and these emotions may cloud objectivity and reason upon viewing it, including that of yourself, myself, and pretty much all of the movement, especially those who were intimately involved with Ayn Rand to whatever degree when she was alive. Everyone who sees the movie will judge it on their own and I encourage this tremendously to go see it. Typically books made into a screen adaptation are no where near as good as the book themselves and this is a given. But with my concerns, I will and have let those know who I have come across and will come across and they express an interest to please read the book first to get a better understanding of the philosophy and to potentially avoid confusion. Angie
  15. I mentioned here that the money speech may be being saved for part two. Jerry reported that it wasn’t in the film at all. Perhaps there’s just supposed to be a foreshadowing in this scene you’re talking about. Now, again, I haven’t seen it yet, but is it possible that you’re unhappy because they don’t give away the whole store? They’re saving stuff for the future installments, and so they’re leaving you with questions? I get just a sense that you’re disappointed like one may feel after going on a first date where everything went really well, but in the end there’s no sex. Ninth, Any responses of mine are going to be rather abrupt because I'm working now and pressure of a deadline coming up very very soon that needs to be met as well as other deadlines and the near future looks to be rather swamped. Quickly, in what I saw in the movie, the target audience you are looking for and helping them to understand a little bit better to help draw them in that much more. If it gives some pieces of the puzzle and more substance and an understanding, that understanding will pull them in much more rather than their thinking, uh, what the hell did I just see and their interest may become fleeting versus an Oh, Ah, some questions were answered and I'm anticipating what's to come and looking forward to Part 2. But for me and given the lack of substance, I did not get that reaction based on what I was seeing in the movie. Understanding and knowledge goes a long way as we all know.