John Aglialoro promises to make 'A.S.' parts 2 & 3

[Mike Renzulli]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/atlas-shrugged-producer-promises-two-182714

"The man who says he spent $10 million of his own money to bring Atlas Shrugged: Part 1 to the big screen vowed Wednesday to go through with his plans to make the next two installments, even though critics hate the movie and business at movie theaters has fallen off a cliff.

In fact, said John Aglialoro, the co-producer and financier, it's the monolithic view from critics that say the movie stinks that is motivating him to make Parts 2 and 3, he told The Hollywood Reporter."

Edited April 28, 2011 by Mike Renzulli

[studiodekadent]

Good. Go John Aglialoro.

The critical establishment are a bunch of idiotic politicized megalomaniacs that believe themselves to be the "true guardians" of culture.

Their delusions need to be shattered.

[Mike11]

Good. Go John Aglialoro.

The critical establishment are a bunch of idiotic politicized megalomaniacs that believe themselves to be the "true guardians" of culture.

Their delusions need to be shattered.

Do they seriously think that? Talk about Unwarranted Self Importance.

As for the next two AS movies I hope they come out.

I have crates full of tomatoes waiting. Not saying I am sure I will loathe the movie as much as the book, I'm just saying I'm sure I will loathe the movie as much as the book.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I have crates full of tomatoes waiting. Not saying I am sure I will loathe the movie as much as the book, I'm just saying I'm sure I will loathe the movie as much as the book.

Joel,

If you loathe AS, what are you doing on an Objectivist discussion site?

If you loathed Mohammad, would you spend lots of time posting on an Islamic site? If you loathed sugar, would you go around posting on a dessert recipe site? If you loathed opera, would you hang out at a Puccini forum?

What are you doing with your life, dude? Devoting it to hatred among people who are not affected in the least by your loathing?

Surely you have good things inside you--things that you could be doing that would make you and people you love happy. Why waste a good life telling people who love something that you hate it?

Do you value your time so little?

I will never understand this mentality. I see it all the time, but there's nothing inside me that allows me to know what it feels like.

I've made my mistakes, so I'm not a saint. But even after everything I've done, I believe this is a monumentally stupid use of one's time and efforts.

Nothing good comes of it.

Ever.

Michael

[Mike11]

This is a lot more than an "Objectivist" site as far as I can tell. Its actually the only right wing site I've found with a fair amount of common sense and interesting content.

I could spend my time online at left wing echo chambers but I like learning what the other side thinks more.

[studiodekadent]

This is a lot more than an "Objectivist" site as far as I can tell. Its actually the only right wing site I've found with a fair amount of common sense and interesting content.

"Right Wing" is not an accurate description of the vast majority of posters here. Generally speaking the majority are libertarians/classical liberals, who don't fit on a left-right spectrum.

[Peter]

Studio K wrote:

"Right Wing" is not an accurate description of the vast majority of posters here. Generally speaking the majority are libertarians/classical liberals, who don't fit on a left-right spectrum.

ME too! Except for national defense. And Patriotism. Umm? And abortion after the 28th week of gestation. And Rush Limbaugh, Hannity,and Glenn Beck. And the Republican /Tea Party.

But I do not have an affinity to the right otherwise.

Peter Taylor

[studiodekadent]

ME too! Except for national defense. And Patriotism. Umm? And abortion after the 28th week of gestation. And Rush Limbaugh, Hannity,and Glenn Beck. And the Republican /Tea Party.

But I do not have an affinity to the right otherwise.

As for the abortion issue, "no abortion after the 28th week" isn't exactly a right-wing position. Typically, the "right-wing" position is taken to mean advocacy of the idea that the fetus is fully human, with attendant rights, at the moment of conception, and thus no abortions should be allowed.

My personal perspective on abortion is pro-choice until Fetal Viability, although after that it is permissible to save the life of the mother. That position is perfectly compatible with classical liberalism/libertarianism and isn't "right wing" by popular definition.

I won't comment about the other issues you raised, although the terms "patroitism" and "national defense" seem totally loaded. Classical liberals aren't against defense, for one, just they tend to have a more specific understanding of "defense" than the so-called "right-wing." And speaking about the Objectivist movement, I never bought into the hawkishness that some Objectivists seem to have adopted; quite a few of them adopted it on the basis of a rationalistic analysis of foreign policy based on a hybrid of "Clash of Civilizations" and "They Hate Us Because They Hate Our Freedom" (if that's the case, the US should have suffered more terrorist attacks in the past when the US was more consistent with its classically liberal heritage).

I agree with the Objectivist theory of history too, but it cannot be applied in a rationalistic, methodologically collectivist manner (which is what some Objectivists are prone to doing). Only individuals have philosophical ideas, most people's ideas aren't consistent, people have varying degrees of consistency in how they will implement their ideas in the real world, and any culture usually has different (and typically opposing) sets of ideas within it.

[caroljane]

I have crates full of tomatoes waiting. Not saying I am sure I will loathe the movie as much as the book, I'm just saying I'm sure I will loathe the movie as much as the book.

Joel,

If you loathe AS, what are you doing on an Objectivist discussion site?

If you loathed Mohammad, would you spend lots of time posting on an Islamic site? If you loathed sugar, would you go around posting on a dessert recipe site? If you loathed opera, would you hang out at a Puccini forum?

What are you doing with your life, dude? Devoting it to hatred among people who are not affected in the least by your loathing?

Surely you have good things inside you--things that you could be doing that would make you and people you love happy. Why waste a good life telling people who love something that you hate it?

Do you value your time so little?

I will never understand this mentality. I see it all the time, but there's nothing inside me that allows me to know what it feels like.

I've made my mistakes, so I'm not a saint. But even after everything I've done, I believe this is a monumentally stupid use of one's time and efforts.

Nothing good comes of it.

Ever.

Michael

Michael,

You bring up an interesting question which I have been asked in different forms, and indeed asked myself, and which I think deserves a little more thinking about than your black-and-white reaction warrants.

Joel's typically laconic reference to the echo chamber is part of it. For myself, I read writers I agree with, I socialize with like-minded people, indeed I live in a country set up pretty much the way I think it should be to give me a good life.

But I also read writers I don't agree with, and enjoy arguing with them in my mind. I watch gruesome crime dramas and read bleak but thrilling novels about the worst and lowest tendencies in humanity. Among many other things I hasten to add. LM Montgomery and Jane Austen are still my literary idols.

Since I was introduced to Ayn Rand I found her uniquely interesting. I was struck by Anthem, deeply moved by We the Living. With TF and AS she lost me, in both senses. Her philosophy struck no chord; many would say I simply do not truly understand her writings, and they may be right. As I belatedly learned about her actual life I came to admire her as a person - I wrote a short piece about that here in Articles.

The movement she engendered, and the diverse individuals who have been illuminated and motivated by her works to think deeply and live fully, are just continually interesting to me. The subculture is of course full of human quirks. Efforts to steer the course of mass conversation between"personalities" and"ideas" in themselves are worthy of study. Who has the ideas? Pre-Cambrian rocks? How can we disentangle the person from his ideas? How did the person entangle himself?

I said at the start I had been asked the question "why are you here if you're not an objectivist" (sometimes more plainly said as "Go away!' and my answer is not any more reasoned out than it was then.

I like it here. I like the people, I like the atmosphere. It gives me a kind of enjoyment which is new to me and yet not scary, although learning how to move things around on the internet is a hurdle I am still not ready to face.

Sometimes a cigar is just a smoke,

[PDS]

Daunce: very, very well said. And very benevolent too, as are all of your posts. In defense of MSK, I think it fair to state that same benevolence is not as obvious in most of Joel's posts.

[Selene]

Michael,

You bring up an interesting question which I have been asked in different forms, and indeed asked myself, and which I think deserves a little more thinking about than your black-and-white reaction warrants.

Joel's typically laconic reference to the echo chamber is part of it. For myself, I read writers I agree with, I socialize with like-minded people, indeed I live in a country set up pretty much the way I think it should be to give me a good life.

But I also read writers I don't agree with, and enjoy arguing with them in my mind. I watch gruesome crime dramas and read bleak but thrilling novels about the worst and lowest tendencies in humanity. Among many other things I hasten to add. LM Montgomery and Jane Austen are still my literary idols.

Since I was introduced to Ayn Rand I found her uniquely interesting. I was struck by Anthem, deeply moved by We the Living. With TF and AS she lost me, in both senses. Her philosophy struck no chord; many would say I simply do not truly understand her writings, and they may be right. As I belatedly learned about her actual life I came to admire her as a person - I wrote a short piece about that here in Articles.

The movement she engendered, and the diverse individuals who have been illuminated and motivated by her works to think deeply and live fully, are just continually interesting to me. The subculture is of course full of human quirks. Efforts to steer the course of mass conversation between"personalities" and"ideas" in themselves are worthy of study. Who has the ideas? Pre-Cambrian rocks? How can we disentangle the person from his ideas? How did the person entangle himself?

I said at the start I had been asked the question "why are you here if you're not an objectivist" (sometimes more plainly said as "Go away!' and my answer is not any more reasoned out than it was then.

I like it here. I like the people, I like the atmosphere. It gives me a kind of enjoyment which is new to me and yet not scary, although learning how to move things around on the internet is a hurdle I am still not ready to face.

Sometimes a cigar is just a smoke,

Carol:

Essentially, you are here, and provide your excellently written posts, and clever perceptions because it fulfills your rational self interest. In the course of that selfish conduct, the rest of us also are provided with enjoyment.

Seems to be in line with Ayn's conceptual positions as expressed in her fiction and non-fiction.

Am I correct in concluding that you enjoyed The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged for their story, and writing, but the underlying philosophy was what "lost you?"

Adam

today was a wonderful day to be outside!

[caroljane]

Am I correct in concluding that you enjoyed The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged for their story, and writing, but the underlying philosophy was what "lost you?"

Adam

today was a wonderful day to be outside!

Adam,

Very astute. You are mostly correct. In the longer novels, as the philosophy dominated more and more, I felt her style became more and more rigid. In Atlas it was as if she had to engrave each and every sentence on the reader's mind, instead of evoking the scene. It was daunting, and somehow confining to me as a reader. I was certainly interested in the stories but not as engaged with the characters as in the shorter books. Knowing at the outset that they were embodiments of a philosophy, I could not forget about that and just "read a novel"-- which surely was Rand's intent.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You bring up an interesting question which I have been asked in different forms, and indeed asked myself, and which I think deserves a little more thinking about than your black-and-white reaction warrants.

Joel's typically laconic reference to the echo chamber is part of it.

Carol,

Let's see if I get your observation right.

Joel, knowing he's on a site where people love Rand's works, states that he loathes Atlas Shrugged and finds it laughable, and demonstrates deep satisfaction that the movie is not doing as well as it could.

And that is a "laconic reference to the echo chamber."

I ask him why he wants to hang around acting like a party-poop, knowing his is baiting people while offering nothing constructive, and this is a "black-and-white reaction" that is unwarranted.

Hmmmmmmm...

I have trouble with this reasoning.

Maybe I am black-and-white on one issue. You, for example, are a welcome presence when I look inside myself even though we disagree on many issues. You're playful and upbeat. I admit, I like this. I intensely dislike snarky spite spewed out for no other reason than the baiter trying to piss people off when they are having a good time.

One to me actually is white (let's call it love) and the other is black (let's call it hate).

Guilty as charged. I am not a hate person. I am biased against hate people. I prefer to have a good time and immensely enjoy seeing others have a good time.

I don't mind hatred as an acute emotion (a flare-up). We all do that. I don't like to be around people who use hatred as a chronic emotion (where they hang out emotionally over the long term). These folks are bummers. One-Note Sambas that never change their tune.

But when people use hatred as a social emotion (as part of their mask they show other people) in specific environments, especially when they calibrate this to try to destroy good vibes others are having, I start to sense a nasty intent towards the people the snarky dudes are interacting with.

In Joel's case, I simply asked him to consider what he is doing with his life. I believe devoting your life to something like this last option is a total waste of the precious unrepeatable moments of your life--and it wastes the time of other people who are not affected other than to be irritated. There's just too much good in the world. You don't need to see your soul constantly reflected in the amount of negativity you spread to others. In fact, that's unhealthy.

I like Joel, but I don't like that nasty part of him he likes to show off. (I guess you can say it's a black-and-white thing.)

When was the last time you had to plant food in order to eat because nothing else was available? You, Carol, get the earth to give it up or literally starve at that time? I suspect never.

In my vision, it wouldn't hurt to be grateful once in a while that you live in such a time where you simply don't have that issue--stop and smell the roses you normally don't even see, so to speak--and spread that vibe, instead of living to spread hatred among people who do not share your views. (I'm using "you" general in this paragraph, not "you" Carol.)

This is a choice--one that you can make on purpose in full focus--and it cuts across all ideologies and religions.

Is that a bad black-and-white mindset to you--one that has no merit? And is the black-and-white snarky behavior of someone--a person who proudly professes his hatred--of baiting people he doesn't know with his hatred "warranted" and merely "laconic"?

Like I said, I don't understand this reasoning. Is there some standard operating here other than folks from Canada standing up for other folks from Canada? I can't perceive any.

I think I am going to go watch some old South Park reruns...

Michael

[Selene]

Lol.

O didn't think that "black and white" was going to slip by unanswered.

Adam

[Mike11]

Threads get hijacked all the time here, this is one of those times.

MSK is actually someone online I respect, if he were in town I'd buy him a beer. So when he called me out on being hateful on the internet, and I appreciate his qualification there, I decided to look through my posts over the past 90 days. I only come here about 15 minutes a week (in fact this post chewed up more time than I give this place in a month), he's correct in assuming I don't put much stock in my involvement or reputation here. Pippi probably posted more in a week than I have in, what, the last three years or so?

If I have actually spent most of my infrequent posts turning this place into a toxic environment, that's unfortunate as MSK runs a decent house that I'm a guest in.

As an Objectivist himself I can see why he's puzzled that I really don't treat this place as an Objectivist forum. Someone (I think Michael Campbell but I'm not sure) said that the term Objectivist has been taken over by the ARI and so the forum members would have to call themselves Neo or Post-Objectivists. I agree in a stronger way. I don't consider Peikoff's ideas to be a corruption of Objectivism but rather its natural conclusion. So when I hear intelligent interesting comments from forum members I consider them as Infidel would consider a rational Muslim - the poster is rational to the extent that the poster is not an Objectivist (ironic, given as I consider Infidel wrong about Muslims).

I read a lot of interesting content on here, from an intelligent perspective. It is common for people to assume that those he disagrees with are corrupt, idiotic, deceitful, hateful and evil. Coming to this site reminds me that even though this community tends to believe things I do not - the nature of Israel, Global Warming, Capitalism (etc) - non-leftists are not the irrational swarm us left wingers would like to consider them.

So looking at my posts I find they fit into a very simple, Black & White dichotomy. Particularly when the person I am addressing fits what I consider to be a "randroid".

There are numerous one line quips from me regarding my opinion of Ayn Rand and the violence of the ARI. I don't think these were too far off base. Note, this post in which I pretty bluntly state the connection in my mind between Objectivism and brutality which Ba'al, who is an Objectivist, proudly agreed with. Posts from Pippi and Infidel got the same treatment for the same reasons. Honestly from the tenor of most attack posts on here these were pretty bloody light. People attack the integrity and self esteem of other posters here every day, I've not indulged in that to nearly the same extent.

The second kind of posts were far more lengthy and are the posts cared about. Some examples - The Multiculturalism thread sparked some interesting debate (despite some unwarranted assumptions from you about my illiteracy), and was posted for the same reason I read OL - to get the other side's opinions. The thread on property rights posted by Selene got some positive feed back for my posts. The thread on Israel/Palestine actually got a response from you in which I think we both learned something.

It is clear from the length of the second kind of posts relative the first kind I am not here to hate you, I am here to learn about this group's opinions. I will however continue to behave the same way the members of this forum have - giving one liners where and when I feel amused or ticked enough to do so and engaging in worth while conversations where and when I feel the need.

Oh, and MSK I will also say this. Generally speaking on most forums, when a forum moderator has a issue with a member, PM's about a particular issue are preferred to speculation about the member's life and character. Run your ship as you see fit, it just strikes me that your method here is pretty presumptuous and, to the limited extent I care, insulting.

Edited May 1, 2011 by Joel Mac Donald

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Joel,

Just a few comments.

1. I appreciate the respect. Thank you.

2. Bob (Ba'al) is not an Objectivist and has said so many times.

3. If you find the discussion of your behavior insulting, I suggest you insult people less, especially the broad sweeping insults. Just a thought...

Anyway, I prefer this stuff out in the open. The sunlight has a way of keeping the fungus of manipulations killed dead.

I'm not saying you do that, but there are folks who do in any group. In my experience, backstage stuff can get quite destructive when it grows in the wrong direction. And if you're a person like me, you only find out that there is a problem after it becomes bigger than it ever should get.

Since you have been quite reasonable as a response to my tough comments, I will let you in on something. You've earned an explanation. In the past here on OL, I have tried to resolve some posting behavior issues backstage to keep the flow online peaceful. Later I was sent information that my communications were blasted to a small clique group that was growing in a manipulative direction and used in a distorted manner. In a few cases, I have even seen parts of my emails show up on other sites.

So sunlight it is.

Since I am not manipulating an agenda, I don't mind being upfront about what I say to folks. I just let it all hang out.

I have even instituted a formal policy for myself that I never send an email to a person that I will be uncomfortable owning up to in public later. On the other hand, though, I have received many emails that would make the sender uncomfortable if the content came out.

I just don't do that. If someone asks for privacy, I grant it unless there is some really grave compelling reason (something outside the bickering realm like a serious risk of physical damage).

Look around and see how many people complain that I play dirty with their private messages. You won't find anyone, or at least anyone I remember even remotely doing that to.

This makes things a bit inconvenient at times, I agree, but in my experience, the alternative is much worse.

At least we have a forum here with lots of wonderful people on it. And it is healthy.

Michael

[Peter]

Joel wrote:

. . . . preferred to speculation about the member's life and character. Run your ship as you see fit, it just strikes me that your method here is pretty presumptuous and, to the limited extent I care, insulting.

I have been elsewhere and had the moderators join in the fray and it is not good. I expected to be treated like a paying customer, which I was, at other sites, but instead I felt like an interloper. If "paid moderators" steer conversations and throw around condemnations, then they should be sent packing, like a snotty sales person in "Bed Bath and Beyond."

However, I know Michael well enough to say it is his sincere wish that you express yourself. (And you are more than a clerk, Michael, you are the owner.) There are no paid moderators here that I know of, and Michael is the "go to guy" if there is a problem.

At the same time he MUST express his opinion . . . I know that feeling, since I lack most internal censoring . . . however his derogatory opinions are more polite than mine. An interesting episode of Bones last week concerned people who make a pledge to be one hundred percent honest all the time. That's me.

Michael thinks his opinions add to and facilitate the conversation and they do. That's just my view and may not come close to what you actually think, Michael.

If I come across a troublesome view I wonder: is this opinion for or against me? Is it true? If it is against something I said, is it malignant or beneficial? I think Michael is generally beneficial.

Michael wrote to Joel:

At least we have a forum here with lots of wonderful people on it. And it is healthy.

The forum here is quite Laissez - Faire. To prosper a contributor / poster needs a basic understanding of Rand. It is best if you have read Atlas Shrugged.

I am practicing the quote function so bear with me.

I am writing a position paper with the prospect of other Objectivists reading it in mind, and the opening for that paper might help non-Objectivists to classify themselves in terms of Rand.

Here is my beginning.

I agree substantially with Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, including all of its basic principles. In the "About the Author" section to "Atlas Shrugged", Rand said:

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."

I agree.

At the sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of "Atlas Shrugged", Rand recited the essence of her philosophy "while standing on one foot":

1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality ("Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" or "Wishing won't make it so.")

2. Epistemology: Reason ("You can't have your cake and eat it, too.")

3. Ethics: Self-Interest ("Man is an end in himself.")

4. Politics: Capitalism ("Give me liberty or give me death.")

I agree with these principles.

Later, in her 1962 column "Introducing Objectivism," Ayn Rand gave "the briefest summary" of her philosophy:

1. Reality exists as an objective absolute--facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

3. Man -- every man--is an end in himself, not the means t the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own *rational* self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

4. The ideal political-economic system is "laissez-faire" capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as *traders*, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man's rights; it uses physical force ONLY in retaliation and ONLY against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

I agree with this summary. To reiterate, "It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others."

And lastly, in "Brief Summary" (1971), Rand said:

"If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest [e.g., capitalism and egoism] follows. This -- the supremacy of reason -- was, is and will be the primary concern of my work, and the essence of Objectivism."

I agree with Rand's essence of Objectivism. I am an Objectivist.

How about you Joel?

Peter Taylor

Edited May 1, 2011 by Peter Taylor

[anthony]

I agree with this summary. To reiterate, "It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others."

And lastly, in "Brief Summary" (1971), Rand said:

"If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest [e.g., capitalism and egoism] follows. This -- the supremacy of reason -- was, is and will be the primary concern of my work, and the essence of Objectivism."

I agree with Rand's essence of Objectivism. I am an Objectivist.

Peter Taylor

Stated with your usual candour, Peter, and I agree with all of the above.

"Laissez faire" is a good thing on OL, largely.

Another good thing is sometimes making a stand for the convictions that brought us here.

Tony