CNA

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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....

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

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

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.

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.)

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

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.

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. Funny analogy. I'm basing it in the context of what I saw. Of course, future installments and I know what's to come and hopefully more substance. But again, this isn't being factored into the specific context of what I saw in Part 1.

After much thought and some issues going on offline related to all of this, I've decided to post this here. I'm sure there will be comments to what I post and expect this. But again, I'm so busy with work and real life that I don't have a lot of time to respond to numerous postings and I'm only putting it out there for those to read and to consider. I know I can expand on this more and tightening it up but have not had time to do it. But the foundation of it and why I didn't like the movie is here. Atlas Shrugged Part 1: The Fundamental Structural Flaw We have a glimpse of what is going on and that the world is falling around them and that something is seriously wrong with the world. We see that the main characters are fighting for something and this something is identified somewhat throughout the movie. But again, we don't know why. There's a lot of whats in the movie and this identification but again we get hints superficially here and there but again there is not much of a why throughout and helping the viewer to at least start to piece it together that 1+1 equals 2 and to help them begin to understand and make sense of what they're seeing, the what and why. Of course, those who are familiar with the book and the philosophy will know ahead of time what it is and they will understand. But to a newcomer who is not familiar with Rand and the philosophy, this could potentially be a death sentence because they have absolutely no understanding going in. Once they go in and only for the most part seeing the Law of Identity and identification but there is no substance, no Law of Causality, NO WHY there for them to piece it together and to integrate these two, they potentially will leave confused and baffled because they weren't given the opportunity to integrate the two. Again, I'm putting this out for consideration. I know there may be opposing views and this is a given. But if anyone else is also seeing the same issues I am, I ask and request to please speak up in hopes that it gets back to those who are closely involved with the movie and for them to please FIX it before the release nationally. Given the timing of the release and the potential significance of this movie, I think it is extremely important to tweak the movie. If not entirely, at least go back and INCLUDE Francisco's speech to Hank regarding money and that it is NOT the root of all evil -- just something to help the viewer integrate the earlier scenes. They have the WHAT but they DON'T have the WHY. Ayn Rand is WORTH fighting for. The ideas and the philosophy are WORTH fighting for. Set aside any differences amongst organizations and individuals and unify and FIGHT for what is RIGHT. If anyone sees the issues as I am seeing them as well, praise the movie for the areas that are successful but DO NOT SIT IDLY BY and IGNORE the problems hoping that they will go away. Evasion will do NOTHING and will only promote the destruction. PLEASE SPEAK UP!!!! Angie

David Kelley wanted me to post an information correction here: I appreciate Angie's comments on the film, but I want to correct one error of fact. I do not have any financial interest in the movie. If I stood to gain financially, I would have mentioned it as a matter of full disclosure. Of course, as head of The Atlas Society, I have a strong organizational interest in its success: Our mission is to promote Objectivism, and we expect the movie to help do that by inspiring new people to read the novel and study the philosophy. At the same time, as with others posting here, my knowledge of the novel and belief in its importance makes me a harsher critic than many people. Offsetting motives, perhaps, but money wasn't part of the equation (though I hope John Aglialoro makes a ton of money—he's earned it). - David Kelley Ed, Please tell David Kelley that I appreciate his response and it is duly noted. Despite my concerns that I have expressed in regards to the film and my being more critical, I truly hope it does well in bringing in newcomers as well as financial donations to not only TAS but ARI and other Objectivist organizations as well. I have no doubts that there will be some newcomers who are curious to know more about the ideas and the philosophy based on what they see in the movie as the foundation is there as well as helping to identify the values that "some" live by but have yet to identify it on their own thus far. I'm just hoping that it will bring enough awareness and waking people up to the state this country is in now and noticeable enough changes begin happening because of it. Rather than it being more off-putting, I truly hope it reaches many many people rather than just a "few" or "some." The movie and what it represents is much needed right now and couldn't have been released at a better time. Again, please tell David Kelley that I appreciate his response. Angie

Jerry, I apologize for this being so short but have been working and taking a bit of a break now but have to get back to the grind. You are right, understood, and have considered it and will do. As is obvious, there are those that may hold opposing views and this is a given. I would thoroughly enjoy more exchange but unfortunately the real world is calling as usual and a very busy week ahead. Mike, I agree that there are those that hold opposing views and again this is a given. Each will judge on their own if they like the movie or not. Some will walk away thoroughly happy but others who will walk away disappointed for various reasons and that the book is just too complex to successfully be adapted to the screen without Ayn here to help. But even then, still may be too complex. There's many areas of her book that would be very difficult to adapt to the screen such as the "introspection" of the main characters and their thoughts and what they are feeling and integrating these and the questions that they ask themselves and answering those questions throughout the book such as Hank when riding with Dagny on the John Galt Line and the inaugural run or the "introspection" that Dagny engages in after being rescued by him and brought to his home and then her asking herself questions when John is away that night while she is at his home and she is pacing his floors wanting him to come back and she is thinking to herself all the while and her trying to figure out what exactly it is that she wants. These are all important aspects that would be very difficult to successfully pull off in a film that is trying to convey all of her philosophy and then adding this also to the movie. It would take many many different parts, such as Atlas Shrugged Part 12 and so forth. It would be too much. I truly hope, despite those that have expressed concern, that it will be successful enough to have enough of an impact. It will have an impact without a doubt but the question is will it be enough and we'll all soon see. Angie

Jerry, I'm not expecting a mass exodus of those that "already" admire Rand because of the movie. Far from it. We will always be here and will survive. What I am saying is will this movie the way it is presented do more damage in bringing in new people to the philosophy as I stated a bit earlier to Dennis. The base foundation of the philosophy is present in the movie and I can't deny this. But, there are many issues with the movie and will this ultimately turn off those that are new. Unfortunately, after viewing what I did, I don't have a desire to see Part 2. If I am asked by someone new to the philosophy which I've been talking with a friend of mine that is not aware of the philosophy and he asked about the movie and I told him to please read the book first before seeing the movie as I don't think the movie does adequate justice to the philosophy. I don't want the movie to fill his head with potential misconceptions and misunderstandings and present confusion. As I've stated in earlier posts, the potential for confusion to a new viewer is definitely there because of how difficult and choppy the movie can be, how abrupt and no lead ins, etc., to help "build" it up enough to make it cohesive enough and putting it together to make enough intellectual sense rather than a bunch of people doing weird things. In what I'm understanding of your post, you are strictly speaking of those who are already "in" the philosophy. I'm not speaking of those already in the philosophy but those potential new people who may be brought in and bringing that much more awareness to it. The movie will no doubt spark interest and making enough sense to some on different levels and their potentially wanting to pursue it but will it be enough of a blockbuster so to speak to get massive coverage and interest and really making an impact? I don't know at this point. It may very well but it may not. After what I saw, my hopes for it have been diminished because of it. Angie

I don't think it is going to help at all. Being dishonest doesn't help in the least bit. It only makes the situation worse and you have more to lose with evasion and denial and trying to make something into what it's not. Honesty is where it is at, brutally honest, and will only help you and benefit you in the long run. Not everyone is going to be happy with the movie and there will be those that are completely happy with it. Again, I hope the ones that did not like it is a very very small group and it does extremely well. Perhaps my taste in movies is not similar to others. But my issue is this not only did I not like the movie but others were making similar comments underneath their breath of their disappointment and so forth. I went into the bathroom after the showing and there were two women in the bathroom that were talking about the movie and expressing the same unhappiness that I had. One person, I don't know who the person is, who was sitting relatively close to me said after the movie was over -- they stood up and looked over at me and said with a look of concern on his face, "This ain't it." This is what I am talking about and people expressing such comments underneath the breathe and their disappointment in ways that speaks volumes but not speaking up and saying, hey, you guys, I didn't like it because of such and such reason. I was asked point blank right afterwards when standing up to leave of, "What did you think?" I'm not going to lie and I said, "No. I didn't like it." Anyway, honesty is where it is at but it seems those that do not carry a favorable review and what I heard coming from some people that may be connected with various groups and so forth are not coming out publicly and saying anything. But anyway... Angie, Your comments are fascinating—not only regarding the movie itself but the attitude of fear which you personally witnessed: Objectivists are afraid to speak up and criticize the film. You would expect that coming form the ARI crowd—if Peikoff had orchestrated the thing and was brandishing his Don Quixote sword--but this pressure to either praise the film or shut up is emanating from the so-called “tolerant” wing of Objectivism. Astonishing, in a way. I cannot thank you enough for your candor. Dennis You're welcome, Dennis. I'm not a bit surprised though either way from ARI or other groups. It's been well documented and all the "blow ups" if you will and honestly I have no desire to be associated with groups such as that. I have good friends without a doubt who are O'ists but I don't label myself as being with this group or that group. But it obviously is having some impact on some not wanting to come forward. In my case, I have no associations with either side if you will nor do I fear reprisal for being honest and my being disappointed and expressing it publicly. Perhaps my knowing the book so well and love of Rand that my expectations were too high in what I know the potential outcome of the movie could be. Honestly, I doubt very seriously that any adaptation would do the book justice and capturing all of its glory. It just needs to be presented in such a way to bring more awareness and to bring in more that are interested in the philosophy and helping to name their values that they've been living by but unable to name thus far what they are and this is the goal. But as you, after what I saw, I definitely have legitimate concerns that it may be more off-putting and a turn off to those new to the philosophy; ie, more damage done than good. Perhaps there should be a disclaimer or what have you stating somewhere to read the book after viewing the film as the movie doesn't do enough justice and showcasing how beautiful the philosophy is.

Well, let’s not start with the thread drift. I, for one, liked Troy well enough. Now, if Atlas Shrugged grosses as much as Troy did…no way. Maybe we should have a thread for predicting the domestic gross, see who gets closest. I say $40-$50 million, and I consider that optimistic. I think that’s about 1/10th of The Passion of the Christ’s take, for some reason that sounds about right. Again, I truly hope it does well and grosses quite a bit, much needed right now as I've stated in prior posts....enough to set up Part 2 and financing it and they don't take a loss but we'll all see very soon and how it does.

Sounds like you had “come not hither” body language. It’s hard to believe they wouldn’t want your opinion, or that they were profiling by sex or something like that. Anyway, there are diverse views being aired. That’s fine, only time will tell. I'll be going to see it. As I recall, Troy was given a new musical score after being shown to one test audience, with maybe 2 months to go before the scheduled premiere. Meaning, when in Hollywood they say "final", it's not really final. I should have elaborated a bit more when I responded to your post. I did not mean to imply sexism in how it may have been viewed from my response. Statistically speaking, the philosophy draws in more men than it does women so there's two possibilities that I'm thinking of now and that is her assumption that I was more of a "date" for one of the men who was an Objectivist there or I would not doubt one bit that I had that don't-approach-me body language and this being obvious to others and my reaction as I was disappointed, unhappy, and wanted to get out of there. I know when I passed her and observing her out of the corner of my eye as I passed right by her there was obvious reluctance on her part to approach me and potentially ask. So instead of being confronted with such a person being obviously disappointed, she went to the gentleman behind me. Yes, you are right, there may be tweaks here and there to the movie before it is released and if I see the movie again in the theaters, given my past experiences with screenings and such, I will probably note changes that were made before the actual "final" release. But the overall movie and how it is presented is pretty much final but tweaks here and there I'm sure will be done. If there was an overhaul of the movie, I doubt very seriously unless long tiring hours are put in to go through footage and/or spend more money to bring people out on location and reshoot scenes, etc. I haven't stayed up on all the reviews that are coming out but what I have been told is there's not many O'ists that are expressing their dislike but I'm basing this on what I've been told as I've distanced myself from all of this quite a bit. I don't have much of an interest in non-O'ist views right now because even if the movie was a blockbuster and one of the greatest movies released they will hate it because of what it represents. There is one person who is an O'ist that I know who saw the movie before I did who holds a far worse opinion than I do but has refused to publicly speak about the movie which I completely understand where he is coming from and protecting that which they value and I won't say anymore. I have no doubts that the reviews are varied as is obvious from some of the reviews that have been posted up to now on this thread. But again, time will tell and not every O'ist is going to be jumping up and down with joy at what they saw. I still encourage those to see it to make their own judgment on the movie and whether or not they really like it as well as making a judgment on what they view is going to help or potentially do more damage to the philosophy and helping to bring more awareness. Angie

I do want to say this though in regards to the survey afterwards: I was not asked to fill the survey out. It seems in the people that were close to me coming out of the theater both men and women the men were primarily the ones being asked to fill it out in what I observed. As I took a step off the last stair coming down from the theater, there was a young girl about 5 feet from me offering the surveys to some people. She looked right at me and did not offer but offered to the gentleman behind me. At that point, I just wanted to get out of there. I didn't want to stay in the least bit. I went straight to the bathroom and did not speak with anyone but was watching people and listening as I passed and headed for the restroom. After coming out of the restroom, I stayed for about 20 minutes maybe and then got out of there.

Are you sure you saw the final cut? Did they have people fill out questionnaires afterwards? They’re probably still tinkering with it. Ninth, Yes, we were told before the viewing that what we were about to see was the final cut of the movie and surveys by some were filled out afterwards. I did not fill out a survey. I wanted to get out of there as quickly as I could which I did leave pretty fast afterwards and not stinking around so we could go to dinner. After I left the actual theater, I went straight to the girls' room. BUT, I've been to other premieres before and being told that it was pretty much the final movie but once released nationally and seeing the movie again, it had been changed here and there but nothing major and the overall formatting of the movie if you will was still intact. I'm sure they may do tweaks here and there but nothing of substance and overhaul if you will. I'm sure the same issues that I saw will still be there as it just wasn't one or two scenes that had issues. The issues spanned the entire movie but will see once it's released.

Well, I did a computer search for "Angie red carpet" and this is what I came up with. . . Not sure if this is you or not. . . Thank you for the compliment but, uh, no, that's not me. LOL I don't have long hair anymore. It's actually quite short and for the most part blonde now -- heavy blonde highlights.