Atlas Shrugged Movie - June Production


Recommended Posts

Phil, you’re just getting on people’s nerves, isn’t it time to give it a rest? I came across your first post on OL, I offer it and the conversation that followed as evidence to everyone that this simply is Phil, he is immutable. Learn to love him, or else ignore him. I believe I’ve come up with his French title, to complement Robert Campbell’s Alpha Bête Noire designation. Phil’s is Fil Tueur, translation: thread killer.

I’ve been thinking of an exercise to try and get into the mind of our curmudgeonly Coates, this most curious clockwork. Hey, wait a minute, that’s got the makings of iambic pentameter. Let’s see if we can make a couplet:

Curmudgeonly Coates, curious clockwork,

I wish from his ass he would pull the cork.

Eh, well no, but it’s a start. Coates is one syllable, right? Anyway, moving on, I’m going to make some gratuitous critiques of GHS and JR, just to see how it feels from the inside. This is part of my pet project: Understanding Phil. Here goes:

Your comments were an exercise in puerile pedantry, nothing more.

Puerile pedantry? That’s like saying childish schoolmarm, the two words should never go together if you know what they mean or bother to use a dictionary.

You’re a bad, bad writer (full paragraph condensed, however no actual content removed).

If you want to finally become a good writer, read (this and that, Strunk and White, blah blah) and then practice for ten years and be self critical for a change unlike the other hacks that frequently post on this site. I’m so tired of having to point out their flaws, and they’re all so hard-headed that nothing sinks in.

Reassertion of superiority (condensed).

...

JR, you’re next. I’ve listened to some of your audio recordings, and particularly on the Rothbard one about pre-Adam Smith economic thought, you misprounounce the Italian syllable “gli”. It’s not glee, like glee club, it’s more like hhlee.

Blah blah blah, climaxing with disparaging comparisons to Grover Gardner and George Guidall.

Pointless paragraph about time spent in Italy, and my ability to speak tourist grade Italian. I’ve successfully ordered gelato up and down the boot, on this subject I’ve got authoritah! Bar Vivoli Gelateria in Florence, chestnut flavour with stracciatella, sweet Jesus…but I digress. Must stay in character.

Victory dance. Embed helpful video and suggest JR zap ahead to 5:18 to hear "gli" pronounced correctly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18IOwhjetHU

Alright now, for this exercise to work we may need to go back and forth a bit. Feel free to tell me how stupid and unnecessary these critiques are. I’ll try to get back in character tomorrow night to answer.

So far, I’d say it feels good to be Phil. I’m being helpful. I’m investing in people, reaching out to them, sharing my wisdom. Why don’t you people appreciate me????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 90
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Phil, you're just getting on people's nerves, isn't it time to give it a rest? I came across your first post on OL, I offer it and the conversation that followed as evidence to everyone that this simply is Phil, he is immutable. Learn to love him, or else ignore him. I believe I've come up with his French title, to complement Robert Campbell's Alpha Bête Noire designation. Phil's is Fil Tueur, translation: thread killer.

I've been thinking of an exercise to try and get into the mind of our curmudgeonly Coates, this most curious clockwork. Hey, wait a minute, that's got the makings of iambic pentameter. Let's see if we can make a couplet:

Curmudgeonly Coates, curious clockwork,

I wish from his ass he would pull the cork.

Eh, well no, but it's a start. Coates is one syllable, right? Anyway, moving on, I'm going to make some gratuitous critiques of GHS and JR, just to see how it feels from the inside. This is part of my pet project: Understanding Phil. Here goes:

Your comments were an exercise in puerile pedantry, nothing more.

Puerile pedantry? That's like saying childish schoolmarm, the two words should never go together if you know what they mean or bother to use a dictionary.

You're a bad, bad writer (full paragraph condensed, however no actual content removed).

If you want to finally become a good writer, read (this and that, Strunk and White, blah blah) and then practice for ten years and be self critical for a change unlike the other hacks that frequently post on this site. I'm so tired of having to point out their flaws, and they're all so hard-headed that nothing sinks in.

Reassertion of superiority (condensed).

...

JR, you're next. I've listened to some of your audio recordings, and particularly on the Rothbard one about pre-Adam Smith economic thought, you misprounounce the Italian syllable "gli". It's not glee, like glee club, it's more like hhlee.

Blah blah blah, climaxing with disparaging comparisons to Grover Gardner and George Guidall.

Pointless paragraph about time spent in Italy, and my ability to speak tourist grade Italian. I've successfully ordered gelato up and down the boot, on this subject I've got authoritah! Bar Vivoli Gelateria in Florence, chestnut flavour with stracciatella, sweet Jesus…but I digress. Must stay in character.

Victory dance. Embed helpful video and suggest JR zap ahead to 5:18 to hear "gli" pronounced correctly.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=18IOwhjetHU

Alright now, for this exercise to work we may need to go back and forth a bit. Feel free to tell me how stupid and unnecessary these critiques are. I'll try to get back in character tomorrow night to answer.

So far, I'd say it feels good to be Phil. I'm being helpful. I'm investing in people, reaching out to them, sharing my wisdom. Why don't you people appreciate me????

Thanks for the pronunciation tip, Ninth. Next time I have to deal with Italian, I may consult you.

JR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>you’re just getting on people’s nerves..curmudgeonly Coates...I came across your first post on OL

Laughing boy, I answered you (and the Snark Pack) in another post on that same thread:

"It's an old Objectivist story: no matter how valid your case, when you criticize a student of Objectivism, too often you've simply caused resentment or made an enemy, not caused him to stop and ponder or carefully, thoughfully, unemotionally address what you said, point by point."

Grow up. Learn to take criticism like a man. Shut up and stop whining until then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I'm reading that whole 'ancient' thread ND pointed me to and it's got a lot of good stuff in it...and I was too cranky in my original post.

ND, if you don't want me to get on your nerves, try not getting on mine.

Usually I have quite good, civil and productive discussions with people who are civil, and haven't already been petty or snarky or insulting toward me (see the "Great Literature" thread and the one on languages for the discussion with Ted and others...I don't remember the thread name.)

But, as I said before, you try to be snarky or contemptuous or ankle-biting with me, you're gonna get the sharp tip of my boot up your ass.

And it doesn't matter how many of you there are. I'm quite willing to take on a whole Snark Pack. Just like I did the Wolf Pack over at Solo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the pronunciation tip, Ninth. Next time I have to deal with Italian, I may consult you.

It was the best I could think of, there’s a compliment of sorts in there, by implication.

ND, if you don't want me to get on your nerves, try not getting on mine.

By not manipulatively titling threads “Peikoff Flip-Flops”, or my other attempts at smuggling? I know how we can all solve the conflict, when Phil expresses an opinion, even on an issue that is speculative, such as whether the news about the Atlas Shrugged movie production means the project is doomed, get in line behind him. His opinion is always more soundly considered than yours. I advise everyone to wait for him to express his opinion first, then you can safely express agreement with him.

And it doesn't matter how many of you there are. I'm quite willing to take on a whole Snark Pack. Just like I did the Wolf Pack over at Solo.

Ahem, Fil Tueur, we’re the Boojum Pack, for the record. And you’ve got no arms or legs left, Sir Invincible.

Edited by Ninth Doctor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disingenuous, Evasive, and "Humorously Insulting" Tactics

> If you don't want me to get on your nerves, try not getting on mine. [Phil]

> By not manipulatively titling threads “Peikoff Flip-Flops”, or my other attempts at smuggling? [ND]

"Let's see, I know how Phil gets on my nerves. I want him to change his behavior, but I certainly don't want to admit to any fault of mine. So let me pretend I have -no idea- how I might get on -his- nerves.

How will I do that? Hmmmm???...I've got it! I'll play innocent and disingenuously claim that it's because we disagree on a trivial intellectual issue, the usage of the word flip-flop! (And that he can't stand to be disagreed with on a purely intellectual matter)."

> I advise everyone to wait for him to express his opinion first, then you can safely express agreement with him.

"And then I'll conclude the post by belittling his personality or character or motives some more, all the while continuing to have absolutely no idea what could possibly get on his nerves from innocent, benevolent, humor-loving, little old laughing avatar me."

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disingenuous, Evasive, and "Humorously Insulting" Tactics

> If you don't want me to get on your nerves, try not getting on mine. [Phil]

> By not manipulatively titling threads “Peikoff Flip-Flops”, or my other attempts at smuggling? [ND]

"Let's see, I know how Phil gets on my nerves. I want him to change his behavior, but I certainly don't want to admit to any fault of mine. So let me pretend I have -no idea- how I might get on -his- nerves.

How will I do that? Hmmmm???...I've got it! I'll play innocent and disingenuously claim that it's because we disagree on a trivial intellectual issue, the usage of the word flip-flop! (And that he can't stand to be disagreed with on a purely intellectual matter)."

> I advise everyone to wait for him to express his opinion first, then you can safely express agreement with him.

"And then I'll conclude the post by belittling his personality or character or motives some more, all the while continuing to have absolutely no idea what could possibly get on his nerves from innocent, benevolent, humor-loving, little old laughing avatar me."

I have run out of words, so I will say it with music. I uploaded this tune especially for you; no need to thank me.

Ghs

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="
type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I'm reading that whole 'ancient' thread ND pointed me to and it's got a lot of good stuff in it...and I was too cranky in my original post.

I re-read the thread. Some of you might find material of interest there -- link.

I just added a post answering a minor question I either didn't notice or forgot to reply to back then. Answer, no, I didn't know that group.

Speaking of Russ Madden, however....

I recently read his article in the Younkins volume on Atlas Shrugged. The article, titled "Fuel for the Soul," presents Russ's analysis of why Atlas Shrugged's appeal lasts and lasts, for those to whom the book does appeal.

Here's an excerpt, probably of interest in light of the forthcoming (??) movie version.

Chapter 15

Fuel for the Soul

Russell Madden

pp. 167-170,

*Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged*

[bracketed ellipses and insert in the second paragraph are mine.]

Despite the enduring popularity of Atlas Shrugged for nearly half a century, lots of people "still don't get it." The misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and misapplications of this classic novel continue unabated.

[....]

Despite the misapprehensions of many, Atlas Shrugged is not about capitalism. It is not even about politics. Or statism. Or individualism versus collectivism. Or reason versus irrationality. Perhaps most shockingly and surprisingly, it is not even about philosophy or objectivism.

[...] life can sometimes feel like an endurance contest. Each of us must wrestle with [various] difficulties. [....]

Emotional ups and downs, bouts of sickness and disease, precarious financial concerns, periods of drudgery, mistakes and failures...death...all take their toll.

Beyond this common heritage of humanity, for that small minority of folks who still understand, appreciate, and hope for liberty, there are wider, even more insoluble cultural complications added to the already sometimes overwhelming burden each of us must, at times, carry. [...] encroachments on the dignity and autonomy of the individual contribute to a depressing loss of personal control; a questioning of how much the system can endure before the whole unwieldy mass collapses under its own weight; a serious doubt about how much more we can bear before we lose the last shredded bits of our humanity.

It is at such a crossroads that hope can sour into despair, happiness warp into sadness, enthusiasm wilt into apathy.

At these dark crystalline moments in our lives, we cannot only benefit from an uplifting of our spirits, we need such a rejuvenation if we are to continue existing as fully functioning human beings. "Art does have a purpose and does serve a human need; ...a need of man's consciousness. Art is inextricably tied to man's survival...to the preservation and survival of his consciousness" (RM, 17).

"The primary value [of art] is that it gives [a person] the experience of living in a world where things are as they ought to be. This experience is of crucial importance to him; it is his psychological life line" (RM, 170).

The proponents and supporters of statism and collectivism, of the irrational and the mystical, of altruistic sacrifice and abject self-denial have no shortage of venues that reflect their views of life and the world. We are immersed in a steaming bath of those ideals. In television and movies, in books and magazines, in politics and churches, messages reinforcing the essential evil of humanity, the impotence of the human mind, and the relativistic nature of reality abound.

Luckily for those who reject immolation from within and without, a few peaks manage to rise above the suffocating fog that has become the norm. Freedom-lovers cling to these isolated havens, knowing that to abandon them would lead to a depressing demise of unpleasant intensity.

But most such avenues of renewal are undependable fountains, at best. In Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand achieved a consistency of vision and depth of execution unparalleled in the freedom movement. Though some libertarians lambast Rand and Atlas Shrugged for its "totalism," that very coherence is, of course, one of the book's greatest strengths. The consonance between theme and plot, the congruity between character and action create a symmetry of structure and a unity of purpose and achievement that has rarely been duplicated:

my life purpose is the creation of the kind of world (people and events) that I like--that is, that represents human perfection. In a book of fiction the purpose is to create, for myself, the kind of world I want and to live in it while I am creating it.... (Rand, The Journals of Ayn Rand, 479)

As Ayn Rand made clear, the primary purpose of Atlas Shrugged was not to present the struggle between opposing political, economic, or philosophical systems. Unlike many of her readers, she clearly distinguished the goal that she sought to reach in her fiction writing and the means she used to accomplish that task.

Having grown up in a totalitarian regime in the U.S.S.R. and having witnessed the steady erosion of American liberty under FDR, Rand felt more keenly than most the slow, withering disappearance of a social milieu that touched her on a deeply emotional level.

For very personal reasons, then, Rand undertook the monumental task of creating the world of Atlas Shrugged. "The motive and purpose of my writing is the projection of an ideal man" (RM, 162).

What Rand could not readily experience in her daily struggles, she sought to distill in the framework of her novel. Who existed and how they acted in that projected universe formed the core of her task. As she said, "...I write--and read--for the sake of the story" (RM, 163). In making her decisions on how to proceed, she was guided by a fundamental principle: "My basic test for any story is: Would I want to meet these characters and observe these events in real life? Is this story an experience worth living through for its own sake? Is the pleasure of contemplating these characters an end in itself?" (RM[,] 163).

Precisely because so few others had endeavored to reach this destination in a manner consistent with her view of the world, Rand took upon herself the mission of furnishing the "emotional fuel" she so desperately desired. Her gift to herself secondarily became a boon for any readers willing to embrace her grand perspective.

Edited by Ellen Stuttle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I'm reading that whole 'ancient' thread ND pointed me to and it's got a lot of good stuff in it...and I was too cranky in my original post.

I re-read the thread. Some of you might find material of interest there -- link.

First I read this, Ellen. I suggest that in many respects "Atlas Shrugged" is like painting-by-the-numbers and therefore you'll come up with all these real-life and naturalized criticisms thereof. So what? This is not to denigrate, I hope, a very good analysis of Dagny and Hank. But do too consider the unreality of the converted heroes generally. Ragnar, for instance. Galt himself--who converted himself. I think almost the entire novel should be taken as a giant abstraction.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subject: What the Movie Needs

> I recently read his article in the Younkins volume on Atlas Shrugged. The article, titled "Fuel for the Soul," presents [Russ Madden's]analysis of why Atlas Shrugged's appeal lasts and lasts, for those to whom the book does appeal. [ES, #84]

Thanks, Ellen. He makes many very good points.

So often people characterize the book as about politics, and that's what they take away from it, while dropping the sense of life, the grand view of man at his best. That's what the movie should try to capture. It's art, not a treatise and should not try to condense or make plausible her whole philosophy. Which can't be done convincingly or even clearly in a movie anyway.

If it has the right sense of life and is heroic in a deeper way than the usual summer action thriller, car chases, sword fights, then it will be a proper movie. You could leave out half of the story, condense Galt and Francisco into one character, use unknown actors who are the wrong age, but if you do *that one shining thing* (very hard to do in a film), then the movie will be true to the spirit of the novel.

,,,,

In keeping with the a-movie-is-not-a-treatise aspect, only a fraction of Galt's speech (or any of the long speeches) can be included, even in a series of four movies. And I suspect it should be done as a 'crawl' oral or written while a silent series of global and national events is shown taking place on the screen, like documentary footage.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suggest that in many respects "Atlas Shrugged" is like painting-by-the-numbers and therefore you'll come up with all these real-life and naturalized criticisms thereof.

Brant,

Just to clarify: The post wasn't meant as a criticism of the novel. There had been some talk on the board about the characters being models of mental health. I was saying that I don't think they really are that entirely (partly, but not entirely) if they're taken literally rather than figuratively. I wasn't suggesting that they should be taken literally, or that the features I discussed are novelistic flaws.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole comedy of errors needs the talents of another Douglas Adams to be chronicled.

Errors? What errors? They’re moving ahead without an A-list cast, you’re convinced that’s an error? After investing 17 years and millions of dollars you’re certain Aglialoro has blown it, based on some trade paper articles? I don’t know if the glass is full, empty, or somewhere in between, and I don’t claim to. You brought up H2G2, well you sound like Marvin moaning about pain in your diodes, only now it’s down both sides.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_sZD7ZnWvc&feature=related

“I don't pretend to understand losers. When I read a script about a loser I think of people in life who are losers and they seem to want it that way. It's a compulsive philosophy with them. Winners tell themselves, I'm as bright as the next person. I can do it. Nothing can stop me.”

Clint Eastwood

I could hardly respond better than your own first four sentences. Read them again. Then, if you still don't see the comedy of errors (or would you prefer "tragedy" instead of comedy?) review the many references on OL to the myriad announcements, high hopes, inevitably followed by the delays, the cancellations, the re-starts,.going back twenty years.

I respect Atlas Shrugged. I respect Aglialoro for his tenacity. I hope he can pull it off. But this starting up without casting sounds like an act of desperation. Certainly it is something Clint Eastwood, who you quote, would not do, or recommend to others. By the way, Eastwood at one time wanted to get the rights to film it, but Leonard, in his wisdom, squelched that attempt.

If Aglialordo pulls it off and creates a masterpiece, great. If he can be another "Howard Roark," fantastic. But my bet is on the 2057 Mars premiere. It certainly is as likely as this current effort, based on its track record.

Oh, and the reference to Marvin the paranoid robot. If you could get Marvin to bring the Improbabilty Drive to this project, it just might have a chance. But the Improbability Drive would probably overheat and freeze up.

As for robots, I much prefer Gort over Marvin. Much more convining argument.

Edited by Jerry Biggers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's going on 40 years, Jerry.

--Brant

Brant,

You are right! It's not twenty years, it's closer to FORTY years! :blush::rolleyes:

Well, this is definately enough time for Gort to metamorphise into Marvin! Either that, or perhaps Gort would just grab all the past screenplay manuscripts, and fly off in his saucer to his home planet where they could get it done right!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now