Forty years in the making: “Atlas Shrugged” trailer finally debuts

posted at 7:37 pm on February 11, 2011 by Allahpundit

No joke: 40 years. Philip Klein of AmSpec got a sneak peek at the trailer last night and ended up politely panning it, describing the Randian dialogue as stilted and the attempts to link the plot to current events as too strenuous. Fair enough, but realistically is there any way to turn this book into something that would please both mass audiences and Rand devotees? You have to choose, and anyone who loves her enough to make a multi-part film about it will probably choose the devotees.

If anything, to me it feels too generic, like a promo for some new Fox primetime soap about young, beautiful businesspeople. Think “Melrose Place” meets “Wall Street.” Or isn’t that what “Atlas Shrugged” basically is, plus some loooooooong didactic passages about libertarianism? (Haven’t read it!)

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Hehe…Well Atlas Shrugged has a better grip on what is going on now than a bunch of eeores…

Pretty much predicted all of what is happening. Even what the dummmies would say. Eeores keep waiting for the world to meet in the middle…

PierreLegrand on February 11, 2011 at 7:41 PM

Looks about as good as you possibly could do, considering the work its based on. Personally I think We the Living is the movie to make again.

rob verdi on February 11, 2011 at 7:41 PM

I won’t see it!

promachus on February 11, 2011 at 7:42 PM

ap,
read it

rob verdi on February 11, 2011 at 7:42 PM

(Haven’t read it!)

Color me shocked!

angryed on February 11, 2011 at 7:42 PM

The acting looks like B-level, Hallmark original movie quality. Especially that woman in the limo and the guy on the Bluetooth who says “Who is John Galt”.

amerpundit on February 11, 2011 at 7:43 PM

As one of those AR devotees, I have been pleased following the production on FB, was happy with the trailer and can’t wait to see the movie.

My only question: Where’s Frisco?

elcapt on February 11, 2011 at 7:43 PM

Books are always better than their movies.

beatcanvas on February 11, 2011 at 7:44 PM

Yawn. The characters are way too good-looking and somehow they’ve made Rearden into a gay.

joe_doufu on February 11, 2011 at 7:44 PM

worst trailer ever?

sesquipedalian on February 11, 2011 at 7:44 PM

Philip Klein of AmSpec got a sneak peek at the trailer last night and ended up politely panning it, describing the Randian dialogue as stilted…

All Rand’s dialogues are stilted.

entropent on February 11, 2011 at 7:45 PM

(Haven’t read it!)

haven’t gotten through the whole book… but if you like details, this is one to read.

upinak on February 11, 2011 at 7:46 PM

Atlas Shrugged and 1984 are both good to read for what is happening now. Every day, I see them both in our world.
L

letget on February 11, 2011 at 7:46 PM

All Rand’s dialogues are stilted.

entropent on February 11, 2011 at 7:45 PM

Indeed, but you’re translating written dialogue to film. Not many people enjoy sitting through two hours of stilted dialogue.

amerpundit on February 11, 2011 at 7:47 PM

Doesn’t look anything like the original, and it’s in color.

Kini on February 11, 2011 at 7:49 PM

Oh maybe Allah might want to answer this question…..

Atlas Shrugged, being the libertarianism-ish movie yet against liberals. Do you ever see Red Dawn (new) ever coming out due to it’s “protrayal” of what many see as a possibilty, not just because the movie comp is going belly up?

upinak on February 11, 2011 at 7:49 PM

So,its a preemptive strike on Hopeys Hi-Speed rail dream!
(sarc).

canopfor on February 11, 2011 at 7:49 PM

plus some loooooooong didactic passages about libertarianism

To put it mildly.

Maybe they can release a special director’s cut for the die-hard Ayn fans: a 20 DVD set of Dagny and Hank’s monologues.

There are some important, topical ideas in Atlas Shrugged, so I hope this movie turns out well. But, man. It’s awful to read. Ayn Rand is a terrible terrible writer. Sorry, but it’s true.

sandberg on February 11, 2011 at 7:50 PM

So,its a preemptive strike on Hopeys Hi-Speed rail dream!
(sarc).

canopfor on February 11, 2011 at 7:49 PM

Yeah, unfortunately, we know how the story ends.

Kini on February 11, 2011 at 7:50 PM

Shakespeare in the original English wouldn’t sell either. Take the ideas in ‘Atlas Shrugged’, rewrite the dialog, through in some plot twists, a re-vol-lution, some sex and it might work.

Skandia Recluse on February 11, 2011 at 7:50 PM

Oh God…Part I?

crr6 on February 11, 2011 at 7:50 PM

…isn’t that what “Atlas Shrugged” basically is, plus some loooooooong didactic passages about libertarianism?

Objectivism =/= Libertarianism

gryphon202 on February 11, 2011 at 7:51 PM

Wasn’t Angelina Jolie supposed to be in this?

liberty0 on February 11, 2011 at 7:51 PM

Wasn’t Angelina Jolie supposed to be in this movie? I guess Brad didn’t want to be involved in something that might make people think Comrade Zero is a…….zero…..

adamsmith on February 11, 2011 at 7:51 PM

letget on February 11, 2011 at 7:46 PM

Don’t forget Animal Farm…. kind of what is happening now in the U.S.

Orwell, for being a communist, wrote these due to inspiration of what he went through. I think it odd that even though the books are not written for a communist feel, but more how communism blooms.

Or maybe I am smoking something.

upinak on February 11, 2011 at 7:51 PM

I thought Angelina and Brad where making and starring in this movie?

Lance Murdock on February 11, 2011 at 7:52 PM

I cannot believe he has not read it. He has to be trolling us by saying that.

ButterflyDragon on February 11, 2011 at 7:52 PM

Oh God…Part I?

crr6 on February 11, 2011 at 7:50 PM

Of three, apparently.

amerpundit on February 11, 2011 at 7:53 PM

Or isn’t that what “Atlas Shrugged” basically is, plus some loooooooong didactic passages about libertarianism? (Haven’t read it!)

How do you live?

crr6, you’re a poorer chick for your attitude. You’ll never be fully free. Your life will be ‘easier’ but you will miss so much.

Schadenfreude on February 11, 2011 at 7:53 PM

upinak on February 11, 2011 at 7:49 PM

The movie remake may be going belly up, but the video game homage to it – Homefront – is coming out in like a month.

Homefront was even partially written by John Milius, the original writer for Red Dawn. It’s about a unified Korea taking over the western half of North America (mostly for the minerals) and then enslaving the population.

You’ll play a guy whose trying to start a resistance movement to the Koreans.

I’m very much looking forward to seeing how much of Milius’ very patriotric vision of America comes through, or if they try to muddy things up ala Battlestar: Galactica’s New Caprica episodes.

apollyonbob on February 11, 2011 at 7:54 PM

worst trailer ever?

sesquipedalian on February 11, 2011 at 7:44 PM

sesquipedalian:Its a train,not a trailer!

canopfor on February 11, 2011 at 7:54 PM

Fair enough, but realistically is there any way to turn this book into something that would please both mass audiences and Rand devotees?

Who is Hans Solo?

Kini on February 11, 2011 at 7:55 PM

apollyonbob on February 11, 2011 at 7:54 PM

If Homefront does well financially, Red Dawn will be released. Guaranteed.

amerpundit on February 11, 2011 at 7:56 PM

Objectivism =/= Libertarianism

gryphon202 on February 11, 2011 at 7:51 PM

Exactly. Not sure why so many people confuse the two.

ButterflyDragon on February 11, 2011 at 7:57 PM

canopfor on February 11, 2011 at 7:49 PM
=============
Yeah, unfortunately, we know how the story ends.

Kini on February 11, 2011 at 7:50 PM

Kini:And,here I was sooo looking forward to the movie,
er,Hopeys movie!haha:)

canopfor on February 11, 2011 at 7:57 PM

Its a train,not a trailer!

canopfor on February 11, 2011 at 7:54 PM

Snort! Who is Cletus from Trailer Park Shrugs.

Kini on February 11, 2011 at 7:57 PM

The lefties on this thread, and in general, should be forced to live, as did Ayn, in Russia of that time…at least for one year, not knowing that they’d be able to return.

You would never again be the same ignoramuses, ever.

Schadenfreude on February 11, 2011 at 7:57 PM

Exactly. Not sure why so many people confuse the two.

ButterflyDragon on February 11, 2011 at 7:57 PM

Oh I think I have a pretty good idea. Superficially, they both wield “freedom” as a weapon in a fight of moral imperatives, but Libertarianism doesn’t see self-interest as a virtue. Objectivism does.

gryphon202 on February 11, 2011 at 7:58 PM

Regarding the dialogue and speeches in Atlas Shrugged, Francisco’s so-called “Money Speech” is one of the best explanations of why money – dirty, filthy money to so many people – matters. It’s a long speech, but it’s also elegant, easy to understand and most of all, timeless. Of the book’s 1100+ pages, those are the pages that I would call ‘must-read.’

If you hate reading, YouTube it – there are several spoken-word versions of it.

elcapt on February 11, 2011 at 7:59 PM

Who is Hans Solo?

Who is Jar Jar Binks?

sandberg on February 11, 2011 at 7:59 PM

canopfor on February 11, 2011 at 7:54 PM
=============
Snort! Who is Cletus from Trailer Park Shrugs.

Kini on February 11, 2011 at 7:57 PM

Kini:Haha….as the Sh*t Winds Blow!!:)

canopfor on February 11, 2011 at 7:59 PM

I am torn about this movie. Ayn Rand’s concepts are spot on but the dialogue in the book was not well written. My other fear with the movie is theyu seem to be modernizing it, part of what made it so compelling was that rail was the major form of long distance travel at the time.

JKotthoff on February 11, 2011 at 7:59 PM

Not sure why so many people confuse the two.

ButterflyDragon on February 11, 2011 at 7:57 PM

The isolationism of Paulism

Kini on February 11, 2011 at 8:00 PM

apollyonbob on February 11, 2011 at 7:54 PM

I would love if they could make Red Dawn a series on say.. Spike? Or Fox? Heck, I would even go with ABC as they seem to be doing some interesting series as of late. V comes to mind as well.

upinak on February 11, 2011 at 8:00 PM

If Homefront does well financially, Red Dawn will be released. Guaranteed.

amerpundit on February 11, 2011 at 7:56 PM

God I hope so.

upinak on February 11, 2011 at 8:01 PM

amerpundit on February 11, 2011 at 7:56 PM

Yeah probably. So far it’s been getting a LOT of buzz, not because of any particular message, but mostly because it’s trying to show that war and violence have consequences. You don’t get to be the big badass jumping snowmachines over canyons while gunning down generic bad guys by the thousands. In that sense, it’s even more of a tribute to Red Dawn than most people realize. A lot of people remember ‘Wolverines!’ but they don’t remember how that movie ended for all the heroes involved – very very BADLY.

The multiplayer is a little more generic, where you play as either Korean or American forces fighting to gain/retain control of key sections of the country. The MP has some interesting elements, but it sounds like the single player is really where it’s going to be at, which I always appreciate.

apollyonbob on February 11, 2011 at 8:01 PM

I love that book, I will go to all the movies :o)

IowaWoman on February 11, 2011 at 8:01 PM

Who is Jar Jar Binks?

sandberg on February 11, 2011 at 7:59 PM

Nah, everybody hated that guy as a racist.

Kini on February 11, 2011 at 8:01 PM

Should have updated the details… they’ve got Rand advocating high-speed rail, basically. Hmmm.

DaveS on February 11, 2011 at 8:02 PM

The isolationism of Paulism

Kini on February 11, 2011 at 8:00 PM

Kini:From the other thread!:)
=================================

Kini:Sweet,your on IowaHawk!:)
====================================

…while Hawaiian tuber activist Kini prefers this infectious bit of 80′s potato-pop:

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/

canopfor on February 11, 2011 at 7:24 PM

canopfor on February 11, 2011 at 8:03 PM

Some parts of the book I can do without – other parts are spot on, clever, alarming even.

I wasn’t excited when Jolie was supposed to be Dagny, but seeing this actress, I think Jolie would have been better. This Dagny is not dynamic, nor does she have this sensuality about her.

Also, it would have been better with Art Deco sets, not modern ones. That being said, it’s a plus that a libertarian movie is getting made AT ALL and I will support it.

linlithgow on February 11, 2011 at 8:03 PM

but they don’t remember how that movie ended for all the heroes involved – very very BADLY.

apollyonbob on February 11, 2011 at 8:01 PM

Yeah.. I remember. But than trying to FIND the movie to buy is like finding oil or gold. I am still looking for it.

upinak on February 11, 2011 at 8:03 PM

Also, it would have been better with Art Deco sets, not modern ones. That being said, it’s a plus that a libertarian objectivist movie is getting made AT ALL and I will support it.

linlithgow on February 11, 2011 at 8:03 PM

You tarnish Ayn Rand’s memory when you get it wrong.

gryphon202 on February 11, 2011 at 8:03 PM

(Haven’t read it!)

What candy ass RINO would?

Allah, you crack me up!

Kensington on February 11, 2011 at 8:04 PM

I’ll see it. However, when I was reading it in my mind I was picturing Angelina Jolie as Dagny Taggart. She has the strength for the character. This one looks too flimsy.

kurtzz3 on February 11, 2011 at 8:05 PM

I would have thought to have done it in black and white with an art deco motif, but you’ll rightly note that I am not a movie producer.

I’m willing to give it a chance. The Ayn Rand Insitute has been front and center in the production so that’s about as close as you’re going to get to a faithful rendition.

Perhaps there’ll be enough interest in the movie to win over a fair number of converts whose teachers actively eschewed Rand as literature for high school students.

turfmann on February 11, 2011 at 8:05 PM

Well, I have read the book. Personally, I never thought Rand was a good writer. The dialogue in the book was lousy, in my view, like all her stuff, but the trailer looks like they stuck with it pretty much. So if you think the dialogue sucks in the trailer, then they stayed true to the book.

Pilgrimsarbour on February 11, 2011 at 8:06 PM

canopfor on February 11, 2011 at 8:03 PM

John Galt liked potatoes!

Kini on February 11, 2011 at 8:06 PM

I would love if they could make Red Dawn a series on say.. Spike? Or Fox? Heck, I would even go with ABC as they seem to be doing some interesting series as of late. V comes to mind as well.

upinak on February 11, 2011 at 8:00 PM

That’s more or less what Jericho was.

DaveS on February 11, 2011 at 8:07 PM

I’ve been reading it for two years now. I take sections of it between other books I read. I find it a hard book to read. It’s not hard to understand. It’s just that it goes on and on and on and on and on. The level of depth and detail, and the tangents she goes off on make the story drag too much. I don’t want to give up because I’m too far in now. I will finish it eventually.

Mark1971 on February 11, 2011 at 8:07 PM

Perhaps there’ll be enough interest in the movie to win over a fair number of converts whose teachers actively eschewed Rand as literature for high school students.

turfmann on February 11, 2011 at 8:05 PM

I’ll be the first to admit that Atlas Shrugged is lacking in literary merit for high school English students. It’s the philosophical ideas that turned me on to Rand and her writing.

gryphon202 on February 11, 2011 at 8:07 PM

They’re going to need an entire movie just for the big John Galt speech at the end.

Kensington on February 11, 2011 at 8:07 PM

The fact that they are doing “Part I” and I assume Parts II and III, indicates some level of devotion to the book. My guess is that lefties won’t like it, but those on the right and independents will.

Star20 on February 11, 2011 at 8:08 PM

canopfor on February 11, 2011 at 8:03 PM
=========
John Galt liked potatoes!

Kini on February 11, 2011 at 8:06 PM

Kini:Spuds:)

canopfor on February 11, 2011 at 8:08 PM

Who is Don Trump?

mjbrooks3 on February 11, 2011 at 8:08 PM

Maybe they should have remade The Fountainhead first.

Kini on February 11, 2011 at 8:08 PM

It’s just that it goes on and on and on and on and on.
Mark1971 on February 11, 2011 at 8:07 PM

good i am not the only one. It just has a lot of detail…

upinak on February 11, 2011 at 8:08 PM

look they got bullet trains….Obama wants bullet trains….Obama is john galt…

unseen on February 11, 2011 at 8:10 PM

Looks well produced but badly casted. Lots of bland, pleasant looking people giving bland line reads. Only actor I recognized was Armin Shimmerman (Quark from Deep Space Nine, and yes, I’m a dork because I recognized him without his makeup).

And yes, Atlas Shrugged is a chore to get through. Look up the seventeen(!) part reading of Galt’s radio address on YouTube, much easier to digest than sixty plus pages of one man talking.

Still, much of Atlas Shrugged is going on today, except there are no Hank Reardens. Lots of James Taggarts, though, scheming with our government to protect their horribly-run companies with bailouts and preferential legislation. Lots of little John Galts running their businesses as far underground as possible and giving the collective finger to the tax man, either trading services or dealing only in cash.

TheMightyMonarch on February 11, 2011 at 8:11 PM

anyone that thinks this movie will be true to the book is dreaming. this is the Reagan/Obama Time cover all over again. Co-opt the message. Obama is John galt…

unseen on February 11, 2011 at 8:11 PM

I’m excited, and nervous.

My other fear with the movie is theyu seem to be modernizing it, part of what made it so compelling was that rail was the major form of long distance travel at the time.

JKotthoff on February 11, 2011 at 7:59 PM

I always envisioned the movie to be some kind of retro-future, or some plausible alternate history. That way trains would make sense. Now, and especially to libertarians, trains are not only taxpayer moneypits, but the antithesis of modern.

And where’s Ragnar?

Free Constitution on February 11, 2011 at 8:11 PM

The fact that they are doing “Part I” and I assume Parts II and III, indicates some level of devotion to the book. My guess is that lefties won’t like it, but those on the right and independents will.

Star20 on February 11, 2011 at 8:08 PM

My guess is that we’ll never know who likes it or doesn’t like it because virtually no one will see it.

crr6 on February 11, 2011 at 8:12 PM

look they got bullet trains….Obama wants bullet trains….Obama is john galt…

unseen on February 11, 2011 at 8:10 PM

***SMACK***

upinak on February 11, 2011 at 8:12 PM

My guess is that we’ll never know who likes it or doesn’t like it because virtually no one will see it.

crr6 on February 11, 2011 at 8:12 PM

Says you. It might be a cult hit.. and you know how those go.

upinak on February 11, 2011 at 8:14 PM

like a promo for some new Fox primetime soap about young, beautiful businesspeople. Think “Melrose Place” meets “Wall Street.”

Let’s face it, this is what media conservatism sees when it looks in the mirror. Ann Coulter? Tucker Carlson? Levin? Jonah Goldberg?

Grow Fins on February 11, 2011 at 8:14 PM

Liked the book in general, could have done without some of the filler like the long-winded romance. Reserving judgment on the movie.

Grayson on February 11, 2011 at 8:14 PM

***SMACK***

upinak on February 11, 2011 at 8:12 PM

when was the last time liberal hollywood made a move where anyone but the liberal was a hero? just saying…

unseen on February 11, 2011 at 8:14 PM

Says you. It might be a cult hit.. and you know how those go.

upinak

“cult” is right.

Grow Fins on February 11, 2011 at 8:14 PM

My guess is that we’ll never know who likes it or doesn’t like it because virtually no one will see it.

crr6 on February 11, 2011 at 8:12 PM

You see, I’ll go and watch it, after rereading the book, just to see how close to the book the movie is.

Kini on February 11, 2011 at 8:15 PM

Let’s face it, this is what media conservatism sees when it looks in the mirror. Ann Coulter? Tucker Carlson? Levin? Jonah Goldberg?

Grow Fins on February 11, 2011 at 8:14 PM

As opposed to liberals:

Malik Shabazz
Bill Ayers
Al “Tawana Brawley” Sharpton
Roman Polanski

I could go on all night.

gryphon202 on February 11, 2011 at 8:17 PM

It might be a cult hit.. and you know how those go.

upinak on February 11, 2011 at 8:14 PM

Hmmmm, you might have something here.

Have everyone dress up as cast members of the Rocky Horror show, make it a musical, keep the rest of the story line, and you’ve got a hit on the way!

Kini on February 11, 2011 at 8:17 PM

I think almost everyone who has read the book will at least rent it once.

Finally, a libertarian (ok, objectivist) movie that’s not sci-fi, western, or too subtle.

Free Constitution on February 11, 2011 at 8:18 PM

Oh I think I have a pretty good idea. Superficially, they both wield “freedom” as a weapon in a fight of moral imperatives, but Libertarianism doesn’t see self-interest as a virtue. Objectivism does.

gryphon202 on February 11, 2011 at 7:58 PM

Objectivism must be a weird little cult. I was a Libertarian in college (yes, a card-carrying member of the LP) and even I can’t believe the cultish behavior of the Randians. “Libertarianism doesn’t see self-interest as a virtue” is pure hogwash. Libertarians speak the same way about self-interest and capitalism as AynRandians and RonPaulians do. I assume that the Randians made up this little line about libertarians being impure in order to reassure themselves of their group identity. Which is pretty ironic, you have to admit.

If I can’t convince you to become a conservative, at least come join us on the libertarian side. Instead of reading Ayn Rand, you get to read Robert Heinlein. He’s better.

joe_doufu on February 11, 2011 at 8:19 PM

“cult” is right.

Grow Fins on February 11, 2011 at 8:14 PM

Oh yes Grow.. cult. “WE ARE THE ONES WE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR!”… or we can go onto Giffords “obama love” tribute that had nothign to do with Giffords! Who was there for that?

upinak on February 11, 2011 at 8:19 PM

Finally, a libertarian (ok, objectivist) movie that’s not sci-fi, western, or too subtle.

Free Constitution on February 11, 2011 at 8:18 PM

Thank you.

gryphon202 on February 11, 2011 at 8:21 PM

The problem with “ATLAS SHRUGGED” is that, even in 1957, it was already 20 years out-of-date, plot wise.

Railroads falling apart?

Who cared when you had a ’57 Chevy to tool across country in?

Rand picked a Robber Baron metaphor in the dawning of the Space Age.

Creak.

To try to make this story now as anything but a “BRAZIL”-like fantasy is folly. In essence, the basic polemic doesn’t work as a film using Rand’s iconography, except surrealistically.

And since the trailer looks more like a sleek, somber “DALLAS”, it likely won’t please anyone.

(I’d much rather see a film of the even-more-polemical “STAND ON ZANZIBAR”, a manic, hyper-futuristic reworking of Rand’s central theme, with “Chad Mulligan” as author John Brunner’s more-sardonic “John Galt”, since the present is just about catching up with this poli-sci-fi classic.)

profitsbeard on February 11, 2011 at 8:21 PM

Rand’s dialog was terribly wooden, although some allowance can be given for the era it was written in. I read Atlas Shrugged after having read most of her non-fiction works, which I loved. I just don’t think her word flow is particularly suited to fiction. The big speeches in A.S. are fantastic and should be read by everyone, but I found the romantic scenes to be excruciating, as well as some of her descriptive writing (every sunset is teeming with “sparks” etc). I also found it too long (but doesn’t everybody).

Whenever I hear someone express an interest in Rand and say “I really must read Atlas Shrugged,” I always do my best to get them to read “Capitalism” and “Selfishness” first. I can’t remember which book it’s in – probably “The Virtue Of Selfishness” but Rand wrote the best essay about the concept of “rights” that I’ve ever read, as well as a fantastic essay on racism that should be rubbed in the face of every leftist. Loved watching her Donahue interview that’s available on YouTube also.

Sharke on February 11, 2011 at 8:21 PM

Have everyone dress up as cast members of the Rocky Horror show, make it a musical, keep the rest of the story line, and you’ve got a hit on the way!

Kini on February 11, 2011 at 8:17 PM

not that kind of cult hit…

upinak on February 11, 2011 at 8:22 PM

I don’t know if I can trust hollywood liberals to make a libertarian or conservative film.

I hope they did a good job with it.

Conservative Samizdat on February 11, 2011 at 8:22 PM

Libertarians speak the same way about self-interest and capitalism as AynRandians and RonPaulians do. I assume that the Randians made up this little line about libertarians being impure in order to reassure themselves of their group identity. Which is pretty ironic, you have to admit.

If I can’t convince you to become a conservative, at least come join us on the libertarian side. Instead of reading Ayn Rand, you get to read Robert Heinlein. He’s better.

joe_doufu on February 11, 2011 at 8:19 PM

I do consider myself an objectivist-conservative, and although I consider many libertarians (both small- and big-L) kindred spirits, my wish to maintain the status quo of drug laws kind of makes me persona non grata in their circle.

gryphon202 on February 11, 2011 at 8:23 PM

@ TheMightyMonarch

Only actor I recognized was Armin Shimmerman (Quark from Deep Space Nine, and yes, I’m a dork because I recognized him without his makeup).

You’re not alone there, friend! I too recognised him, and my son would have too since we’re DS9 geeks. We can recognise pretty much all the alien characters without their makeup. It has a lot to do with facial expressions, mannerisms and voice. Tony Todd as Kern and old Jake Sisko, for example–that is definitely a voice matter!

Pilgrimsarbour on February 11, 2011 at 8:25 PM

It’s available at audible.com for under $15 for members — 63 hours for the unabridged version. Have it read to you, it’s a real luxury, and even the famous long radio speech slides down like warm honey. I love audiobooks, and the story in this one is captivating, with incredibly well written villains and who could not end up loving Dagny Taggart.

RushBaby on February 11, 2011 at 8:26 PM

I’ve been reading it for two years now. I take sections of it between other books I read. I find it a hard book to read. It’s not hard to understand. It’s just that it goes on and on and on and on and on. The level of depth and detail, and the tangents she goes off on make the story drag too much. I don’t want to give up because I’m too far in now. I will finish it eventually.

Mark1971 on February 11, 2011 at 8:07 PM

Don’t feel bad, it took me 3 1/2 years to finish the book, largely folowing the same pattern you describe. Glad to have finally finished the book.

glennbo on February 11, 2011 at 8:27 PM

Objectivism must be a weird little cult. I was a Libertarian in college (yes, a card-carrying member of the LP) and even I can’t believe the cultish behavior of the Randians. “Libertarianism doesn’t see self-interest as a virtue” is pure hogwash. Libertarians speak the same way about self-interest and capitalism as AynRandians and RonPaulians do. I assume that the Randians made up this little line about libertarians being impure in order to reassure themselves of their group identity. Which is pretty ironic, you have to admit.

If I can’t convince you to become a conservative, at least come join us on the libertarian side. Instead of reading Ayn Rand, you get to read Robert Heinlein. He’s better.

joe_doufu on February 11, 2011 at 8:19 PM

I think that’s a little unfair. Rand always rejected the idea of Objectivism being a cult. It’s just that some Objectivists decided to treat it that way – Rand couldn’t help that.

Also, it’s worth pointing out that libertarianism is a broad brush and Rand was only really critical of those strains of it which clashed with Objectivism, in much the same way as you’d criticize any strain of libertarianism which you didn’t agree with.

Sharke on February 11, 2011 at 8:27 PM

Finally got around to reading the book a year or so ago.

Have to admit, I didn’t much care for it. It didn’t appeal to me as prose, and it seemed too obvious as philosophy.

malclave on February 11, 2011 at 8:29 PM

I do consider myself an objectivist-conservative, and although I consider many libertarians (both small- and big-L) kindred spirits, my wish to maintain the status quo of drug laws kind of makes me persona non grata in their circle.

gryphon202 on February 11, 2011 at 8:23 PM

Hell with the fancy titles. I’m simply a person that believes that government is a necessary evil. It’s pretty simple.

unseen on February 11, 2011 at 8:29 PM

Don’t feel bad, it took me 3 1/2 years to finish the book, largely folowing the same pattern you describe. Glad to have finally finished the book.

glennbo on February 11, 2011 at 8:27 PM

I read it in 6 weeks in small snatches on the New York subway. Does that make me a genius?

Sharke on February 11, 2011 at 8:29 PM

AP, you, the “conservative” atheist, haven’t read this book? I’m shocked.

I’m no Rand devotee, but this book should be required reading for every high school senior. More and more people today are using the word “prophetic” in their descriptions of Miss Rand for the behaviors and events portrayed in the book.

Today’s left is certainly well-defined as the Looters, as is their hatred of the Producers (read Greedy Capitalists). The difference between the two? One wants to get money, while the other is busy earning money. The looters end up as beaurocrats, making rules and laws and regulations designed to “get” money from those busy earning it, usually with the false front of “for the children” or “for the needy”.

This is why the stance of the right CANNOT be about “fiscal conservatism”. It is the social values upon which capitalism is founded that must be defended first, and the fiscal issues will solve themselves.

Freelancer on February 11, 2011 at 8:29 PM

I’ve read it and you couldn’t keep me away from the movie regardless of how it translates onto the screen. I have no idea how they will condense this but I’m going to keep an open mind.

The book? What a bear of a read but I’m glad I did. Thinking about taking a second shot at it.

WisRich on February 11, 2011 at 8:29 PM

Wahoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Finally!

ebrawer on February 11, 2011 at 8:30 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3