Atlas 3

Lindsay Perigo's picture
Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Sat, 2014-07-12 09:14

The underwhelmingly-publicised Atlas Shrugged Part 3 has apparently been sneak-previewed in Las Vegas, and been well received.

http://www.commdiginews.com/en...

David Kelley provided some insight into the famous John Gault speech. In Ayn Rand’s book, the speech is 33,000 words—the size of a small novel in its own right. For the movie, they boiled it down to a little over 600 words.

The audience liked the new movie and the actor who played John Galt. After the showing there was a long line to have movie posters signed. The movie is about 100 minutes long and moved very quickly.

No doubt Orthectivists and Obleftivists will, along with pomowankers and lefties generally, trash it as they did Parts 1 and 2. Me, I can't wait to see it.


Rather Mechanically-Made

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

It seems as if none of these three movies were made with the passion, energy, creativity, innovation, and intransigent individualism which would inspire excitement and a great desire to see. Sad

Hurrah!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Thanks for the intelligent commentary, Kasper. You already know where I agree and disagree, but thanks for taking the trouble to post something!! I can't wait to see Pt 3, but if you were reliant on Oists, you wouldn't know it existed!

Atlas Part 2 3/5 stars

Kasper's picture

It was pointed out to me just the other day that few people have spoken about Atlas 2 on Solo. It is odd, now that I think about it. Objectivists, most of whom have been inspired by a life changing book called Atlas Shrugged, finally have a movie which represents their values. But after viewing it they have nothing to say of it? Quite bizarre! Has no-one viewed this film? If you have, what has compelled you to ignore it?

I saw Atlas shrugged part 2 the other night! I have to say that I personally liked it better than the first version. The first version had cold, distant and wooden characters who simply weren't believable. Part 1's scene changes were choppy/jaded, the music was bla and the scripts flow was so bad that it was almost robotic in parts. The camera work was nothing to write home about either. All in all I remember thinking that Part 1 would probably have been better off not having been made at all but then again perhaps it was a good attempt. A brave attempt. A noble exercise. I was encouraged that such an exercise was undertaken but despaired that new viewers to Rands ideas would be put-off due to the incompetencies of the movie rather than her ideas! There were moments, it must be said, that I did enjoy the film and I liked Reardon the most! I gave it 2 stars!

Part 2: Definitely an improvement on the first one in my opinion. Cinematically, the camerawork was better, the lighting improved, the drama of the boardroom more palpable, the build up and suspense to the train disaster was well crafted too. The music was noticably better. The intensity and juxtaposition of characters such as the bureaucrats versus the producers, the mysteriousness of this John Galt fella, the despair of Dagny, the ruthlessness of Francisco and the evil of the government was all portrayed rather well. For some reason it just didn't turn me on. The suspense in the novel came from the spirit of the characters and their sense-of-life colliding with their protagonists. Their purity against the bromides. Their virtue and struggle against the evil vices of the looters and moochers. In a movie this is difficult to portray. I think that as an audience member I needed more "buy-in" to the characters, to empathise with them, to feel their struggles, their triumps, ultimately, I needed to relate to them. This is not to say that I don't relate to the ideas of virtue vs vice, or struggle, or being bled dry. It is to say that the job of the artist, the movie director/producer/actor, is to bridge that gap. To communicate and get me in to the struggles of their characters. I don't think they were successful with that. It was all in all an enjoyable film. I do recommend watching it. It is great for fans of Atlas. I'm not sure how it would be received with those unfamiliar with the novel. 3 Stars Smiling

Affirmative

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Yep! Join the fun! Sticking out tongue

Is SOLO Back?

Neil Parille's picture

eom

Finally!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Some commentary about the bloody movie!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jo...

Optimistic conclusion:

Timeless as Rand’s novel is and always will be, it says here the uniquely American love of liberty and success means we’ll never descend to the depths laid out by the author, and the film’s creators. We’ll be wealthy beyond imagination, but that’s merely the seen. The “unseen” is what we could be, and it’s what Galt is seeking in the film when he tells Thompson to simply “Get out of the way.”

ARI's Don Watkins and Edwin R. Thompson

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Jules -- I was also excommunicated by old, cold, fat, ugly, evil-eyed ARI Public Outreach Director Edwin R. Thompson a few seconds later. As we three were chatting -- with me always friendly and polite -- Mr. Thompson told me coldly "Let me finish" three times. He wasn't listening to a thing I said. Neither was Watkins, really. These guys are classic cultists. Ayn Rand once said the opposite of ego was "bromide." These two were walking bromides. Not one original thing about them, personally or intellectually. I have more ego, creativity, and individualism in my little finger.

Finally, since I couldn't make any headway in the discussion whatsoever, I just made them listen, and said to (not-completely-hopeless) Watkins: "So, if we had a debate in which it was 'Resolved, ARI is a fundamentally religious and cultist organization,' you would be able to devastate me?" He was silent. I repeated it, but he refused to answer. He finally said he would refuse to participate in any such debate because the topic was both "biased" and "unfair."

So odd and sad! But what a pure cliché those two are. I would certainly find it natural and easy to defend the "con" position in that debate regarding The Atlas Society.

Still, Don Watkins is young, at 32, and his current book on Social Security (America's mandatory pension retirement scheme) seems outstanding thru the first one-third!

And yet, Watkins seems to have no historical knowledge of: (1) the cultism of Pythagoras; (2) medieval scholasticism; (3) the Enlightenment's hatred of Aristotle; (4) 1960's Objectivist conformism and cultism in NBI in New York City. I asked him this explicitly -- to live up to Lindsay's (and my) standard of Objectivist solidarity -- but he seemed to reluctantly give a brief, slightly-hostile statement that he was unaware of any of this, and doubted it all.

Still, I secured both of their email addresses (prior to excommunication), so I may try to follow up. I'll be unfailingly friendly and polite -- for all the good it'll do me! Evil

Kyrel

Jules Troy's picture

I had a sad chuckle over that man "excommunicating you"... Perhaps he felt that by speaking with you he might be in danger of actually developing a personality.

 

Can't Even Talk

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Lindsay -- I met ARI writer and 'Objectivist' Don Watkins about 10 days ago, and showed him a ton of solidarity. It wasn't returned. He wanted to walk away from me, and have nothing whatsoever to do with me. He told me ARIan "excommunication" doesn't exist -- then he excommunicated me.

Kyrel

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I was thinking less of the kind of divide: bigots vs KASSless etc.—that has been rehearsed here often enough, and more of the utter lack of a spirit of solidarity among Objectivists; of the infantile disorder whereby the emotionally stunted parade a preposterous degree of self-absorption and think that's what Objectivism means by "egoism" and "self-esteem." Such infants are of no use when it comes to the quest for a better culture, which requires a focus on things outside—horreurs!—oneself; they cannot even take themselves to a movie called Atlas Shrugged!

Rubbish

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Lindsay -- What makes most Objectivists "rubbish," in your view? My quick answer would be almost all Objectivists fall into two unfortunate categories: (1) religious and cultist ARI-types who are unhealthy, weird, malicious, and basically zombie-like; and (2) semi-unprincipled, sissified, weak TAS-types who lack dynamism, vivacity, and heroism. Both strike me as pseudo-Objectivist. Even Ayn Rand was thus, during those times when she was busy excommunicating true friends and allies, or else forbidding free and robust discussion and debate.

And now ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... a typically pomowankerish review:

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.co...

Again I ask, where *is* everybody?! Where is the much-vaunted loyalty to one's values?!

Again I say, "Objectivists, by and large, are rubbish."

Why on earth ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... is OrgOism so silent about Pt 3??!! Ed Hudgins, where are you??!! David Kelley??!! Naturally I wouldn't think of asking ARIans where they are, since they have an a priori objection to the movie, faithfully genuflected to by their NZ ventriloquist's dummies. But overall, aside from boringly predictable Orthectivist, Obleftivist and pomowanker (non-)responses, what the heck is going on??!!

I watched Pt 1 again a few days ago, with a young friend who has no horse in the race. He thought it was terrific. I found fault with the actors' delivery of their lines: unintelligent selective emphasis, very pomowankerish—clearly influenced, funnily enough, by Ridley Scott. But that was not why it was damned. The sub-humans who damned it have no idea about selective emphasis, and would have damned it no matter what. May they be damned to their pomowanker hell—and that includes the pseudo-Objectivists in their ranks.

All grist for the mill of Authenticism. Objectivists, by and large, are rubbish.

The weapon we should be wielding

HWH's picture

Always being on the lookout for better marketing methods , I have lately cottoned on to the power of storytelling to evoke sufficient emotion for getting prospects to act.

Here Adrian Davis gives a great account of the power of storytelling for marketing and sales. http://youtu.be/gmWa2WwCSJg

I personally am quite taken by the power of using whiteboard animation to tell stories as well, and have just recently invested in software for the sake of copying the power of these kind of presentations. http://youtu.be/zDZFcDGpL4U

I'm about to complete my first sales video using animation software, after which I'll start experimenting with it for the sake of advancing Objectivism.

However, I just discovered the efforts of Adam Guillette and how he is pursuing the same goal at http://www.thempi.org/

It seems that this is the route to take if we are ever to make a dent in this culture war. Adam explains it here http://youtu.be/D7bCiFy1RJA

For example, the way the final implementation of egalitarianism is portrayed in http://youtu.be/-4-hEfqpxIg is simply brilliant, and no amount of factual argument could achieve this impact.

We have to use the storytelling medium to point out the myriad ways of how mob rule is pointing the gun or club (via government proxy) against employment opportunity for teens and seniors (due to min wages and unions) , or entrepreneurs (due to regulation) or students (due to obsolete curricula and teaching methods of the comprachicos)

Going straight for the emotional response as the moochers have done for years is the only way to bypass the ignorance and brainwashing of the "Comprachicees" (H/T Linz)

Hows about we see who's willing to chip in towards making the first "SOLO" movie towards this end. As for me the whole learning curve would be its own reward.

Anyone have an idea for a story or screenplay? I think we should tackle min wages first as this most affects teens, our ideal targets.

Any ideas?

Glad They Finished the Trilogy

Luke Setzer's picture

I am glad they finished the trilogy. Our local Ayn Rand Meetup watched it last Saturday night. I confess I was a little disappointed in the final product since I expected Part 3 to improve over Part 2 the way Part 2 improved over Part 1. Oh, well. I will say no more in the interest of withholding spoilers.

What the hell?

Tore's picture

Looks like Ron libtard Paul is going to be in the fucking movie:

https://www.yahoo.com/movies/r...

So i guess this movie is going to try to appeal to chriscons, libtards, anarcho-caps and any one of those weird assholes somewhat semi-attracted to Rand, or whatever they wish Rand would be in their head. Watered out Rand on the rocks, more like. Born to be mild.

I have seen part one and part two. Part one was just a badly executed movie, sorry, Perigo. Part two was good!

But I don't blame anyone involved. This is a hard book to make into a three-part movie. Should've been a TV series with lots of episodes!

Should add though

Tore's picture

That the ARGUMENTATION Peikoff presents in his book for his conclusion is very weak. Everybody knows that Pat Robertson is insane.

Peikoff

Tore's picture

The man behind "Understanding Objectivism", responsible for people treating Objectivism like a religion?

How wrong can one be?

He saved Objectivism. That lecture is mandatory!

As Perigo writes, his views on sexuality are appaling. That's just armchair-bs from him.

I don't think the conclusion in DIM is all that implausible. Airhead America is very, very... Platonic/Christian. Maybe it will happen (but not within 50 years), maybe not.

Leonard

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Ominous Parallels was a work of genius, however tortuous the path to its completion. DIM likewise, however divorced from reality LP's final application of his hypothesis (vote Dem-Scum across the board)—which he has now, thankfully, abandoned.

Leonard's views on sexuality are appalling, as I've argued.

Leonard has flaws. Newsflash to Kyrel (and Leonard)—we all swim in flaws. Part of Oism's problem is that it won't allow us to acknowledge the fact. Authenticism will address this travesty!

To say Leonard is evil is in my view beyond ludicrous. The only person I can think of within OrgOism (or on the periphery thereof) whom I consider to be evil, through and through, is Kyrel's hero, Branden. Oh, and Robert Campbell, if he's to be considered part of OrgOism, which I doubt he would want to be.

Well I for one

Jules Troy's picture

Well I for one rather liked "The Ominous Parallels".  Scared the crap out of me when I was 18.  Wait...it still scares the crap out if me even more now since back when he read it he had this sense of hope that America could turn things around.  Perhaps he should write a "Part Two...America after Obama..."

Kyrel

gregster's picture

There's a newly Kindle formatted book The Vision Of Ayn Rand from your friend Nathaniel. Published 2011, so I'll have to tread carefully. Has NBI material from the 60s though.

For some balance, or objectivity, could you list for me some good things Leonard Peikoff has written? You downplay the coat-tailers' pathologies so much.

Questions

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

To all the apologists for Leonard Peikoff, I truly wonder: Just how evil is he, in your opinion? Not all that much, maybe? Shocked

Does his promotion of Objectivism as a type of religion constitute an error of knowledge or a breach of morality? Is he responsible for all those fraudulent books on Rand's Q and A, journals, letters, etc.? How big a sin is this? What about his failure to promote Objectivism via fiction, as I listed above? What about his general approach to the philosophy, with all those excommunications, acts of censorship, rewritings of history, personal maliciousness, high weirdness, thunderous silence, evasion of issue after issue, etc.?

Kyrel

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Leonard Peikoff is pure vermin and the utter enemy of Ayn Rand and Objectivism. He's a massive and blatant destroyer of life on this earth. No-one can deny this.

Well, I deny it. "Vermin"?! My own disagreements with him have been well enough aired here, but "vermin"?! If he's vermin, what's Obama? What was Hitler, a true "massive and blatant destroyer of life on this earth"?!

I don't get your hysteria when it comes to Peikoff. Or perhaps I do. Nathan Blumenthal.

Don't be a Brandroid, Kyrel.

Zombie Critics

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Everyone should tell the pseudo-Objectivist cultists and religiosos to go out and do it better. They won't and can't.

Peikoff evidently owned the rights to all of Rand's novels, plays, short stories, story ideas, etc. for almost 30 years, and what did he accomplish during that time? Nothing. This a crime beyond compare. No forgiveness is possible. By now, all those fictional masterpieces and semi-great works by Ayn Rand should have been made into scores of movies, t'v' shows, radio shows, internet shows, plays, comic books, action heroes, toys, games, paintings, sculptures -- and kids' versions of most of the above. Leonard Peikoff is pure vermin and the utter enemy of Ayn Rand and Objectivism. He's a massive and blatant destroyer of life on this earth. No-one can deny this.

You could add Leftitarian to

Richard Wiig's picture

You could add Leftitarian to the list.

Orthectivists and Obleftivists

tvr's picture

Some of your neologisms are truly priceless.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.