Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hmm, a $20 million dollar production grosses less than $5 million and they're making a sequel? I guess I don't know how Hollywood works these days.
20th Century Fox is of course owned by NewsCorp, but even Rupert Murdoch would tend to shy away from a deal like that. Either there's a very high expectation of DVD sales, or John Aglialoro (I may have that name wrong) signed away the rights.
The movie was an excellent introduction to Rand. I didn't want to watch it because, like other posters, the world of Atlas Shrugged that Ayn helped me build was so perfect that I didn't want to risk disrupting it, but I had to. And I'm happy with the work and look forward to watching the next one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harry chickpea
Alphamale, once Rand was no longer working for the studios, she could have structured so she didn't pay into social security. Corporate income is handled differently than wages
That's fallacious. Employee pay, including the owner's, must be reasonable. If she were the only employee, or the only important employee, of her corporation, then she'd be required to pay herself a very large percentage of the receipts, assuming that her capital was low. If she were to claim to have earned 10,000% profit on the capital that she maintained in the corporation, the IRS would have nailed her.
That's fallacious. Employee pay, including the owner's, must be reasonable. If she were the only employee, or the only important employee, of her corporation, then she'd be required to pay herself a very large percentage of the receipts, assuming that her capital was low. If she were to claim to have earned 10,000% profit on the capital that she maintained in the corporation, the IRS would have nailed her.
Discuss the matter with a CPA. I am correct, but the topic is off-topic for the thread and I have no need to defend the point.
Rand is one of those writers whose work just doesn't translate well into the movies.
there is nothing new with that; Tom Robin's "Even Cowgirls Get the Blues" was a bestseller and well loved, but the movie was both ludicrous and seriously un-funny. When Robin's written words were put to speech, they simply didn't work all by themselves. The words in the book were so tightly connected to each character's thoughts that they only became funny in context. Since movies have a very hard time conveying thoughts, the flick was a guaranteed flop.
That's the way it is with Rand. Take away the backstories (a cardinal rule in moviemaking because the confuse things), take away the inner dialogs and thoughts of the characters, and what do you have?
Pretty much what you saw in the flick. A couple of people talking philosophy a lot over dinner, in a boardroom, in the whatever. The places were different only because they needed to be to keep us from being bored out of our minds. Then there are a lot of high speed train sequences, because movies have to have.... motion.
It is a lesson all too often lost on producers. It may read wonderfully good in the script, but translating it to the screen is another matter. This is the reason why so many good movies don't resemble the books they came from very much. All of Rand's books are philosophical discourses that are illustrated by very thin characters. The mind's imagination fleshes out the thin characterization on the page, but there really isn't much there when the mental images become concrete in the movies. This is why so many song videos fail, too- songs are especially excite the mind and not the eye.
Rand is one of those writers whose work just doesn't translate well into the movies.
there is nothing new with that; Tom Robin's "Even Cowgirls Get the Blues" was a bestseller and well loved, but the movie was both ludicrous and seriously un-funny. When Robin's written words were put to speech, they simply didn't work all by themselves. The words in the book were so tightly connected to each character's thoughts that they only became funny in context. Since movies have a very hard time conveying thoughts, the flick was a guaranteed flop.
That's the way it is with Rand. Take away the backstories (a cardinal rule in moviemaking because the confuse things), take away the inner dialogs and thoughts of the characters, and what do you have?
Pretty much what you saw in the flick. A couple of people talking philosophy a lot over dinner, in a boardroom, in the whatever. The places were different only because they needed to be to keep us from being bored out of our minds. Then there are a lot of high speed train sequences, because movies have to have.... motion.
It is a lesson all too often lost on producers. It may read wonderfully good in the script, but translating it to the screen is another matter. This is the reason why so many good movies don't resemble the books they came from very much. All of Rand's books are philosophical discourses that are illustrated by very thin characters. The mind's imagination fleshes out the thin characterization on the page, but there really isn't much there when the mental images become concrete in the movies. This is why so many song videos fail, too- songs are especially excite the mind and not the eye.
Very insightful, and I am in complete agreement. Rand handled her characters in a way that shielded any inner motivation or conflict, in favor of using them as talking heads. There are clues that it was likely she was not able herself to get to that level of examination. Example: "The Fountainhead" was tailored to her style and she was absolutely thrilled with the performances, even though they have a "woodenness" about them.
Rand handled her characters in a way that shielded any inner motivation or conflict, in favor of using them as talking heads. There are clues that it was likely she was not able herself to get to that level of examination.
I found Atlas Shrugged to be rich with internal conflicts; in fact, I think the whole book is concerned with the precise internal conflict that every producer who has been raised amongst people with entitlement issues suffers. I do agree that much of it is lost in the movie, but that's why I consider the movie an introduction; there's simply no way to pack so much into a few hours.
Would you share what you think one or two of the characters would look like if she had reached the level of examination to which you refer?
I found Atlas Shrugged to be rich with internal conflicts; ...
Would you share what you think one or two of the characters would look like if she had reached the level of examination to which you refer?
It has been years since my last reading of the book, so to refresh myself on a few items, I did a quick search of a few places.
Atlas Shrugged » History of Atlas Shrugged
Here are Rand's own words:
Dagny Taggart: Whereas Dominique Francon in The Fountainhead was, she often said, herself in a bad mood, Dagny was “myself with any possible flaws eliminated. Myself without—if you ask me which flaws, to name consciously—without my tiredness, without my chronic, slightly, anti-material feeling, you know, that which I consider in me the ivory tower I want, or the theoretician versus the man of action. It would be myself without a moment of exhaustion.”
It is amply clear from her own words that Dagny is a cartoon figure. If you disagree with that, you are disagreeing with Rand and not me. If Dagny had been more like Rand, she would have had at least a little more depth.
There are other characters in the novel that are so cardboard as to be unbelievable (this occurs with other authors as well to a greater or lesser degree, with cardboard characters being much more prevalent in juvenile fiction than works of Bronte, Tolstoy, Shakespeare, or other great writers). Wesley Mouch is given no redeeming qualities by design. Lillian Rearden is also portrayed with a broad brush, yet, last time I checked, it takes two to tango. Was Hank Rearden totally blind to the person he was marrying, or just stupid? Spousal conflicts typically come from issues on both sides of a matrimonial bed and spousal choice can reflect a number of different character traits or issues. John Galt himself just pops on the scene late to deliver his address and metaphorically collect his paycheck.
More on why I believe Rand never did get to a deep level of self-examination- As you are likely aware, Rand was 1000% atheist. She positivelyknew that there was no God, no matter how the word was defined. I once wrote to her, pointing out that using her own beloved Aristotelian "logic", her position was completely inconsistent, and that using logic and the then current knowledge of space-time she could only "logically" claim agnosticism. It is both a minor point and a larger point at the same time, as it points out her bull-headedness. Her hatred for the business of religion effectively swamped her ability to use her own guiding ethics. FWIW, and not to debate the point here, but there is a whole philosophical/informational concept that no part of a whole can contain all the information (data and relationships) that the larger whole comprises. (DNA only contains a replicating blueprint, not your thoughts, emotions, or education) As humans in a universe, we rely on models, word of mouth, intuition, and some "science" to back up our beliefs. Absolutism is often an indicator of an fear and unresolved inner conflict.
As for Rand's "research" on railroads, as reported in much of the online material and some of her own writing - Her big event seems to have been a short driving of the 20th Century Limited, a tour of the facilities, and cocktails with management and the lobbyists. It is not too big a deal to me that her research was thin, since she was writing romantic fiction and not fact. In contrast to her tome, I've written a tiny 100 page history book on a trolley line in Vermont, spent years in research and even went so far as to solicit rare book dealers so that I might purchase the Railroad Commissioner reports from 1894 to 1910, so that I could delve into them to cross reference other interviews and sources. It bothers me that people are so gullible as to take Rand's spin on railroads as gospel, when so much of what she wrote used artistic license of a white glove inspection tour in an impressionist fashion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
