Right Wing Movies & the 2012 Election

Oh, care to prove it? If it has a print of 7 million over the course of the 55 years that it has been in print; that is an average print of 127k per year. That is not much, especially when you consider that right wing partisan groups have been purchasing nearly a half million copies per year and giving them away in recent years.

So the bottom line is people are not running to retail outlets to purchase the book, that has never been the case with Rand's work.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There can be, but aren't we talking about the same portion of the electorate that you just finished telling us was fired up to the point of armed rebellion in another thread? So seems like the space for extra enthusiasm is pretty limited.

The "philosophy" is likewise extremely dated (and so juvenile and fallacy-riddled that it barely merits the term). It's simply a mirror image of Bolshevik Communism, recited as an act of spite by the angry exile daughter of an erstwhile Russian aristocrat. It was never applicable to the USA, or wider world, even at the time - and even less so now that Russia doesn't even countenance that kind of governance any longer.

More to the point: the sci-fi is there as an underpinning of the philosophy. Instead of dealing with complicated questions about how industrialization, technology and economic progress occur - which would invariably lead into complicated, thorny issues of social policy, regulations and incentives - Rand simply appeals to a fantasy world wherein superheroes are able to wring technology and profit from the very earth, with sheer force of will, and everyone else is some kind of parasitic peon. That was always a fantasy, and it is a central justifying piece of the philosophy. Apply the prescriptions in the real world, and what you get is something else entirely: a give-away to heriditary aristocrats, like Rand expected to grow up to be in her native Russia until the Communists got in the way of her unearned privileges.

No, they could not. There is no plausible way that you can write a book wherein all industrial transport - and so, the function of the entire national economy - depends on the usage of air freight. That's silly. Nor can you simply rewrite it in a realistic way, about road networks: the novel's whole basis is in certain class structures that do not apply to open, democratic infrastructure like highways. It has to be a nation dependent upon centrally-operated transport infrastructure - as Russia has always been, and the USA has never been - in order to function at all. That's why they came up with the whole silly oil crisis thing that kills of auto transport and leaves us stuck with trains.

The whole story requires a major rewrite of US history in the first place, in order to pretend that it's Russia on the verge of the Bolshevik takeover. That being the subject that Rand was actually driven to write about.

Not really. You are maybe confusing the fact that it sold well around when the movie came out, with all-time sales. It's supposed to have sold about 7-8 million copies total. Erica Jong's Fear of Flying has sold twice that many, the Celestine Prophecy three times, Charlotte's Web five time, the DaVinci Code ten times, and A Tale of Two Cities twenty five times as many - so if we're taking novel sales as indicative of ideological success, then apparently New Ageism and second-wave feminism are beating objectivism hands-down, and all of them are being crushed by A Tale of Two Cities (a novel which deals with class divides, socioeconomics and governance in a far more realistic, serious, and humane way than Atlas Shrugged).

Likewise, for every person I encounter who's read Atlas Shrugged and been impressed with the "philosophy" and ideology, I know two more who are repelled by it and one who liked it at first but grew out of that idiocy once he got into his twenties.

Atlas Shrugged isn't one of them. Rand was a screenwriter by trade, after all, and the book is basically one big, long teleplay. The trouble is that the book itself sucks to begin with. It's a bloated mess that swings back and forth between the cheapest, most boring soap-opera romance tropes imagineable, and clumsily shoehorned-in ideological rants that go on for page after page after page. It is intensely amateurish, boring, self-indulgent and ham-fisted. Its success comes from its coddling of the egotistical delusions of sociopathic teenaged males, and the adults who never progressed past that stage. Take out the ideological affinity, and the story itself is fucking unreadable. And note that the complaints about the movie aren't due to unfaithfullness to the novel, or any difficulties in portraying what is written in the novel - it's totally faithful and tracks the book very closely. It's just that most people simply do not like it. The 7-8 million people who bought the book don't add up to a serious movie audience in an age when twice that many people go to see successful films on their opening weekends.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Back a few years a few of us spent an evening coming up with movies based on books that if not good were at least better than the books - I recall "Jaws" mentioned, the "Bourne Identity", a short list of others. It was based on the observation that badly written books often turn into movies that if no better at least do not let the book down, and cleaning up certain kinds of bad writing comes with the territory of decent direction or scripting. The inevitable editing of scenes, tightening of plot, rewriting of conversation, substitution of camera for miserable description, etc, can improve a bad book almost effortlessly.

We agreed, at the time, that "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged" were prime candidates for such providential makeover.

Too bad.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I just hope that the movie "The Foundation" won't be a rotten piece of work. Asimov would'nt like that at all.

 

well you know except for the fact its not one of the best selling novels of all time. among its followers its a best seller but comparitively its not. because it political and because its poorly written trash.

 

The number one movie right now is 2016: Obama's America

http://www.deadline.com/2012/08/first-box-office-anti-obama-movie-1/

 

actually it only ranks third according to your article. boxofficemojo most recent stats show it at 13th. and its irrelevant because we all know how the right wing eats up this shit no matter how made the fuck up it is.

 

True, using the Atlas I model, the first weekend was its best box office as all of the devotees were there in anxious anticipation. Not surprisingly, Mad was providing the same hype for Part I and despite Mad’s best Hype, Atlas Part I was a total flop. Mad made the same commentary for Part I and it was still a complete and utter flop.

This whole thing is kind of funny. You have billionaires spending millions making this movie and buying the book and giving it away. Gee I wonder why. Billionaires making movies and giving away a novel that portrays them as super heroes, isn't American a great place?

 

Pre-orders make up a sizable chunk of the box office for 2016, but it's still a bit disquieting how well the movie is doing. It's playing on 1/3 less screens than the two movies ahead of it. Also, the link mad provides says the film is #1 in domestic box office.

 

I believe I also submitted LOTR - I know that they were "loved" but I hated the books.

I'd also submit "Battlfield Earth". NOW STAY WITH ME HERE . . . don't run away screaming.

Both were equally horrible in unbelievably horrible ways. Right?

Well, since both are/were a complete waste of time, which one wasted the least amount of your time?

Right. The movie.

Ergo an improvement.

~String

 

Beside that it is not true, what is it with you Reps, that you equal popularity with being right? O'Reilly keeps asking: "Why are we the #1 show on cable?" Well, because there are lots of Morons in America, not because you are correct or fair.

I bet the movie is full of lies. When was the last time you guys could come up with a valid political criticism? Not to mention, Obama (except the health care issue) could have been a Republican president, judging by his actions, and you still criticize him...

 

Lies are coming from both sides of the political isle and those lies are getting them reelected over and over and over no mater which side you believe.

 

MAW, are you sure you really like Ayn Rand? She hated Ronald Reagan. She was pro choice. She was an atheist with nothing good to say about Christianity. To me, these are the good things about her, but I'd have to imagine that they make your embrace of her a bit thorny.

 

superstring01

String, while I do not defend the excrement that "Battlefield Earth" the movie was, the books of the BFE decology are worth reading, if for no other reason than for a peek at the inside of L Ron Hubbard's head(founder of Scientology). They are at least as good as some of the Louis L'amour westerns I read. The reasons for the invention of Scientology are clear to see and it had nothing to do with religion, everything to do with tax free income from credulous idiots(IE if they are going to believe something ignorant anyway, how do you make a profit from it?). Hubbard actually tried to make sure the novels(10 of them in sequence)were not readily available after Scientology started, though they were never that popular to begin with. He had the same attitude toward society that Ayn Rand had, but was a slightly better author and a consummate con artist. The books are grade B SciFi, the Scientology is grade A BS.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That's the Fox frame line, yeah.

It's only true if one completely ignores the scale, persistence, subjects, effects, moral nature, ethical foundations, and cynical employment of the lies. There is nothing on any other "side" that approaches the volume, variety, barrage, disregard of physical and historical fact, disregard for decency and common sense, and disastrous effects of the Republican political lies of the past thirty years or so. Nobody else has come close, at least in the US.

There's another aspect, which bears on the effects of movies: the absence of truth, valid information, especially in images. When every single major Republican candidate for President sitting on a podium raises his hand and avers that he has serious doubts about Darwinian evolution, that image carries no information about Darwinian theory or even the nature of the candidates's actual opinions. When a video shows astronauts walking on the moon in a manner resembling divers under water held down by the weights in their boots, the images carry little information. Images tend to be interpreted according to the information already inculcated in the viewer. They don't explain themselves, nor do they argue their case - they bypass reason to evoke the desired mental state.

 

Ayn Rand and the Prophecy of Atlas Shrugged (2012)

Ayn Rand and the Prophecy of Atlas Shrugged (2012)
Let's face it, Ms. Rand was absolutely correct, that is what really bugs traditional establishment conservatives, progressives, liberals and all worshipers of state control. Anyone who thinks that the state can solve the sovereign individual's problems for them are offended by the notion that a human's freedom is the key to a prosperous, and, in the end, a caring society. A society of people who feel that they themselves have the power to control their own destinies is one that has little government centralization. But in a society so long marinated in government centralized schooling, where people are forced by compulsion to attend and given over to the philosophies of the government's conditioning that the individual must be told what to do, then the sovereign individual is no longer powerful, but necessarily just a pawn of an institution, a playing piece, to be trained by the institutions of the state, so a human resource department of a corporation or government entity can place and instruct that person what they must to do. People today no longer know how to think for themselves. They only know how to parrot what they have seen, read, or heard, and less how to think or follow directions. Being taught how to think is not what we do anymore. Thinking and producing is a crime to be taxed, or worse, incarcerated.

A Message to Garcia

 

That's such a funny book to read now due to the hilarious social stereotypes

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It would be interesting to see on the big screen but, the Mule a 'mutant telepath', is it REALLY that interesting in today's market?

I'm a bit worried it's sort of dated TTYTT. But, I'd still watch it as I did like the first books in the Foundation series when I was a kid.

 

I'm no Ayn Rand expert but if I recall correctly she supported having:
1. A State
2. A Military run by a State
3. A State run Central Bank

IMO the only difference between Rand and people who hate her is a matter of degree.

Also, I found the book's premise silly. Just down the street from where I lived a few years ago where a bunch of Italian shops. I happened to know some owners. They all paid protection money to the local gangs (and no I don't mean the government one

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The local thugs who'd come in and take $3000-6000 a week off the top. I'm sure they share this out with the police by the way. When an owner had enough, another was only too quick to take his place. The truth is people are in competition and if an "Owner" were to leave the market - another will step right in. And many owners aren't really that good. They just have a family culture of working as an owner. Yes, it's sad the Public School system is there to train people to be Cattle, but, when opportunity opens up Cattle will rush in to be Farmers. Which is why in a free society we'd actually be much much more prosperous as we'd have more owners, more companies and competition FOR good productive workers NOT between workers as is now the case.



What is interesting about Aye Rand is her take on Objectivism. Which, most people don't know much about. One would think Scientists would be inclined to be Objectivists as it aligns with the Scientific Method. To me it seems intuitive. I wondered: What's the big deal? Plato probably wrote some of the first ideas regarding Objective Philosophy / Philosophical Realism. IMO no one today thinks this is *gasp* so much of an insight as we're generally raised to think somewhat logically. I mean, come on, we've created a decent mathematical model for subatomic reality. Anyway, Rand's emphatic rejection of the concept of a priori knowledge is interesting. Though, she's certainly not the first. Just go back and read Socrates. It's a long debate to say the least. Speaking of whom, you see this knee jerk reaction when Rand suggests through her protagonists that the less fit should be culled off. Yeah, well, if anyone bothered to read Socrates (and supposing he's Plato's protagonist) he says the SAME thing. Of course the welfare of the City State takes priority over the individual. Oh, and by the by, it should be run by a Philosopher King selected from a group of Philosophers!

*Gasp* Plato and Socrates what turds lets whine really loud about them because making a counter-argument regarding their philosophical insight would requite thought and we've climbed much much too far into our asses to think

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Rand states there are three axioms that form the foundation of all thought: identity, existence, and consciousness. In each of these you can find MANY other schools of philosophy and their debates.

So? Does a prior knowledge exist outside of human experience? Well? Can it? You'll find some say no, some say a few limited bits and peaces and others really take a broad swipe.

In terms of the broad swipe is the famous Morning Star Evening Star dichotomy. First it was thought of as two stars. Then, people realized it was actually one start. Knowing it's actually the same star and knowing that this star is actually a planet and knowing that planet is Venus - can that be taken now as a priori knowledge? Some say sure. Other say no way. When I hear people attack Ayn Rand I find most don't even know what the words she's using mean let alone her arguments. Which is why Socrates advice to tell them: Know They Self. IOWs WHY are you even entering into a conversation at all? You have to know that before you can open your mouth and say something.

 

If Rand was so right, then why did she end up sucking on the nipple of the state?

 

If she contributed to SS then she is entitled to getting it when she retired and turned 64 like all others who did the same.