>>>>>I can recall many stories of people who have discovered the book because of the movies.

But wouldn't even MORE people have discovered the book had MORE people seen the movie? And wouldn't MORE people have chosen to see the movie had the FEW people who did see it given it positive word-of-mouth reviews to their friends, colleagues, and neighbors? The answer is YES. Most people who saw the movie trashed it. That's why it died at the box office.

Word-of-mouth killed it.

>>>>>That makes these movies wonderful advocates for thought.

No it doesn't. It makes them fantastically over-budgeted advertising failures. You don't spend 30-40 million on two movies just to get 11 people to buy the book. Only a bullwhip bullshit artist could approve of something so inefficient and so dumb.

>>>>>Anybody who is against them are the same people who are against anything that provokes thought against their committed philosophies.

You're a redneck hick, and an intellectual blank cartridge. Your grammar also sucks ("anybody who is…" is singular, not plural. Try this: "Anybody who IS against them IS the same kind of person who would be against anything that provokes thought . . ." etc.

Your head is mush, overdouche. You can neither think straight, nor write straight. I'm unsure at this point which one is cause and which one effect. Ultimately, however, it doesn't matter.

But those movies also garner many great reviews — as we well as becoming commercially successful with the public — and quite a few becomes "iconic" to the filmmaker's personal style (such as Kubrick's "2001" or Spielberg's "Jaws").

The point of all this not that you can't find this or that bad review of hit movies. The point is that AS1 and AS2 earned nothing BUT bad reviews from critics, AND it underperformed at the box office. Taken together, those are not signs of an "irrational culture"; they are signs of bad filmmaking. And the blame should be placed squarely on the producers.

>>>>I would never expect movie critics to like these films.

That wasn't the point. The point was that you now seem intentionally to SEEK bad reviews as if they were a sign of honor. Even Alyssa Rosenbaum herself shed TEARS when the "left wing loons" employed as professional critics of literature in the 1950s trashed Atlas Shrugged. She obviously craved favorable reviews — as, indeed, any professional novelist would.

It was some consolation to her, of course, that the novel did very well commercially; but she STILL wanted good reviews from professional critics, if for no other reason than craft.

>>>Most are left wing loons.

So what. See, you're making a dumb amateurish mistake. You're assuming that a professional critic would trash a well-made film just on account of its political or philosophical content and implications, irrespective of how well-crafted the film was, and how well told its story was. You're wrong. Any professional critic who knows anything about filmmaking and its history would praise a film like Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will" or "Olympiad" for its brilliant technique, even if they want nothing to do with its pro-Hitler, pro-Nazi-regime themes.

AS1 and AS2 were trashed specifically because they barely rose above film-student levels of basic story construction. THAT was also the reason the public rejected them.

Those are not reasons to be proud of those movies.

And even Alyssa Rosenbaum was able to praise a novelist like Tolstoy for his brilliant writing technique, even though she disliked intensely the "slice of life" subject matter he chose to treat.

That you cannot (or will not) separate form and content in art means you are happy to remain an ignoramus. Only in Objectivism is such intellectual laziness praised as "integrity to one's values."

>>>>Is dolt a compliment?

Yes. In your case, it is.

>>>I recall that it was for marketing

Reread the FAQs from the original site. It said that even though the film was already (supposedly) "fully funded", the additional money would be used across several categories, including PRODUCTION (not just marketing); and it said that contributions above a certain amount would be rewarded with the contributors' names carved into the side of Galt's cabin in the gulch.

You mean, you donated your own money and you didn't even read what the terms were at the site?

Smart.

You're schmucky, Lucky.

>>>It would be a flop.

It WAS a flop when it came out in 1941, you nincompoop. But it was recognized by critics and film aficionados as being both pathbreaking and a work of genius — which it was.

Can't you even do a little research before posting a dumbshit opinion on things you know nothing about?

>>>>How did he know I was a girl and db was my husband?

Maybe the information is all over this site and all over the web.

See:

http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/2d...

And see your own blog, as well as your posts at Amazon.

It's all out there.

"How did he know I was a girl and db was my husband?"

Because YOU TOLD EVERYONE. Jeez. You ARE dumb, khalling.

>>>Wow. Have you had a happy thought yet this century?

Many.

Have you had a rational thought yet this century? Doesn't seem like it, judging by your posts.

>>>>Why do these trolls always start their posts by repeating something that was just posted?

Critics are simply being cautious when dealing with superficially educated randroid cultists like you; for if they didn't repeat a specific point before criticizing it, you'd accuse them of "omitting the FULL CONTEXT" of the previous post. So they include the "full context" of the previous post by repeating it.

I assume even a dolt like you can understand that?

Well, like I said, not strong on plot, but raw emotion.

Plus, the cars are AWESOME!

You really should. And the 3 that follow. They really are classics of 20th century science fiction literature.

Also, check out Asimov's Foundation trilogy (and I'm sure you've seen if not read iRobot).

And I would be remiss to not mention Robert Anson Heinlein. Despite being a Navy guy, he wrote some of the most engaging and insightful prose of the 20th century, sci fi as it was. His teen dramas were just engaging, and his adult literature really called for introspection. Of course, "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" is a libertarian classic, but Stranger is one that should cause anyone, and particularly Christians, to seek deep introspection.

Even as an atheist, I would think that these would be at least entertaining. And as an author, provide some benchmarks on storytelling.

I hope you read the book. It is much better.

And just imagine if Citizen Kane were produced today. It would be a flop.

You fell asleep during Mad Max? Sacrilegious. Though I've got to admit that Road Warrior and Beyond Thunderdome had a bit more of a plot. But not the raw emotion of Mad Max.