JerseyBoy

MM: "No one here has proved the existence of God."

No one here has proven that a woman named Ayn Rand was the real author of a novel titled "Atlas Shrugged."

Sorry, you can't rely on statements by supposed eye-witnesses such as the young Peikoff, writings by the young Brandens, etc., from the 1950s, claiming that they personally saw such a woman handwriting the novel and reading excerpts to them during its creation. Asking me to believe STATEMENTS by putative eye-witnesses to an event is obviously INDIRECT proof.

Live up to jbrenner's high standard of proof, please, by providing us healthy skeptics with DIRECT PROOF that a woman calling herself Ayn Rand in fact wrote a novel titled Atlas Shrugged.

Personally, I believe you cannot do it. The most you can do is provide indirect proof that rests on the idea of "the preponderance of the evidence points to such-and-such a conclusion." That's fine, but it's a much lower level of rigor and certainty than the kind of "direct proof" jbrenner has in mind when he speaks of proofs for other kinds of things — like the existence of God.

jbrenner: "For Christians, the indirect evidence is sufficient to make a conclusion.

"Indirect evidence" for the purpose of drawing a tentative conclusion is good enough for the majority of people, most of the time, for the majority of issues, both trivial and important. That applies to Objectivists, too.

"A direct proof of God's existence would be required for objectivists."

A "direct proof"? I don't know what that is. What is a "direct" proof vs. an "indirect proof"? And why does only the issue of God require this higher standard of proof, when you don't require it for anything else in life? Most of science, for example, rests on indirect proof, not "direct" (whatever that is), and everything in forensic science rests on indirect proof.

I just love that you posit two different standards of proof: a lower, easier one for issues you approve of (science), and a higher, more difficult (if not downright impossible) one for issues you disapprove of (religion).

jbrenner: I don't consider it hysteria.

You misunderstand what I meant. I didn't mean to suggest that issues such as government spending are not extremely serious and worthy of our utmost concern. I meant that your claiming that a specific MOVIE would "save the country" is the same kind of high-school-level hysteria as claiming that a specific DEMOCRATIC-PARTY ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION would "save the planet".

Hysterical and silly.

"Critics in general"?

I don't know what they are. What are "critics in general"? Do you mean, professional critics employed by, e.g., mainstream media outlets such as NBC, CBS, NPR, PBS, The New York Times, etc.?

JRMR was speaking of "Rand fans", meaning some — perhaps many — of the people on this board and in the Gulch. You're claiming that anyone, anywhere, for any reason, who criticized the film did so because he actually wanted "studio freebies", and would have given the film a glowing recommendation had he received such favors? Even the Rand fans are guilty of this insincerity? Even Gulchers?

Robbie53024 said "we" (i.e., Objectivists and others who liked AS1&2 and will therefore naturally like AS3 and flock to theaters to buy tickets) "are the mainstream." Are you saying Robbie53024 is wrong?

As for Obama vs. Romney in the 2012 election, I tend to believe the stories about rampant voter fraud that surfaced post-election. Additionally, voters couldn't discern clear differences between the two candidates when it came to hot-button issues like Obamacare — which, as we all know, was modeled after Romneycare in Massachusetts. So I don't think Romney's campaign money was misspent; I just think he was a loser-of-a-candidate by nature, and it would have made no difference how he spent his money.

Your assertion regarding AS3 and "salvation" is the sort of hysteria I'd expect, and often hear, from high-school students regarding "climate change", "global warming" and other non-issues ("Al Gore's movie is our last chance to save planet earth!"). Anyway, if the original novel couldn't save the US, then obviously neither would any sort of adaptation.

freedomforall: "Halley's music was uninspiring, just noisy."

For some reason, the producers and the composer chose a style of music for Halley that was a cross between Gershwin and Prokofiev. Odd choices, given that Rand's favorite composer was Rachmaninoff, and her favorite genre, Romantic. Where was David Kelley in all this? I thought he was supposed to be a philosophical advisor on the project, ensuring that everything — including the style of Halley's music — be consistent with Objectivism?

I found it strange that the writers would bring in the character of Halley so late in the game. In the book, Dagny's first clue that such an Atlantis as Galt's Gulch existed was when she was traveling by train and heard an employee of Taggart Transcontinental whistling a snippet of Halley's Fifth Concerto. You'd think the producing team and the writers would have brought in the character of Halley way back in Part I. Instead, they pointlessly stick him in Part II, in the context of a date-night (IIRC) between James Taggart and Cherryl.

This is a "kitchen-sink-approach" to screenwriting: throw in whatever you can, just to be able to say you included it.

Same thing can be said for the character of the Wet Nurse. He's an important (if minor) foil for Rearden, but he appears for no reason in the movie, and disappears just as quickly for no reason. Another "let's throw in Halley, the Wet Nurse, and the kitchen sink for good measure, just so we can say that we included everything."

Weak screenwriting.

It's the inevitable result of extremely short shooting schedules. Short schedules are typical of television production.

Keep in mind, also, that most of the below-the-line production crew were culled from television, and not big-budget, big-screen, motion pictures.

Given all that, It would have been surprising had AS1&2 not looked like television movies.

JRMR: "Yet I read a lot of reviews from Rand fans and most said it was TV movie quality."

overmanwarrior: "I think a lot of those reviews are from people looking for studio freebies, they were sucking up."

You're asserting that the Rand fans who criticized the movies for being "TV movie quality" were actually insincere in their criticisms, and would have had positive opinions of the movies had they been given freebies by the studios?

I know you're not worried about the financing for the making of the film. You're worried about the financing for the MARKETING of the film. However, if you check the FAQs of the AS3 Kickstarter Campaign from several months ago, you'll see that one of the main purposes for the campaign was to raise additional financing specifically for the marketing of the film.

See:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/atl...

and see:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/atl...

Q: "Why Kickstarter? Why do you need the money?"

A: "The movie is actually already funded and is now headed into production this October. All additional funds collected through Kickstarter will be put towards expanding the production, distribution, and marketing budgets.

The Atlas Shrugged Movie Kickstarter campaign is not so much about money though as it is about marketing."

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

See, jbrenner? The producers have everything under control. Nothing to worry about.

jbrenner: "The number of people here in Atlantis (both producers and lurkers) needs to be MUCH higher for the movie to be a success."

Got an idea:

Maybe we can start a Kickstarter campaign to raise financing for additional marketing of the film!

Oh, wait. Aglialoro and Kaslow did that already. Sounds as if they have all the bases covered.

Never mind.

I don't understand why you're so worried. A few days ago on this thread Robbie53024 confidently asserted that "I think we're mainstream", the "we" referring to those who liked AS1 and AS2 and who will doubtless like AS3, thus ensuring its success at the box-office.

Relax.

Rand might have liked this one. It's one of the few popular numbers that uses the names of great historical achievers in its lyrics:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpcEhFlwY...
Ella Fitzgerald
"They All Laughed"
(George & Ira Gershwin)

The odds were a hundred to one against me
The world thought the heights were too high to climb

But people from Missouri never incensed me
Oh, I wasn't a bit concerned
For from hist'ry I had learned
How many, many times the worm had turned. . .

They all laughed at Christopher Columbus when he said the world was round
They all laughed when Edison recorded sound
They all laughed at Wilbur and his brother when they said that man could fly
They told Marconi wireless was a phony, it's the same old cry

They laughed at me wanting you,
said I was reaching for the moon
But oh, you came through,
now they'll have to change their tune
They all said we never could be happy,
they laughed at us and how!
But ho, ho, ho! Who's got the last laugh now?

They all laughed at Rockefeller Center,
now they're fighting to get in
They all laughed at Whitney and his cotton gin
They all laughed Fulton and his steamboat, Hershey and his chocolate bar
Ford and his Lizzie, kept the laughers busy, that's how people are

They laughed at me wanting you,
said it would be, "Hello, Goodbye."
But oh, you came through, now they're eating humble pie

They all said we'd never get together,
darling, let's take a bow
For ho, ho, ho! Who's got the last laugh?
Hee, hee, hee! Let's at the past laugh,
Ha, ha, ha! Who's got the last laugh now?

Ayn Rand started with a _notion_ that concepts were a kind of unit ("Two square feet are units; two stones are two units"). She developed her _notion_ into a _theory_.

That's often how theories start: as notions.

Don't be so hypersensitive. It's immature of you.

If Rand is wrong in her _notion_ about concepts, any _theory_ built on that _notion_ will be wrong, too.

Don't worry. That she's wrong in her epistemology in no way detracts from the heroism of Galt, Dagny, Rearden, or D'Anconia.

And what does topology have to do with any of this? Concepts obviously include mathematical ideas such as "number", "function", "continuous", "discontinuous", "discrete", "complete", "closed", "open", etc., but they are not mathematical in nature themselves. "Units" are concepts, but "concepts" are not units.

Gossip site Cinemablend memed Variety (incorrectly, by the way), and Variety never claimed Jolie was "signed" — as in, putting her signature on a contract — but merely claimed she was "set to star" in AS.

"Set to star" simply means her agent (or other career confidante) asked her if she'd be interested in starring in a possible production. "Sure! I loved the book! I'd love to play Dagny!" she probably said. So everyone gets excited: "Angelina Jolie is going to star in Atlas Shrugged!" Except that isn't what happened.

A-list stars like Jolie always have "Play or Pay" contracts; meaning, if they SIGN the contract, then they get paid WHETHER OR NOT the production goes ahead. The idea behind this is that the star (and his or her agent) may have turned down other work in order to make time for a particular film. If the production of that film falls through, the star (and his or her agent) get paid anyway.

I doubt very much Aglialoro, et al., had the financial strength to agree to such terms.

Cinemablend admitted it got its news from Variety, but changed "set to star" to "signed to star." It's not semantics; it's Hollywood Code. Jolie was never "signed to star" or it would have cost Aglialoro a fortune when the deal fell through.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrug...

"In 1999, under John Aglialoro's sponsorship, Albert Ruddy negotiated a deal with Turner Network Television for a four-hour miniseries, but the project was killed after the AOL Time Warner merger. After the TNT deal fell through, Howard and Karen Baldwin, while running Phillip Anschutz's Crusader Entertainment, obtained the rights. The Baldwins left Crusader, taking the rights to Atlas Shrugged with them, and formed Baldwin Entertainment Group in 2004. Michael Burns of Lions Gate Entertainment approached the Baldwins to fund and distribute Atlas Shrugged.[11] A two-part draft screenplay written by James V. Hart[12] was re-written into a 127–page screenplay by Randall Wallace, with Vadim Perelman expected to direct.[13]

***Potential cast members for this production had included Angelina Jolie,[14] Charlize Theron,[15] Julia Roberts,[15] and Anne Hathaway.[15]***

Between 2009 and 2010, however, these deals came apart, including studio backing from Lions Gate, and therefore none of the stars mentioned above appear in the final film."

Note that the article says "POTENTIAL cast members had included Angelina Jolie . . ." etc. As I wrote, earlier, other starlets were considering the role (or were being considered).

DriveTrain: "We also had confirmation of that fact directly from John Aglialoro and Howard and Karen Baldwin themselves, who made the announcement at a panel discussion about the movie at the 2006 Atlas Society summer conference at Chapman University. I was sitting in that room, and I do not hallucinate.

No, you don't hallucinate, but Hollywood motion picture producers do routinely bullshit their audiences. That's a major part of their job. It's called "creating 'buzz'". You simply chose to believe them, rather than exercise skepticism.

jbrenner: "Frankly you are an arrogant ***"

You compared yourself to Quentin Daniels, Hank Rearden, Dagny Taggart, and Ayn Rand — and I'm the one who's arrogant? LOL!

jbrenner: "You love to take snippets out of context. If you had quoted me completely, you would have seen an entirely reasonable explanation..."

Many of us here have heard that same excuse . . . usually from corrupt politicians.

jbrenner: "I didn't go out and collect a poll..."

Your sample size wouldn't change the fact that you contradicted yourself during the course of your argument.

jbrenner: "Let's just say that I resonate with a number of the characters."

And all of them heroes. I've noticed that no one ever claims — or admits publicly — that he resonates with Eddie Willers. I guess it makes sense. No child of 9 would claim to resonate with mild-mannered Clark Kent; he always resonates with Superman. We expect nothing more nuanced from a child of 9. But from an adult?

jbrenner: "I have no shortage of content for writing such a book,"

You're claiming that you, too, could have written "such a book" as Atlas Shrugged — but were too tired ("battle fatigued") to do so?

Let me get this straight. You first compared yourself to Quentin Daniels; then to Hank Rearden; then to Dagny Taggart; and now to Ayn Rand.

Got it.

I put words in your mouth? Going forward, then, I'll quote you verbatim before replying.

jbrenner: "How do I know that if someone disagrees with the book, the cause is that he is a moocher/looter? I don't."

That contradicts your earlier statement:

jbrenner: "Certainly many non-Gulchers disagree with the book. They are predominantly looters or moochers."

The meaning of that statement is clear: if a non-Gulcher disagrees with the book, it is because he is a moocher/looter. Then you admit that you don't know if that's actually the case.

Robbie 53024 wrote:

"I think we're mainstream."

You weren't mainstream for AS1 or AS2. That's why both movies did poorly at the box office. Had the mainstream comprised Objectivists, it would have flocked to buy tickets — as the mainstream always does when it finds a movie it likes.

My position is that since you weren't mainstream for AS1 or AS2, there's no compelling reason to believe you'll be mainstream for AS3.

Count yourselves among the few outliers.

In another thread, you claimed you were like Quentin Daniels. Now you claim you're like Dagny and Rearden!

Track record.

Except for a few outliers, Objectivists were the only ones who said they liked AS1 and AS2. I have no reason to conclude AS3 would lead to a different result.

You said "many non-Gulchers disagree with the book. They are predominantly looters or moochers." So you're claiming that if "X" disagrees with the book, "X" is most likely a moocher/looter. You're NOT claiming that if "X" is a moocher/looter, "X" most likely disagrees with the book. I'd agree with this second statement; I disagree with the first.

So again: how do you know that if someone disagrees with the book, the cause is that he is a moocher/looter?

You're reasoning from an effect ("disagrees with AS") to a putative cause ("must be a moocher/looter"). Since there might be several different causes leading to this effect, I'm asking how you know WHICH cause is THE cause of the effect we're looking at.

Regarding AS being "self-evidently" a depressing book, I'll say this:

Long, depressing novels never become commercial best-sellers.

QED

With all due respect, professor, you did not answer the question. No doubt, someone who is a moocher/looter wouldn't agree with the book; it doesn't follow, however, that someone who disagrees with the book is therefore a moocher/looter.

Once more, if I may?

How do you know that the hardest part about getting non-Gulchers excited about AS is that so much of the book appears depressing to them?