Kristoffer Polaha is John Galt: Atlas Shrugged III wraps production
Posted by overmanwarrior 11 years, 4 months ago to Movies
As I watched the proceedings on the last day of shooting during Valentines Day, I realized I was watching history in the making. It will sort of simmer for a decade or two like many of the progressive policies did on the backs of several occult mystics and superstitious knuckleheads from the past. Atlas Shrugged Part III is an achievement, like climbing a tall mountain that nobody thought possible and those who hoped nobody ever would used superstition to keep anybody from even trying. John Aglialoro and a small army of dedicated supporters did, and the result will appear in around 500 theaters this upcoming fall of 2014. And the world will be a lot better off because of it—which makes me immensely proud.
John Galt will be a gift to film history.
John Galt will be a gift to film history.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
No, I would not.
However, I would demand that the tax dollars I pay each year to support a school MY grandkids don't attend, be routed to the Christian school they do attend. Got a problem with that?
"Kristoffer Polaha is the perfect John Galt. He’s a person of value; he loves his wife, his children and is extremely charismatic. During the interview above he made it a point to explain that he was a man of religion and was a wonderful find from the Atlas production guys. "
How can he be the "perfect John Galt" if he is also "a man of religion"? Ayn Rand was an extremely outspoken atheist. ALL her main/successful characters are extreme atheists. Objectivism, itself, is an extremely atheistic philosophy.
One cannot be both a "perfect John Galt," and a "man of religion." The two really are mutually exclusive. Sort of by definition, if you've read Ayn Rand. That's sort of her point.
I trust that you have come to terms with your Christian faith vs. the statement that "human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone." That would be too much cognitive dissonance for me, personally, to handle.
And I'm not 'attacking," I'm challenging. Sorry if you're used to everyone falling into some sort of lock-step, but I've seen this happen elsewhere on this site, in other discussions: Someone fails to hew the line and he (or she) gets lambasted for it. For a supposed group or class of people who promote free-thinking and independent thought, you actually don't. You seem to like people who think differently then "the others," but only as long as they think like YOU.
You may contribute to other threads, but until your challenge to me ("Where did you get this stuff/Why are you here?"), you hadn't contributed once to this one. Sorry, but I'm not keeping track of you.
And, finally, re. "Manna from heaven," these producers are no different from many other Hollywood producers. THEIR stuff is unique and fresh and amazing, unlike all that other stuff that all those OTHER people are so used to. You're either going to be able to see it in the article (or even the quote at the top of this thread) or you're not.
you might be one of the ones who should have started with The Virtue of Selfishness-
"The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash—that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value."
I contribute quite a bit in here, so my purpose for enjoying this site is obvious. I align with the mission of the site. I am also a paying producer. I am ecstatic that the movies have brought thousands to AR and reading AS.
"...the producers are acting as if it's manna from heaven raining down upon the great unwashed masses..." I see no proof for that statement. That's why I asked where you get this from.
I was very interested in "Capitalism," not that I agreed with a lot of it. "Anthem" was pure crap, made crappier by the egocentric inclusion of the same story but with all the editor's marks intact, taking up the entire second half of the already thin (but, sadly, never thin enough) novelette.
I'm NOT placing Ayn Rand up as a God, nor her works as a "Bible." Quite the opposite. Try re-reading my comments from the point of view of a person who has very little patience for those that ARE trying to do just that, you'll find they (hopefully!!) start to make more sense!
Why are YOU here?
Actually, I read and enjoyed AS, and Fountainhead, and the Fountainhead movie, and the two AS movies, so far. I agree with SOME of what Ayn Rand writes, but not all of it--probably not MOST of it. But enough of it I enjoy discussing it.
And as for where I "get" this stuff, I read the linked article. Where do you think I got it from? And since you haven't contributed anything at all to this discussion, why the hell do you care? All you can do is a vague ad-hominem attack on me, and no actual "material" contribution? Sweet! Nice gig, if you can get it.
The only one here who seems to want to pass laws controlling another person seems to be those who want to tell us of faith what where and how we can practice our faith and exercise the freedom of speech about religion that all Americans are promised. The freedom of religion that drove the founders of our nation to fight and die for. And coincidently the freedom that drove Ayn Rand to fight so hard to come to this country where she was promised as much freedom to not believe as those who do believe.
Any time I begin to offer a reasoned analysis of why I believe you guys come unhinged and start telling me what I believe, how I'm trying to pass laws telling you that you must go to church - nonsense. Most of which is laughably WRONG and obscenely illogical and unreasoned. I never stop learning, unlike the closed minded that plug their ears and scream when faced by a person who actually lives his convictions. A person who is quite happy to allow you to go to hell in your own way. Except every time God is mentioned here there is this chorus that begins about how Ayn was a atheist (we know that) how a person can't practice objectivist principals and be a Christian (wrong), and how there were no religious discussions in the Gulch (wrong again) and most importantly of all, you forget it was a novel! Not the book that you raise to some height of unbelievable inerrability.
If I did not know that you would not go so far, I'd believe that you are placing Ayn up as god and atlas shrugged as her inspired "bible". I'm pretty sure that she would be screaming at the prospect of such irrationality.
No I don't know you. I can't say that it would be a pleasure to cross that divide, BUT there are very few people who do know me that would ever say that I'd rise to the level of incivility that I've been subjected to on this forum over the past two days for admitting that I was a Christian. What's next, a new coliseum and Christian sacrifice with lions and Christians hung on crosses?? That's the tolerance Christians have experienced in the past at the hands of atheists.
(Again, as I've stated: the producers are acting as if their film is Ayn's Gift To Humanity; so for them to seemingly go against one of her central philosophical tenets is...amusing)
Here's the extent of what I thought "Judaic Hell" was: Sheol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol
No burning.
Besides, isn't all that "refining in fire" more of a Buddhist or Hindu thing? Once The Christian/Muslim God casts you into the fires of Hell, He's pretty much done with you.
Yes, returned to the burning fires, the forge... as one returns faulty metal to the fire so another attempt to refine and form it can be made.
nonono...
not the burning in hell, but that God wants to burn you; fearing God as a threat.
But since we never actually started out in the burning fires, I don't see how we could be "returned" there.
(And as an atheist, I think it's all a bunch of nonsense, anyhow)
Or maybe just the great pre-washed masses....
" that there is a giant, invisible, telepathic, telekinetic Sky Daddy that loves us so god-damned much that he will set fire to us forever if we fail to love him back in just the right (though still poorly defined) way."
It's the belief of those other two religions that God is a sadist. Per Christianity, God loves us, and therefore wants us to be saved from that whole burning ouchie stuff... but, there's that whole free will kinda thing. Being returned to the fire, metaphorically speaking, is the default position, that's all.
As an Objectivist, or Rand devotee, he would, I expect, be more enthusiastic about his portrayal than if it was just an acting challenge.
Remember George C. Scott trying to portray Patton over the top, trying to make him look like a nut, because he disapproved of Patton. It was a bitter irony for him that he won the Oscar; he didn't accept it because he felt he had no competition.
Verhoven totally destroyed the movie "Starshit Troupers" because of his hatred of the military. He could have turned down the job. He was also responsible for making the original "Robocop" almost into a dark comedy.
Load more comments...