Not a stupid question at all. Why would gulchers want colorado license plates at all? For being such a hidden place, how did they get the cars, refrigerators, building supplies etc INTO the gulch in the first place without ANYONE knowing?? A real gulch would be a bit more primitive, and I thought the movie people just ran out of money to build more reasonable sets. How would you get the gas to such a place in quantities needed to run cars? And were there actually roads into the valley? If so, no government officials found them? Didnt make sense to me.

The License Plate is needed in any society...it makes YOUR vehicle different from the other 2,100 to 10,000 built.

Easy answer. John Galt being the man who would look ahead and provide for all contingencies, He might have to leave the gulch and this shows preparedness.

Thank you, Scott. The car tag has been brought up several times, and I can't help but see it as silly and irrelevant.
I, for one, am grateful the movies were made. They were far better than I even dared hope. Kudos to the people involved.

LOL, there really is NO escape for however long man repeats being Ruled.

I'm going to assume that he knows the adage that most people don't. A tax is a fine for doing well, and a fine is a tax for being stupid. As he would rather pay a tax for being productive than paying a stupid tax, of course, he would abide by the laws and work to change those that were unjust. Also, I'm sure the Gulch would be located where the laws were most favorable to the members of the Gulch.

I can only assume John Galt had to first drive his Bronco into the Gulch and never thought to bother with taking the license plate off.
If he did think about it, maybe he like to show folks where he hailed from.
Or maybe he liked his state's motto on the plate. For example, Tennessee is "The Volunteer State."
I don't really know. Old Dino just felt moved to speculate.

I had the same question but I immediately wrote it off that he needed plates before leaving for the gulch.

True. And, not having a plate would only draw attention to him in transport there or if he did venture out.

@winterwind.

First, I had read the book more than once before I saw the movies. I've also read most of Ms. Rand's other works both fiction and non-fiction.

I watched the movies knowing that they would not BE THE BOOK [your phrase].. Movies are seldom adequately able to convey the thoughts and feelings of characters with the same clarity as the original author nor do time and medium allow movies to include every detail and nuance of a book. But a comparably lesser production is still a comparably lesser production.

Second, what you choose to like and dislike are your prerogatives. How you choose to convey your likes and dislikes are also your prerogatives. I reserve the same prerogatives and will express them MY way. You are welcome to take what you like and leave the rest. I do that all the time.

I'm not sure what you mean by a, "clean" discussion. But I'm also not particularly interested in reading your explanation either because even if I did, you can make book that I'd take what I like and leave the rest.

"AND what does your answer have to do with the question?"

....Probably about as much as the snarky comment to rainman suggesting that he might need to read the book again [implication=shallowness and lack of reading comprehension] and then pointing out that her child was an extra in the movie [ elitist insider?] I mean as long as there is leeway to drag in extraneous facts revolving around a specific question, shouldn't that privilege be extended equally?

I've spent a long life doing important work. I've done my part to save the f-ing world one person at a time. I relax now. I've discarded my cape and tri-cornered cap. I make bad jokes. I use omnibus words, cliches, homespun humor, stereotypes, and generalizations...among all kinds of other mental and semantic sins against logic and exposition.

If it bothers you ignore me. But never, ever try to tell me how to think or what to say.
.

Well said Scott. +1

Makes sense.

And after I posted, I remembered that Francisco drove to Dagny's place after the tunnel disaster, and Ragnar was seen in a beat up car with a souped up motor as he's talking to Rearden.

If D'Anconia and Danneskjold have cars outside, why not Galt?

Isn't the first time I saw something that wasn't there, and probably won't be the last.

Thanks for the feedback.

RE: "Do you have any rational explanation for him actually registering a motor vehicle with the Colorado DMV?"
You have to remember that the Gulch residents didn't live in the Gulch full time from the beginning. It was only a one month a year vacation. They all had lives, jobs, apartments, etc., in the outside world. They didn't build their vehicles in the Gulch. They drove them into the Gulch from the outside world. The vehicles of course were registered.

RE: "...why would he risk being involved in a traffic accident? There could be rock slides, or washouts caused by rain, or he could get snowbound, or he could have car trouble. Or some small town cop with a thing for anyone not from his small town could pull him over, just because. Why would he risk any of that by driving?"
Risk what? Gulch residents were always hiding in plain site when they were in the outside world. Other than Ragnar's crew, they weren't criminals. They just refused to give the best of themselves to the world any longer. And it wouldn't have mattered if they got pulled over. They were normal people when in the outside world. Galt was a simple rail worker for TT for 12 years.

RE: "I don’t know how he came and went every time. But my assumption is by airplane."
The correct assumption is that if they could mask the valley from the air, they could probably just as easily mask it from the ground. Long trips, plane. Short trips, car.

RE: "I think it’s logical and reasonable to assume he didn’t drive his car outside of the Gulch."
I'm sure they did local supply runs once in a while. No big deal. They weren't personally hiding from anything. It was their vacation spot that they were hiding, not themselves necessarily.

EDIT: A statement for clarity.

I'm curious - had you read the book before you saw the movie[s]? Those of us who had held such strong positions on visuals, as well as "what was important" to include.

I went into it knowing it would not be the book and wondering what it would be, and impressed with as well as grateful to the makers, who DID.
Do I love every bit and piece? no. does that make any of the movies, or all of them, worthless? NO!

I dislike the mixture of opinion, emotion, analysis and investment that enters almost every discussion of the movies. Since I have you in front of me as an example, this is what I mean: "The BEST THING ....EXACTLY AS I HAD IMAGINED." [emph.mine]
I can say "the thing I liked the best" or "the place where I think the movie ran closest to the book" or even "when Dagny and John met in the basement, on the "safe" that held the motor, was more what I had wanted it to be than I had imagined it could be" - all are my best attempt to give a true & valid response that is on only one of the "levels" that any artistic work has.
In discussion of a work so important, it's best to keep the discussion as "clean" as possible.

AND what does your answer have to do with the question?

perhaps you assume incorrectly, and he did drive it outside the Valley.
perhaps it amused him to buy the sticker [the cost would be negligible, as old as it was] and never use it. The idea amuses me.

To respond in kind...is that all you took from my question?

Do you have any rational explanation for him actually registering a motor vehicle with the Colorado DMV?

And regardless of whether or not he registered the vehicle with the DMV, why would he risk being involved in a traffic accident? There could be rock slides, or washouts caused by rain, or he could get snowbound, or he could have car trouble. Or some small town cop with a thing for anyone not from his small town could pull him over, just because.

Why would he risk any of that by driving?

But to answer your question, No. I don’t know how he came and went every time. But my assumption is by airplane.

I have to assume that he flew from New York to Afton, Utah, then from there back to the Gulch. It seems to me that having his plane in New York is the only way he could have gotten to Utah ahead of her. Also, the idea that he flew to Afton from the Gulch and then drove to New York is too absurd to consider. And he didn’t drive Dagny out at the end of June; he flew her out.

If by nothing other than circumstantial evidence, I think it’s logical and reasonable to assume he didn’t drive his car outside of the Gulch.

I could barely watch Part III. It came across as a chick-flick melodrama.

Best thing about Part II was Jason Beghe's portray of Hank Rearden--exactly as I had always imagined the man.

Part I apparently had the best budget, screenwriters, and actors--because it showed!

Best scene from all three movies: https://youtu.be/_iHRJ4s9EtY

if that's what you took from the movie rainman, I suggest you watch it again. Catch my daughter at Galt's dinner party.

Besides, how do you know how he left and entered the Gulch?