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

My answer was the second paragraph. Granted, it is anecdotal evidence based on a fairly limited audience, but it is an answer.

Moreover, I didn't say that anyone who didn't like the book was necessarily a looter or moocher. I said that looters and moochers would not like the book.

To make the movie a box office success, conservatives and libertarians would need to come out in force. They may or may not agree with the content or premises of the book.

Regarding how I know that the hardest part about getting non-Gulchers excited about AS is that so much of the book appears depressing to them, the answer to this is so clear that I would argue that it is self-evident. Atlas Shrugged is a depressing book. It outlines catastrophe after catastrophe, infringement after infringement, bureaucracy after bureaucracy, in place after place, until even those who agree with Ms. Rand's assessment have battle fatigue, as someone eloquently put it earlier today. Yes, Ms. Rand was analytically correct in her assessment, but that doesn't mean that a large number of people will happily agree with her (emphasis on happily). Many will begrudgingly agree with her, like me. Some will shrug like me, but how many will actually be happy about shrugging? America's greatness came in part because of its unparalleled optimism about each individual's ability to climb from nothing and go toward greatness. Such optimism doesn't come until page 1169 of the book. Oh, that's right. Ms. Rand never wrote page 1169. The shrug period is a long and agonizing wait. Look at the toll that the wait took on Rand's heroes. One question that each Atlantis citizen has to ask himself/herself not just when they shrugged, but indeed every day, is "Is what (was it) I am doing worth it?" Like the Greek mythologies, Rand's heroes are tragic. Tragic heroism just isn't for everyone. I would argue that the Christians can answer "Was it worth it?" with a resounding yes, while objectivists have to wonder. Even if the Christians are wrong, there is something to be said for the zeal that they have for life. Extremely high productivity requires such zeal. In an era like the late 1800's America where conditions are fertile for objectivists, they will outproduce anyone, but what about times like now? Despite what you may have read about me, I am more like Dagny and Rearden than like some of the other AS characters. I refuse to be unproductive. The answer as to where I will be productive has to be given serious thought. I live in what anyone else would consider paradise, have a great job, am productive, and yet I could be doing SO much more if only I can change the rules of MY game (not their game).

The tricks to actually winning the "shrug game" are to either nucleate around a real Galt in a microsociety (presuming we can find one) AND/OR to change the rules of the game. This game reminds me of the Kobayashi Meru from Star Trek. Is there really a way to win in this game? Only if one changes the rules of the game like James Kirk did, or for that matter, Galt did.

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?

Either you can let out a Galtish ironic chuckle, or you are going to be depressed and/or cry. I chuckle as much as I can, but after a while ....

Certainly many non-Gulchers disagree with the book. They are predominantly looters or moochers. Are they worth saving? Maybe? Maybe not?

I have discussed AS with people in my 9-12 project group, and while they are either conservative or libertarian, they tell me that they have a more optimistic outlook on life than Ayn Rand, particularly the Christians. While Ayn Rand didn't have much respect for Christians or Christianity, they generally believe in the first half of Galt's oath, which is a lot more than you can say for the looters and moochers.

I couldn't have said it better myself, JerseyBoy.

Jolie wasn't signed onto the Lion's Gate production; she was considering the role (as were other actresses). And just because she admires the book in no way means she'd be willing to do the movie for less than her usual fee. Additionally, her agent — who gets 10% of her fee — and has great influence over what projects she accepts, would no doubt discourage her from doing the movie simply out of admiration. 10% of "admiration" is nothing, and the agent doesn't stand to gain much.

Given the lack of success of AS1 and AS2, I don't see how AS3 will create any excitement at all, outside of committed Objectivists, who will see the movie (and no doubt, like it) regardless of who stars in it.

You're saying there's something objectively depressing about dystopian presentations. If so, then these presentation must be as depressing to Gulchers as they are to non-Gulchers.

Call this "coulda-shoulda-woulda," but the best possible publicity that ASIII could've secured would have been to persuade Angelina Jolie to take the role of Dagny for the final installment - and keep the fact a secret until the film was through filming, postproduction, in the can and ready for release, then do a big-splash "reveal" of her name at the top of the bill. It would've made the film impossible for the entertainment media to blacklist, and would've generated significant curiosity, ∴ significantly increased box office.

True, her fee would likely have been prohibitive, but given that she's expressed a love of the book and given that she'd been signed onto the abortive Lion's Gate production ca. 2006, she may have been willing to do it at a discount. At the very least someone should've approached her with the idea.

There, I got all three in - but since they're all modals, they're no real answer.

Anything negative, like an actual electronic virus, aside from the illegality of it and the Mother Of All Litigation Targets it would instantly become, would only succeed in causing scores of people to despise Atlas, Rand and everything remotely associated with them, Not the desired outcome, I'm thinking.

'Difficult to come up with something that wouldn't involve development of a secondary product, and therefore be prohibitively expensive. By way of "brainstorming": A tie-in computer game; development of a state-of-the-art passenger railway on some bought-and-radically-updated stretch of existing RR right-of-way; Kickstarter is always a good way to raise money, but that's just finance - it still leaves open the "how" question. Maybe another tack to think about would be to produce Spanish-dubbed versions and market it heavily to the Hispanic community. I don't know how economical billboards are, but if "Who Is John Galt?" were plastered on billboards across the country it might generate buzz (but that arguably should've been done prior to the release of the first film.)

Another idea: Get a big-name, sympathetic-minded rock 'n' roll band to do a song for its soundtrack, and let that band's promoters run with it. The recent, stunning endorsement of laissez faire by U2's Bono would be a good place to start looking - also the Men of Willowdale might be interested...

I posited to sdesapio about, absent any major roadblocks about copyright infringement, being able to play AS 1 & 2 at a mall kiosk, along with promotional materials (provided the kiosk wasn't too expensive). Do it on weekends when you would have the greatest traffic. Would certainly garner some attention. Haven't heard back, though.

I'm surprised that it took this long for anyone to respond negatively about the electronic virus. You are, of course, right that people would react negatively to it. Maybe then they would start taking my (our?) point of view seriously. Objectivism gets dismissed in the lamestream media precisely because it empowers none of them. Maybe a cell phone message that simply says, "We don't need you." to every bureaucrat and politician in Washington would be sufficient.