True, it's my birthday tomorrow, so I'm giving myself some time off. That includes people like waterboy. Time is short especially through the week.

You can share my popcorn.
The cartwheel effect as someone is flung out the airlock is particularly worth watching, especially the way khalling does it.

Yes! You know me too well.

Not at all. : )

is this a symposium of justice moment cuz I'm ready to send someone into virtual oblivion

It might take me a couple of days to get around to it, but I will break down what you've said here in detail. You obviously have more time than I do, so I will promise you a full treatment. It's only fair since you started it.

Maybe you'll learn something. Sounds like you can use it.

OW: I used the proper term goof ball.

No one said it was an _improper_ term, per se, Big Guy; it just wasn’t the _relevant_ term. The relevant term was the one I used previously: “psychologizing.” Ayn Rand used the term quite often in her non-fiction writing, but I guess you’re unacquainted with her philosophical essays.

OW: Name one argument that was weak of mine.

OK. I’ll name two.

(1) You claimed that those who gave the AS films bad reviews did so out of spite: had the studios given them “freebies”, they would have reciprocated the favor by giving the films good reviews.Any evidence for that claim? No. Ergo, a weak argument.

(2) You claimed that those who gave the AS films bad reviews did so for ideological reasons; they didn’t like the “ancient premise” of self-sacrifice being challenged, and they were hostile to Rand’s ideal of rational selfishness. Any evidence for that claim? No. Ergo, a weak argument. Any counter-evidence contradicting your claim? Yes. I pointed out that the majority of ordinary audience viewers (i.e., not the professional critics) on Rotten Tomatoes who disliked the AS films wrote that they disliked them specifically because of their poor storytelling and amateurish production values (writing, directing, editing).

OW: All you've done is make some childish conclusions.

And you’ve jumped to incorrect ones.

OW: And aren't you cute, unintelligible writing. Only people like you have a problem with it.

That’s because I’m the only one here actually paying attention to what you write.

I used the proper term goof ball. Name one argument that was weak of mine. All you've done is make some childish conclusions.

And aren't you cute, unintelligible writing. Only people like you have a problem with it. And that is fine with me.

And you do what, waterboy?

Very astute statistical reasoning, Robbie.

Couldn't we also conclude that since the first two films were box-office failures, we should say that the third installment would be similarly unsuccessful?

Anyway, you never know what the vibrant imaginations of Aglialoro/Kaslow will pull in Part 3. Wasn't it Aglialoro who claimed in an interview after Part 1 closed that he might make Part 2 into a musical? He was joking, of course, but it was from desperation, since he knew that he would have to do something very different next time around if Part 2 was to be successful.

OW: Dude, I could go through your stuff too and find things out of context.

And I'm sure that would be just your style. However, I did not "find things out of context" in your posts. I was careful to copy/paste your posts _in full_, and then add my comments to individual points you were addressing. Nothing was taken out of context. Maybe what you object to is that I highlighted how weak your arguments are — not to mention how unintelligible your writing is.

OW: I type pretty fast on an iPad and don't always catch things like "infantile" and "infintile."

Right. I have an iPad that I type pretty fast on, too, and it somehow always catches typos. It's called "spell-check". Ever hear of it?

OW: And I am perfectly aware of the "psychoanalyzing."

I wrote nothing about "psychoanalyzing". The term is PSYCHOLOGIZING, not PSYCHOANALYZING.

See what I mean? You might be a big, lovable lug, but you're also as dumb as a bag of hammers.

That guy is like talking to a Mexican Jumping Bean, an unhatched egg that thinks it's the mind of a galaxy. You don't want to shatter its feelings, but yet trying to explain to it something outside of its understanding is impossible.

Why are you here? You have yet to make a post. You enjoy ridiculing some of our producers. You did not enjoy the movies yet you are on a website whose goal is to support them? I think you enjoy the snarking without any investment. Kinda lame and annoying. Where's the fly swatter?

Dude, I could go through your stuff too and find things out of context. I type pretty fast on an iPad and don't always catch things like "infantile" and "infintile." And I am perfectly aware of the "psychoanalyzing." You are that same guy from about a month ago, you just came back with a different name.

I doubt you were "ridin" broncos. But I believe you were riding bare back.............something.. Standard opinion is the sum of collective consciousness. Maybe you need to step up a few IQ points if you want to continue pretending that you're an intellectual.

overman warrior: "You must care deeply about this topic."

The topic I care deeply about is whether or not Objectivists might be in denial over certain facts of reality. FACT: ordinary people (not professional critics) who saw the AS movies and loathed them cited the dearth of cinematic/aesthetic values, not ideology, as the main reason for their negative reviews. FACT: Objectivists who saw the AS movies and loved them cited ideology, not cinematic/aesthetic values, as the main reason for their positive reviews; they were willing to overlook cinematic/aesthetic values claiming they were less important than ideology and presenting the novel's message.

Objectivists, however, also claim that the main reason anyone could loathe the AS films must be ideology; they must be "haters of achievement", or "moochers", or "looters." Not so.

overmanwarrior: "Any complaints about the movies quality is mute at this point."

MOOT, not MUTE.

overmanwarrior: The filmakers have made the movie and are happy with it, all three in fact.

I don't think so. Aglialoro admitted in an interview that he was so unhappy by the lack of public enthusiasm for Part I, that he was ready to "throw in the towel" and give up. Whatever the reasons were that he decided to go ahead with the rest of the trilogy, happiness with Part I wasn't one of them. Furthermore, if he had been so happy with Part 1, why change every cast member before shooting Part 2? Aglialoro even admitted that in Part 2, he and Kaslow had finally "got it right" (i.e., the casting); which means that in FACT, he had not bee happy with Part 1.

overmanwarrior: To suggest that a movie like this should not be made because it isn't on par with other similar productions is like saying that certain people should not exist unless they are on par with social norms and expectations.

Huh? One has nothing to do with the other. No one is saying that the Atlas films should be like other movies. They're saying they should be good movies: i.e., with tight plotting, sparkling dialogue, imaginative directing, spot-on casting, sharp editing, etc. It's clear from the reviews of those who loathed the first two films that they did so because they found the plotting confusing (especially if they had not already read the novel), the dialogue dull, the directing wooden, the acting robotic, and the editing choppy. None of that has anything to do with ideology, or with wishing they were like other movies.

OW: goes beyond standard opinion

"Standard" opinion? What the heck is that? You mean, there's some "standard length" of an opinion? Huh. Well, I'll be. Never knew that. What do you know . . .

You're fun, big guy. As we cowboys used to say in Bakersfield while ridin' bronco, "You're a very special kind of stupid, ain't ya?"

OW: After thinking a bit on your responses I don't think we are just talking about the movie, otherwise you wouldn't care so much about Objectisim, or Atlas III. Discussing whether or not the films are of a particular quality is not really dealing with your primary issue it seems.

You're psychologizing.

OW: The Atlas films, particularly Part III is challenging the ancient premise that "sacrifice" is needed for society to function when in fact it is productivity that drives everything.

"Particularly Part III"? Part III hasn't come out yet, so you actually have no idea what it is actually challenging or not challenging. You're assuming.

"Challenging the ancient premise . . ." That's why Parts I and II failed to excite moviegoers at the movies closed shortly after they were released: (a) If viewers hadn't already read the novel, they wouldn't understand that an ancient premise was being challenged; and (b) moviegoers go to movies to be entertained, not lectured at. They way you challenge an ancient premise in a movie format is by telling an entertaining story. The screenwriters never figured that out.

OW: If I had to bet money, for those who don't like the Atlas films, their reason is wrapped up in having their ideals of sacrifice challenged

Thanks for proving my point: Objectivists liked the films for ideological reasons, not because they were particularly well-made movies or well-told cinematic stories (they weren't). Conversely, the majority of people, i.e., non-Objectivists, loathed the films because they were not particularly well-made movies or well-told cinematic stories — they grew bored, they couldn't follow the storyline easily, the editing was choppy, the acting wooden, the directing unimaginative, the entire thing uninteresting. To claim they loathed the films for any reasons other than the ones they stated, e.g., they couldn't handle having "their ideals of sacrifice challenged" — is to psychologize.

OW: I'm sure you'll seek a way to block quote my statements so that you can debate around the issue and hope that nobody notices.

More psychologizing. You do it so often, you're unaware when you do it. It's second-nature to you.

OW: But at the heart of the matter it is the notion of sacrifice that really divides lovers of the Atlas stories from everyone else who desire to maintain that infintile illusion.

"Infantile", not "infintile."

Lots of Rand admirers loathed the movies, too, and for the same reasons the majority of moviegoers did: mediocre production values.

Even an ideology one likes can't save a poorly made movie.

After thinking a bit on your responses I don't think we are just talking about the movie, otherwise you wouldn't care so much about Objectisim, or Atlas III. Discussing whether or not the films are of a particular quality is not really dealing with your primary issue it seems. So lets go a few steps further beyond studio incentives, and religious-like zeal to the heart of the issue. The Atlas films, particularly Part III is challenging the ancient premise that "sacrifice" is needed for society to function when in fact it is productivity that drives everything. That is the essential point of "John Galt." This is a lot more difficult for people to deal with than it might seem on the surface. If I had to bet money, for those who don't like the Atlas films, their reason is wrapped up in having their ideals of sacrifice challenged because it requires the rebuilding of static patterns in their lives contrary to everything they had previously believed, and that is a lot of work. It is just easier to find excuses--like the acting is bad, the studio is too small and inexperienced, and that kind of thing.

I'm sure you'll seek a way to block quote my statements so that you can debate around the issue and hope that nobody notices. But at the heart of the matter it is the notion of sacrifice that really divides lovers of the Atlas stories from everyone else who desire to maintain that infintile illusion.

Mute as in silent. Like I said, for someone to carry on and on about this topic the way you have it goes beyond standard opinion. I don't think you care about Objectivism as much as you indicated, but rather being the guy who tells kids that there isn't a Santa, or that God doesn't live in the clouds, or that your best friends wife is cheating on him. Sometimes "truthful" mockery isn't about helping advance a discussion, or doing anything other than having control over something else that is personally spiraling out of control.