MovieChat Forums > Atlas Shrugged II: The Strike (2012) Discussion > An imperfectly perfect film

An imperfectly perfect film

posted 12 years ago by zenbudda
17 replies | jump to latest

Blabber all you want about discontinuity of characters, botched attempts to writing a novel into a screenplay, yadda yadda yadda. What this film conveys extends beyond that sort of snobbery. It shouldn't matter Who John Galt is, or what that person looks like. You need to extend your realm of thinking beyond your primal instincts.

This film definitely draws you into the plight of Darby and Henry and makes the rest of the collectivistic cult look like power hungry hypocrites who just want to destroy capitalism for the sake of power. Power they could not have otherwise gained if it weren't for the efforts of the hard working people they took over. THIS IS what the whole book is about. And this film exudes this so much you have no choice but to hate James, Lillian, Wesley, et al.

I think the haters either truly hate capitalism, therefore will NEVER like this film, or lean too much towards the leftist-snobbery side, that thinks everything has to be "their way, on their time".

The story is brilliant, and the movie conveys the emotions that the book describes.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] zenbudda 12 years ago

there was nothing wrong with the direction that distracted from the meaning of the book.

[–] Ghosthunter123424 12 years ago

The movie != the book

[–] zenbudda 12 years ago

Does it have to be? Were the same points conveyed?

[–] Ghosthunter123424 12 years ago

A film can diverge from a book in some ways, but in order to be a faithful adaption it has to be pretty damn close. However, you're missing the point.

Regardless of how good a book is, for a director to so poorly direct his cast, editing etc, basically all the components that make a film, is exactly the point people are making, setting the story aside.

A question; how much of the "goodness" in the movie did you derive purely from it, and how many gaps did you fill in with prior knowledge of the book.

Honestly I'm unsure of whether the director should take all the flak, the screenplay is probably the worst aspect. Few directors could have made something good with it, most would have dropped out.

[–] dab6 12 years ago

What does it matter if no one sees the movie?

[–] CigarDoug 11 years ago

The problem is, most people today aren't going to read a 1300 page book. I agree in great measure with Ayn Rand's philosophies, but how do I convey those ideas easily to people who haven't, and won't, read a book like AS?

If I could point them to a movie (ONE movie, not three) that conveyed the message in a meaningful way, I would reach some of them. We can be snobs, and say if you won't commit to reading the book, you aren't worth saving; but how many people can you reach doing that?

The idea of a real-world John Galt coming along and saving us all is unlikely. The only alternative is to sell the concept of self-reliance that Ayn Rand left us. Too many people are sold on the idea that big government is the only solution. We have a lot to overcome, and we need to reach more people. We can't do it with 3 mediocre movies that only true fans of Ayn Rand are going to sit through.

[–] alvink 11 years ago

perhaps we could try to turn them on with her other popular book, 'the fountainhead'. the book is 1/4 the size of 'AS', the message is the same, the movie has already been made, and it BEGS for a re-make, bigtime!!!!!!

[–] rez3 12 years ago

The thread title encapsulates how I feel about the movie.

This film doesn't fit the normal Hollywood formula. I can see how most familiar or not with the novels concept would get bored.
As someone that studies CG effects, I can certainly complain about those.
I could complain about the cast being changed or the acting, BUT.

BUT, the pacing and the ideas of the story connect so well with what I have lived through and what I see now in the real world. This was is one of the best films I've seen. I hope the filmmakers at least break even.

My favorite scenes:
d'Anconia at the wedding party, such truth about the tool of money.
...when money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another then men become the tools of men.

Courtroom scene, where Rearden says, "I do not recognize this court's right to try me, nor do I recognize any of my actions as a crime", in the face of government imposition.

I never read to Novel but did read interviews and looked in to those concepts.
Who is John Galt? I am.
No I’m not a narcissist capitalist or whatever-label comes next. But I can envision a world beyond the concept of money, a tool, a device that can be use for insidious control.

[–] phantom2-2 11 years ago

the courtroom scene is interesting. didn't hermann goering say almost exactly those words at his nuremberg trial? i wonder if rand got the idea from there.

As Reichsmarschall of the Greater German Reich I accept the political responsibility for all my own acts or for acts carried out on my orders. These acts were exclusively carried out for the welfare of the German people and because of my oath to the Fuehrer. Although I am responsible for these acts only to the German people and can be tried only before a German court, I am at the same time prepared to give all the necessary information demanded of me by this court and to tell the whole truth without recognizing the jurisdiction of this court.
--hermann goering

[–] al666940-3 11 years ago

Good point.

However unlike Rand, Goering had a point in refusing to acknowledge what at the time (no ICC back then nor UN) was a kangaroo court carrying out victor's justice (since the Soviets were also judges instead of defendants).

I just don't see Rand's justification (or even rationalization) backing up any of her ideas other than sheer greed and lunacy...

[–] phantom2-2 11 years ago

it says something when the #2 nazi makes more sense than the "brilliant" ayn rand. it's not like rearden can legitimately claim sovereign immunity.

[–] al666940-3 11 years ago

"it says something when the #2 nazi makes more sense than the "brilliant" ayn rand."

Shouldn't be surprised. The Nazi top guys were no dummies.

"it's not like rearden can legitimately claim sovereign immunity."

Did you see From Hell? How Gull refused to acknowledge his freemason brothers with a crazed stare into nothingness thinking how he was above all? THAT is Rearden to me.

[–] phantom2-2 11 years ago

actually, they were dummies. very few of them had an academic background and they came up with crazy notions like "nazi physics" where science took a back seat to party ideology. sort of like a slightly more batty version of our present day republican party.

yep, i saw from hell. interesting choice.

[–] drgreenthumb1001 11 years ago

LOL. the Nazis were dummies? That statement is horrendously ignorant. Almost as ignorant as your lack of Economic education or business acumen, and your total lack of grasping what Ayn Rand was warning us about..

She was warning us of fascist, ignorant lemmings like you who use the Govt to further their goals, instead of using your own hard work and your own money

[–] phantom2-2 11 years ago

yawn... yeah, more fact-free rantings from the lunatic randroid fringe.... you can't even get your randy doctrine straight.

the nazis were vicious, but as a rule not very smart. the whole nazi ideology requires you to turn your brain off. very similar to objectivism.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]