MovieChat Forums > Atlas Shrugged: Part III (2014) Discussion > Anyone else support Capitalism but not l...

Anyone else support Capitalism but not like this movie/s?

posted 10 years ago by JohnJackson12
27 replies | jump to latest

I give them some leeway since I know they were working with a budget but even still this writing was horrible. I mean like that scene at the end with the security guard "I'm just a regular guy, I can't make decisions for myself", I mean, come on now. Plus showing guys like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity really kills a films cred, those two guys are far from accurate examples of Capitalists.

These films never really did much to drive home the reasons why Capitalism is better than Socialism. They would just show the world crumbling and say "it's cuz of govt" but they never really showed how govt hampers creativity or the way in which people get enticed by the all the pretty promises of Socialism, they show govt getting cruel, but again it was just like "the govt got cruel", they never detail the slow incremental way people seize power by playing on people's notions of compassion and fairness.

I also rolled my eyes at how they portrayed all the business owners as so squeaky clean, give me a break. I agree with allowing people to be "greedy" and "selfish" but let's not try and pretend the corporate world is so noble or heroic, don't forget one of the big problems with Socialism is it allows for big company's to buy influence and advantage over competitors and they have no shame cheating if the opportunity presents itself.

Capitalists are vultures, I say that term nicely, I am a Capitalist and a vulture, most of us are, few of us go to work or start a business for the good of mankind, we do it for selfish reasons, much the same as a vulture eats a dead carcass, they are only thinking of themselves but their "greed" keeps our world from being overwhelmed with bacteria and disease, that is a point they never really drive home, Socialists focus so much on intention rather than results.

Finally, I thought these movies spent waaaay to much time on irrelevant stuff, for example in each movie they felt they had to shoe horn in some lame romance and even sex scenes - why? You have limited funds and time yet you waste it on stuff like that?

[–] gabby_bm 10 years ago

Hence, the reason I said they should have done an original work based loosely on the philosophies within Atlas Shrugged.

There's a lot more freedom in that to define and progress an ideology than there is in shoe-horning Rand's speeches and romances into a period piece that has little to do with the modern world and how it operates.

I don’t need you to tell me how good my coffee is.. 
.

[–] phantom2-2 10 years ago

the people who created this mess doing something that requires original, creative thinking and daring to dream that might be an improvement?

oh, you are a funny guy!

[–] ejonconrad 10 years ago

I give them some leeway since I know they were working with a budget but even still this writing was horrible. I mean like that scene at the end with the security guard "I'm just a regular guy, I can't make decisions for myself", I mean, come on now

If I remember correctly, the exchange between Dagny and the guard was even sillier and less believable in the book. I think she makes him suffer through a little lecture before she (mercifully) shoots him. As bad as the dialog in the movie was, it was generally a step up from the book.

Slavish devotion to the book was the downfall of the movies. If they had taken the basic theme of the book, made it shorter, and reworked it to be relevant in the 21st century, they might have had a good movie. For example, there's and Ayn Randish element to Elon Musk's battles with the mainstream car dealerships. But they decided to stick with railroads and steel mills.

There's always some romance, or at least sex in Ayn Rand stories. Once you get past her rape fantasies (left out of the movies), then she likes sex as a metaphor, and after all, what could be hotter than metaphorical sex?

[–] JohnJackson12 10 years ago

Yeah the futuristic setting was another gripe I had, it made it even harder to relate. They could easily have picked up on many things going on in present day, but oh well, this is why Capitalism keeps losing the debate.

[–] ejonconrad 10 years ago

Capitalism is doing just fine.

Preachy, over-simplified movies about Capitalism are another matter.

I find it ironic that one of the most successful capitalists in the movie business is Michael Moore :)

[–] PunkCapitalist 10 years ago

I'm a Libertarian and I yet I feel extremely ashamed to be associated with Ayn Rand.

[–] jon_s_chan 10 years ago

You must very likely be a libertarian socialist, one who deludes himself into believing there can be socialism without authority.

[–] Mystic_Fox 10 years ago

Well, arguably with no authority everything is communally owned as everyone has free access to it and an authority is necessary for all the private property rights Objectivists and other libertarians love so much. I think that's one of Objectivism's most glaring flaws. Capitalism is praised as a holy, sacred natural order that the government corrupts, but government is also said be be vitally necessary for that "natural order" to exist.

[–] gabby_bm 10 years ago

Two problems:
If the idea was to deliver philosophy, it makes for a sub-par movie.

If the idea was to deliver the narrative, it had a sub-par story to work with.

In other words, it was doomed before it even got started.

Now, i like a lot of ideas and ideologies Rand presents in her writings. But I think trying to stay faithful to the narrative of Atlas Shrugged, without making it a period piece, was a poor choice. I'm not saying a lot of the concepts wouldn't apply in the modern age, but i think the better approach would have been to re-apply the story to fit modern times and, for the sake of all, tidy up the dialogues and monologues so the actors could deliver lines believably, rather than reciting prose akin to a high school book report.

I don’t need you to tell me how good my coffee is.. 
.

[–] raventhom 10 years ago

I think you know how Hollywood wanted this to look. If the theme was in the opposite direction, you would see A list starts falling all over themselves
Using different actors in each segment was horrible! Can you imagine the outcry if LOTR used different actors in each film?
The screenplay the acting, all made to look like Capitalism was the wrong answer
Read the book.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gabby_bm 10 years ago

I think this was always a pet project with the hopes of making money from it. But it could not have been released at a worse time.

I don’t need you to tell me how good my coffee is.. 
.

[–] Joey_McJojo 9 years ago

Real proponents of Rand's philosophy could never have been behind this mess.

In my experience, proponents of Rand's philosophy tend to try more to offend and shock than really convince anyone of anything. Too much government regulation and taxation obviously can have negative consequences, but a lot of Rand's people argue that people's well-being isn't worth bothering others a little!

The basic format of a Randroid article is:
1)Compare mostly harmless government regulation or program to Nazi-level oppression.
2)Say its bad because it uses "government guns" or something similar(Even though one could say the same thing about property rights and contracts).
3) Often out-of-context quote from one of the USA's founding fathers.
4) Pout about the "poor oppressed rich".

They take sadistic delight in brushing off people's agony and pain.

[–] nmaschka 9 years ago

In my experience, proponents of Rand's philosophy tend to try more to offend and shock than really convince anyone of anything.

Sounds more like what you are trying to do by posting this ridiculousness.

People who agree with a lot of the views being espoused here and who have actually read this book(and not the ones that were just forced to read it in high school)do not generally take delight in brushing off people's agony and pain. That kind of statement is a common liberal scare tactic with broad and incorrect generalizations.

The overarching tone of Atlas Shrugged is that when given the opportunity to succeed, people will rise above and become successful. The government should not have the right to take from those people who have earned what they have to give to those who feel they have the right to something they did not earn.

That is an idea I can get behind. I don't feel like anybody owes me anything. I am going to show what I am worth in all I do and in business I am going to be paid accordingly.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] fistful_of_boomstick 9 years ago

yes yes. i'm sure there is a conspiracy against capitalism.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nmaschka 10 years ago

Everyone is missing the point so horribly.
The overarching moral of Atlas Shrugged is that the people who are able to be successful in this country are at risk of being overpowered and drowned by a government that wants to take from them and give to those who either can not or will not do what they have to do to be successful in this country.

People in government find large amounts of support by promising the world to those who have less, and in turn, large amounts of people WILLINGLY give up any dreams they have of finding success through their own hard work to take the easier path promised to them by elected officials.

Look around. Atlas Shrugged was written to be allegorical, and many of the characters were written almost like caricatures to emphasize the point she is trying to make, but the society Ayn Rand wrote about is becoming more of a reality today than anyone could ever have believed was possible.

Too many people in America today believe they are owed something and the those who have succeeded through their own blood sweat and tears are the people who are being made to foot the bill for those who aren't going to make any effort to improve their own situation.

Capitalism works when people are given the freedom to make their own success story through their own hard work. In that sense, greed is good. Make you own way... Don't let anything stop you from making your dreams a reality, and a government that does not allow that, or tries to take that from you isn't a government worth supporting.

That is the point of Atlas Shrugged. It is a tory worth telling.

[–] Mystic_Fox 10 years ago

But when you are working your way up, are you just supposed to be at the mercy of everyone else?

Also, let's look at government corruption from the other angle. Who is funding all those politicians? If a government is corrupt doesn't it stand to reason that those with little are the true victims?

[–] nmaschka 9 years ago

When you are working your way up, the merit of your work is rewarded. If it isn't, you leave that company and go to one where it is. If you are worth anything, people will see the value you bring to a company and reward you handsomely.

It doesn't necessarily stand to reason that when a government is corrupt, the true victims are those with little. Think about it Mystic_Fox... There are more people with little than there are with lots. A government has more of those people reliant upon it for their existence will have more people voting to keep it in place. Therefore, a government that does little to encourage business growth and innovation, but takes wealth and gives it to the people that it has helped make dependent upon it for survival will be one with a great deal of popular support. To me that sounds about as corrupt as it gets, and while you are right that the victims are the people with little, they are the victims because they give the government the power to keep them there because it is easier and less scary than taking a chance and succeeding or failing on your own.

[–] Mystic_Fox 9 years ago

When you are working your way up, the merit of your work is rewarded. If it isn't, you leave that company and go to one where it is. If you are worth anything, people will see the value you bring to a company and reward you handsomely.

If you start out with nothing or almost nothing, you probably will have to spend a lot of time and money gaining skills to make a better living. Until that happens, if it ever does, most of your life is going to be dependent on others who can make you do practically anything and you might never have the money to change things.

It doesn't necessarily stand to reason that when a government is corrupt, the true victims are those with little. Think about it Mystic_Fox... There are more people with little than there are with lots. A government has more of those people reliant upon it for their existence will have more people voting to keep it in place. Therefore, a government that does little to encourage business growth and innovation, but takes wealth and gives it to the people that it has helped make dependent upon it for survival will be one with a great deal of popular support. To me that sounds about as corrupt as it gets, and while you are right that the victims are the people with little, they are the victims because they give the government the power to keep them there because it is easier and less scary than taking a chance and succeeding or failing on your own.

Welfare does get abused, but if it were as easy to abuse as it's sometimes made out to be, then it would have destroyed itself a long time ago.

[–] BrandiStarBright 10 years ago

I agree with everything you had to say, nmaschka.

the society Ayn Rand wrote about is becoming more of a reality today than anyone could ever have believed was possible.

HOW TRUE that is, my friend. More and more people feel like they are entitled to something, and the government keeps enabling the poor. There is slowly going to be no more middle class. It's either you have money or you dont. The rich vs the poor. Look at our Health Care and where our taxes go for starters.

Socialism has never worked in other countries and it will fail if we continue the path we are going. If I can make $1000.00 a week (because I feel like that is what I need to support myself and family) but someone else only needs $500, well it doesnt matter in Socialism. This movies says everyone is "entitled" to $1000.00 a week. No matter how hard your work or how little.

So Joe Schmoe over here can sit on his butt for 20 hrs and work 20 hrs, while I slave away at my desk job for 45 hrs and we both make the same? Pretty soon Ill say "well, I just dont want to work as hard. Im just going to work 15 hrs a week, because Im still getting paid $1k a week anyway". And pretty soon everything collapses. It doesnt work.

You have to make your own way. And stop asking for handouts. If you lose your job and need unemployment, I dont see any shame in that. But Unemployment wasnt designed for your sole income to live off of for over a year. Its there to help you while you find another job within 3 months MAX. Same with food stamps, and welfare and so forth. Those programs are supposed to help you through the hard times, not enable you to never work again or be lazy.

Atlas Shrugged is a great story to tell. I wish the budget for all 3 films were better, because it could be told WAY better than it is now. The government wants to keep everyone equal so they can stay in power and keep us down.

[–] phantom2-2 10 years ago

if you can make $1000 a week by slaving away at your desk, and another guy can make a hundred times that much relaxing on the beach because he went to the right schools, knows a few people (or had the right parents) and knows how to work the system do you feel that he has earned this? did he somehow "make his own way", or was it made for him?

a bigger budget for these films would have simply been putting lipstick on a pig. there have been far better movies made for much less money than these were. the difference being that those were made by talented filmmakers, not hack ideologues.

[–] BrandiStarBright 10 years ago

All Im saying is nothing should be handed to you. No one should feel like they are entitled to something they didnt earn. If a guy is sitting on the beach relaxing because his family are millionaires I dont see a problem with that. But that isnt the point. And most people who have children want them to work hard or to learn the business for themselves. You hear all the time how people like Bill Gates or Phillip Seymore Hoffman didnt (or wont) leave their children with a butt load of money. They want them to work for it. And thats how it really should be.

The point is, comparing two people who are able to work should make their own way. If I make more than this other guy, I shouldnt have to give up part of my salary to meet his needs so we would be on the same scale. Equal work for equal pay.

I also think income tax should be abolished...the whole IRS system should be. I mean, tax me on products and goods, on what I spend, but dont tax me on what I earn. If I made $100k in a year, that should be what I deposited in my bank...not I made "$100k" but IRS took 33% of it.

[–] phantom2-2 10 years ago

All Im saying is nothing should be handed to you.

If a guy is sitting on the beach relaxing because his family are millionaires I dont see a problem with that.

you do realize that you immediately contradicted yourself, right?

i can pretty much guarantee that any and all gates children will be left more money than 99% of us will earn in our lifetimes simply as an accident of birth. maybe not billions, but a substantial amount. they already have the best education and connections that money can buy.

[–] phantom2-2 10 years ago

apparently you also missed the point horribly.

the worst, most corrupt characters in atlas shrugged are the capitalists - jim taggart, orren boyle, the rest of the rearden clan, the family that inherits galt's old motor company, etc. the government is merely a tool run by weaklings operating at their behest in their battle to dominate another batch of capitalists (galt, dagny, rearden, & co)

greed is good? how's greed work out for james taggart? boyle?

anybody who reads atlas shrugged as a simplistic "government bad, businesses good!" story has missed the point by a mile.

btw- rand's characters are caricatures because that's the best she could do. none of her characters in her stories remotely resemble real people.

[–] nmaschka 9 years ago

The scary thing is that Rand's Characters- The ones you refer to as caricatures- say things that are eerily similar to things you hear politicians in Washington saying today when it comes to entitlement programs and inefficient corporations that are asking the government for a bailout.

The point that BrandiStarBright was making when she talked about how you shouldn't have anything handed to you, was that it shouldn't be the responsibility of the government to redistribute wealth.

Your comment about the Gates family inheriting a fortune is a weak one, because the a major tenet of this book is that it should be the right of the individual to determine what they do with their wealth. Bill and Melinda Gates choosing to spread it among their family is their right. Now, if the government wanted to take a portion of their money and use it to help fund social security or SNAP or any other government program, that is where I would have a major problem.

Why is it so hard for some people to understand that if you give a person a chance to succeed on the basis of their own merit, most people will be successful? It is an idea that made this country great in the first place. It can still work today.

In Atlas Shrugged, Jim Taggart, Orren Boyle, Wesley Mouch and crew did not use government to dominate another batch of capitalists. They used the government as a tool to try to redistribute wealth and ideas to hold onto a position they had no right to still occupy. In doing so, you stagnate and kill growth and innovation because there is no incentive to be innovative.

It's probably more relevant today than it has ever been.