Atlas Shrugged, Part 3

Over on MSK's OL, replying to critics of the unproduced final installment I wrote:

You don't get it. We have seen every Pride and Prejudice made and we own three of them. I bought my wife and myself the latest Marvel comics edition of Northanger Abbey, both of which now sit in plastic with backboards. We just bought Season 1 and Season 2 of NUMB3RS. We have incomplete runs of early NCIS. We own all seven seasons of The West Wing. Have you ever seen Gary Cooper as a supporting actor in Wings? It was a Howard Hughes movie and it has Poncho Barnes as an extra. I am not a real movie person. I do not know the movies made by Francis Ford Coppola or Oliver Stone. It did happen than that when we were watching Caprica, I saw Francisco d'Anconia. But for all my ignorance about film, I "get" it. It is a culture. Objectivism is a culture, also. Ayn Rand is a cultural icon. The last presidential election must have proved that. Even Al Sharpton needs to mention her.

John Aglialoro is making history - and making a place for himself in history. This will be the first Atlas Shrugged, but not the last. Miners in the Kuiper Belt will see a new one -- and tell Terra Actual to frak itself for its taxes. Between now and then, maybe three to five will be produced.

In our time, criticizing this production of Atlas Shrugged as if you could do better is called illusory superiority, The Greeks called it hybris.

Post 1

Thursday, May 16, 2013 - 6:55pm

>>>In our time, criticizing this production of Atlas Shrugged as if you could do better is called illusory superiority, The Greeks called it hybris.

In other words, anyone who watches the Atlas trilogy must either praise it or keep his mouth shut.

Got it.

Anyway, since you've admitted that you're not a real movie person � you haven't seen many movies, you've haven't made one yourself, and you lack any knowledge or background on the technical aspects of making one, such as screenwriting or directing � you nevertheless claim to know enough about the entire process to suggest that no one else could possibly have done any better than Aglialoro.

Talk about hubris!

Post 2

Friday, May 17, 2013 - 6:02pm

I appreciate comments from the Red Wanderer (welcome to RoR, Red Wanderer!). I loved AS1 more than I did AS2, because I liked the characters more the first time (and wondered where they all went in the production of AS2).

But I am posting for another reason: a lament. Every time someone creates a persona to post here (e.g., Red Wanderer, Green Traveler, Blue Vacationer, etc.), my mind is bogged down for at least 5 minutes trying to figure out if their identity can be gleaned from a rationalistic reinterpretation/rearrangement of the letters in their pseudo-name.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh!

Is anyone else out there suffering from this infrequent and short-lived mental incapacitation (each time a new "name" is created)?

:-)

Being smart -- and perhaps more importantly, curious -- can be a real handicap, if you let it.

Signed,
Scissor-handed son of Thomas
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 5/17, 6:07pm)

Post 3

Friday, May 17, 2013 - 6:47pm

Ed,

A little known fact about me is that my user name isn't my real name.

Kyle Jacob Biodrowski is actually an anagram of my real name, Ibias Woodblock Jekry.

Post 4

Friday, May 17, 2013 - 7:36pm

You do not yet know what it is that you have just started, Woodblock.

Ed
[Woodblock?? That one is going to have to stick for a while.]

Post 5

Friday, May 17, 2013 - 7:52pm

Oh yes, Ed, I know. I've been around longer than you think. I am not who you think I am.

But how long will it stick I wonder. Hopefully, longer than "Keanu Reeves".

Now, Ed, you wouldn't do anything to hurt my feelings, would you?

(Edited by Kyle Jacob Biodrowski on 5/18, 1:26am)

Post 6

Friday, May 17, 2013 - 8:22pm

Loved part 2, despite fully expecting to hate it. (Kyle, you are so funny!)

Post 7

Saturday, May 18, 2013 - 8:59am

Kyle,

You're a wily character. I think you realize that I like to think that I can figure just about anyone out, and that I cannot figure you out (and you might get some satisfaction from that). Let me be clear: At times I can appear callous, but I'm just slow.

I often go back and re-read posts and answers in order to help stuff sink in. This determination on my part allows me to increase my scope of consciousness in spite of initially-apparent indifference toward a healthy regard for the ongoing concerns of others.

While I am often motivated by the desire to be seen as being "strong" and "cool", I am actually pretty comfortable in my own skin -- so this desire is residual, rather than being overriding or a predominant motivation. Like a stray dog who starts walking with you, who you could leave at anytime -- but who you continue to walk with and pay attention to (because it is enjoyable to do so).

Apparent callousness on my part is better explained by dynamics that have nothing to do with me playing the tough guy with rough edges, but rather with playing to a strength that I have in good abundance: systemization. There are empathizers and there are systemizers, where focus is either proportionately or disproportionately divided between people and ideas. If I focus too sharply on ideas, I accidentally offend others.

That said, I made myself aware of the fact that I've already hurt your feelings (though not in this particular thread), and I am sorry about that. Please accept my apology so that we can continue our quasi-functional relationship/friendly acquaintence.

:-)

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 5/18, 9:04am)

Post 8

Saturday, May 18, 2013 - 10:33am

The first person I thought of was Reginald Firehammer but I do not know if he visits MSK's site. I don't so could not say.

FINALLY!!! The REAL Kyle emerges! Nice to meet you Woodblock!!!

Ed your analytical inquisitive scientific approach to everything is GREAT! Both you and Woodblock keep me in stitches!

Post 9

Saturday, May 18, 2013 - 11:45am

Thanks, Jules.

Regi was awesome, though a bit rough around the edges.

On a tangent, Mike Marotta recently asked (over in another thread), if high-minded folks around here ever admit of being corrected philosophically, or of changing their mind after a debate. He insinuated that nobody ever changes their minds around here (at least not about important things) -- as if "complete rationality" would ever actually lead to the creation and maintenance of a metaphorical echo chamber. But that premise -- promulgated by post-modern existentio-nihilists -- is wrong (false). Rational people not only change their minds, they are interesting, to boot.

There is not just "echoing" going on around here. It's a reason I've participated here for more than a decade now.

For an instance (a counter-example of Mike's postulate), Regi persuaded me to admit I was wrong once, some several years ago. The debate was over epistemological realism ("scholasticism") versus conceptualism. Allowing myself to think that I had all the answers, I started hopping up and down like a wide-eyed school kid with his hand up, having the answer to a teacher's question (or something like that). Then, after hearing what it is that I had to say, Regi told me to sit down and to shut up.

Needless to say, I was engaging in at least moderate, intellectual overreach (i.e., talking out of my hind-quarters) and Regi corrected me about that. I had said that a new conceptualism was required for human philosophy because the old conceptualists were all wrong about it -- calling the oldies the perjorative name: classical conceptualists.

Then Regi stepped in and gave me a history lesson. He sent me back to the writings of Abelard, writings which reveal that he was the first and one of the only true "legitimate" conceptualists, and that instead of foisting a new conceptualism onto the scene, I needed to revive the old one (which was correct in the first place). The original had merely become displaced by the serpentine windings of irrational modern philosophy. As with Aristotle, we had the right answers before we rejected them for wrong answers.

So I stood corrected. In at least a mitigated defense of me being wrong back then, I just couldn't believe that humans would ever willfully move from truth -- after having discovered it -- back into error. So I guess I made 2 mistakes.

:-)

People will surprise you, sometimes.

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 5/18, 12:08pm)

Post 10

Saturday, May 18, 2013 - 12:32am

>>>Loved part 2, despite fully expecting to hate it.

What did you love about part 2?

Post 11

Saturday, May 18, 2013 - 2:07pm

----------------------------------------------------------
...and that I cannot figure you out (and you might get some satisfaction from that).
----------------------------------------------------------

For some reason, I do find that satisfying. I also find it terrifying. If you can't figure me out, is there any chance I can figure myself out?

You know I enjoy writing. I like it for multiple reasons, but I particularly like it because I use it as a means to self-discovery.

I've discovered a lot about myself over the last one to two years of writing. If you would like to know what I've discovered, here's a hint: I'm not comfortable discussing these discoveries on a public forum. If you know me as well as I think you do, you'll understand the aforementioned hint.

----------------------------------------------------------
While I am often motivated by the desire to be seen as being "strong" and "cool", I am actually pretty comfortable in my own skin -- so this desire is residual, rather than being overriding or a predominant motivation.
----------------------------------------------------------

I think you're super cool, Ed.

----------------------------------------------------------
That said, I made myself aware of the fact that I've already hurt your feelings (though not in this particular thread), and I am sorry about that.
----------------------------------------------------------

You hurt my feelings? If you did, I don't remember it.

About "Woodblock", I'm not unaccustomed to unflattering nicknames. Not too long ago, I exited a bastion of incorrigible bastards (high school). On a side note, what a shame it is that children and teenagers should be, during their most impressionable and vulnerable years, locked away in an effective prison filled with emotionally driven monsters. For the emotionally developing teenager, social isolation is hell. I once knew a guy who hung around people who cruelly manipulated and harassed him daily. Was he so desperate for attention? Anyway, I digress.

My point being that I don't mind nicknames.

Additionally, I like the lashings.

Some people say whippings build character; I say whippings build interesting characters.

Post 12

Monday, May 20, 2013 - 4:38pm

I really liked the acting. II's Dagny was actually better than #I, I thought, and II's Rearden was fantastic, though I also enjoyed Rearden I. I thought the scene work was pretty good, too.

II moved better than I. Smoother story going along in II.

Some suggestions: Stop casting black guys as Eddie. If you want to cast black people or other racial minorities, and I enjoy the thought of that very much, cast them as real heroes and villains. For Galt's sake, get them out of the stereotypical roles. I can't stand that!

Post 13

Tuesday, May 21, 2013 - 2:55pm

Ed:

I haven't been called Bred Fartlett since HS, and then, it was in writing, in the yearbook, by an ex girlfriend, who paid to have it published in the 'supporters' section in the back...

Cheerleaders; can't live with them, ~~and can't eat them.~~

Strike that.

regards,
Fred

Post 14

Tuesday, May 21, 2013 - 3:06pm

My hair started turning gray when I was 16, so Bred Fartlett took the sting out of my other nickname; "skunk ass head." I had a gray patch right in the middle of my upper forehead. At one point it became the mirror opposite-- the last remaining dark brown patch was in the middle of my forehead, like a photo negative. It was right before my prematurely gray turned from prematurely gray to gray. I miss the prematurely.

The story of AS is so compelling, especially these days, that the movie could be shot with clay animation figures and I'd go see it.

I, too, likes the first best so far. I wish they kept the same cast throughout, but that's not a deal breaker.

A deal breaker would be if they deliberately trashed the movie or turned it on its ear(like a TV production of Animal Farm did a few years ago, totally changing the ending in Orwell's book! as part of this nation's multi-front indoctrination.) I detected no aspect of that in either of the two installments so far.

Not loved by the left? No kidding. She's their official endless hairshirt. She's been dead thirty years, and they keep wondering, "Why won't she die?" Even dead she out debates them, because ultimately they got nothin' except their own self-awarded participation ribbons, passed around in their echo chambers.

Personally, I like our echo chamber much better.

regards,
Fred

Post 15

Tuesday, May 21, 2013 - 3:25pm

The story of AS is so compelling, especially these days, that the movie could be shot with clay animation figures and I'd go see it.

LOL, me to!

Post 16

Wednesday, May 22, 2013 - 5:35pm

My favorite movie anagrams are from SNEAKERS. (We own two copies. We wore out the VHS tape and bought a disc to replace it.)

At the end of the trailer...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_XRqJV2zdk
The film itself has a longer play on these.

I assume that everyone here is already aware of the movie website:
http://www.atlasshruggedmovie.com/

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 5/22, 5:42pm)

Post 17

Thursday, May 23, 2013 - 3:19pm

>>>ultimately they got nothin' except their own self-awarded participation ribbons, passed around in their echo chambers. Personally, I like our echo chamber much better.

According to the above statement, it's all just a matter of personal taste: they prefer their self-awarded participation ribbons passed around in their echo chambers; you prefer your self-awarded participation ribbons passed around in your echo chamber � and you like your echo chamber much better than theirs. That different people of different ideologies prefer their own echo chambers is hardly surprising.

What is surprising is to find such an explicit statement supporting social metaphysics on a site dedicated to Objectivism.

Post 18

Thursday, May 23, 2013 - 4:50pm

Red, there's a context involved with Fred's comment. Did you miss that?

Post 19

Thursday, May 23, 2013 - 7:10pm