Poll: Atlas Shrugged: The Movie

[dukeh016]

Well.

Alexander died undefeated on the field, having conquered the known world, been worshipped as a god in his own lifetime, founded a great city, started the Hellenistic era, and become the basis for the most widely-read literature in the pre-modern world (the Alexander Romance). Personally fearless, his magnificence was such that the mere presence of his regalia was enough to stop the fighting between his successors. Two millenium later he is still considered the greatest battle captain to have fought, and is one of a tiny handful of historical figures deemed "the great".

So I ask you, what does a guy have to accomplish to not be accused of having a swollen ego?
Jeez.

I would argue that Alexander did have a "swollen ego." I just don't think that there is anything unusual about that. Given the chance, I think he is simply emphasizing one of the most natural characteristics of man. But attempting immortality, which I would rather confidently point at as his ultimate goal, is certainly a rather ego-centric behavior.

Don't take me wrong here as disagreeing, but I would like to offer a slightly different view of the behavior of an Alexander, if nothing else but for discussion.

Whenever I see someone reject or misunderstand classical ethics (Rand's, Aristotle's, or otherwise) I always recommend they read Alisdair Macintyre thoroughly, as he demolishes all competing ethical theories and shows why utilitarianism, intuitionism, and so on cannot stand up to the nihilistic destruction of Nietzsche. Virtue ethics, because it is rooted in function (helping a person live a good life) is the only one that can. Macintyre does a much better job than Rand in explaining why virtue ethics are worthwhile.

I can only see this leaning into a spirited debate of teleology versus deontology, which would undoubtably become highly confused and unsolvable. Kant, for instance, delivers enough blows to any functional or ends-based ethics for me to be quite happy with a more other-centric form of belief.

Ironically enough, its my experience that a person's preference in philosophies are based much less upon the legitimacy of arguments and much more around the author's ability to convince. An American, for instance, is much more likely to enjoy John Rawls than a Chinese reader. Why? Well it just so happens that Rawls outlines a world in which the best government is eerily similiar to the American system.

I suppose if I had a point, it would only be my own caution at the destruction of any system of philosphy. If the field had figured out the "right" path so far one would think the world would reflect that. Instead, it is still the broad educational policy to explore as many thinkers as possible, most likely because not a single thinker has said enough to make the rest shut up.

 

[Archon]

But The Escapist is where gamers go to talk about deontology and teleology!

I kid, I kid. I will now slink back to my day job of keeping the trains running on time.

 

[dukeh016]

Oh gosh. I didn't mean to make you go to work or anything. I'm an ass but I'm not sadistic. I just wanted to put a word of caution out there to ensure that Ayn Rand wasn't percieved to be the last voice in philosophy. Us deontologists got to eat too, y'know.

Anyway, how could I encourage someone to read Kant. The man is dryer than the Sahara, at least in his critiques.

 

[The Wooster]

Kant was full of shit too.

Rand gets points though, she didn't invent douchebaggery but she certainly refined it so it could be enjoyed by teenage boys and people born into privilege the world over.

 

[Archon]

And to whom do you look for your ethical guidance, Doctorpus?

 

[Eyclonus]

^^ You say that like Alexander was a good thing with his expansionist views powered by the need to feed his swollen ego.

Well.

Alexander died undefeated on the field, having conquered the known world, been worshipped as a god in his own lifetime, founded a great city, started the Hellenistic era, and become the basis for the most widely-read literature in the pre-modern world (the Alexander Romance). Personally fearless, his magnificence was such that the mere presence of his regalia was enough to stop the fighting between his successors. Two millenium later he is still considered the greatest battle captain to have fought, and is one of a tiny handful of historical figures deemed "the great".

So I ask you, what does a guy have to accomplish to not be accused of having a swollen ego?
Jeez.

I don't really hold much respect for Alexander, he built, and I loath to use this word to describe it, an "Empire", which shattered the day of his death. He never actually aided his people, apart from relaxing a few of the excesses.

I say that Genghis Khan is a better example of Empire building, or were you referring to yourself in third person?

 

[Jhereg42]

Kant was full of shit too.

Rand gets points though, she didn't invent douchebaggery but she certainly refined it so it could be enjoyed by teenage boys and people born into privilege the world over.

Metaphysics the most confusing shit ever, I read some of Kants stuff and my god I had to read it a couple times to grasp what he was trying to say.

You think Kant is bad, try John Stewart Mill's Utilitarianism. "Everything is right in so far as it promotes pleasure, and wrong in so far as it promotes pain."

 

[Eyclonus]

Kant was full of shit too.

Rand gets points though, she didn't invent douchebaggery but she certainly refined it so it could be enjoyed by teenage boys and people born into privilege the world over.

Metaphysics the most confusing shit ever, I read some of Kants stuff and my god I had to read it a couple times to grasp what he was trying to say.

You think Kant is bad, try John Stewart Mill's Utilitarianism. "Everything is right in so far as it promotes pleasure, and wrong in so far as it promotes pain."

That must be a puzzler for Sado-masicists

 

[Melaisis]

Whoooosh.

Know what that was?

That was this discussion flying over my head.

 

[Archon]

I say that Genghis Khan is a better example of Empire building, or were you referring to yourself in third person?

Genghis Khan is also awesome.

Refering to myself in the third person... Maybe.

 

[The Lyre]

Case and Point;

Bladerunner

Or, as the book was called, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

The author, Philip K. Dick, died shortly before it was released in the cinemas, and he had expressed great worries about how holywoodised the film was...

In a way, it was good that he died before it hit the screens, that was a travesty - I don't even know why they said it was based on the book, because it had a few things in common, but otherwise slaughtered the novel.

So no...no no no.

Any book of any depth will undoubtedly be shat on all over by the film.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Case and Point;

Bladerunner

It's interesting that the best films come from Short Stories rather than long stories. Probably because the plot can be encapsulated easier and a lot of nice effects can go in.

And if you say Bladerunner is a bad film, we might have to have a fight.

 

[Alex_P]

The author, Philip K. Dick, died shortly before it was released in the cinemas, and he had expressed great worries about how holywoodised the film was...

... And then they rewrote it based on his criticism. Dick supposedly LIKED the new script and was pleased with the special effects demos they showed him.

And it ended up being a good movie.

-- Alex

 

[Saevus]

Case and Point;

Bladerunner

Or, as the book was called, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

The author, Philip K. Dick, died shortly before it was released in the cinemas, and he had expressed great worries about how holywoodised the film was...

In a way, it was good that he died before it hit the screens, that was a travesty - I don't even know why they said it was based on the book, because it had a few things in common, but otherwise slaughtered the novel.

So no...no no no.

Any book of any depth will undoubtedly be shat on all over by the film.

Whoa there, cowpoke. I think you need to do a bit more background research on the film and, if you haven't already, actually watch it.

 

[The Lyre]

1. Alex, what have you been reading? Because what I just said was from a documentary on him, and from the back of the book (it was a paperback, part of that re-release of his books).

2.Root...I'm not saying it was a BAD film...I'm saying that in comparison to the book that it violated that it was a sack of holywoodised shite than needed to be inserted into the people who made it...

The film was good, but it was nothing like the book it was apparently 'based' on, even going so far as to utterly change the plot from the halfway point.

3.Seriously Alex, wtf, I have never read anything suggesting that Dick was satisfied with any versions of the film.

4. Saevus, read the book, many times, watched the film twice - they turned it into a holywood action film, which the book was not in the slightest. I found it very difficult to see the philosophical themes presented in the book, although some of them COULD have been there, and have YOU read the book? Half of the plot was missing - there was nothing to do with the animals, Deckard's wife...you know what, Wikipedia has done all this for me;

Differences between the film and the book [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Androids_Dream_of_Electric_Sheep%3F#Differences_between_the_novel_and_film]

I am a very big fan of this guy, I'm not spouting crap here, I know what I'm on about.

Part of an Essay on The Shifting Realities of Philip K. Dick;

In Part Four, we find an essay from Dick called "Notes on Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep", which he wrote in 1968, soon after the novel's publication. It's fascinating to see Dick looking for the centre of interest in the book, examining different choices for the main character, considering casting possibilities, and so on. He spends most of the essay talking about sex (and, as it turns out, the movie Blade Runner is almost diametrically opposed to his choices on every point). A number of his essays from Part Six, like "The Android and the Human" and "Man, Android, and Machine," have philosophical relevance to the book and movie, if only tangentially. Then in a short article written in 1981 called "Universe Makers... and Breakers," Dick describes his reaction to the first draft of the movie: "What my story will become is one titanic lurid collision of androids being blown up, androids killing humans, general confusion and murder, all very exciting to watch. Makes my book seem dull by comparison." (104). These somewhat sarcastic remarks would be tempered by his reaction to the second draft of the film and a reel of special effects that he was shown only a few months before his death.

You know what? It is not the actual questioning that has majorly pissed me off, but the patronising tone in which it has been presented. Dick was never happy with the film, even after the second draft - he was never impressed with what they had done to his book, and he was not so stupid as to be 'wowed' by special effects - give the man a bit more credit than that.

Yes, he liked the second draft more than the first - was he ever happy with the film? No.

 

[Saevus]

1. Alex, what have you been reading? Because what I just said was from a documentary on him, and from the back of the book (it was a paperback, part of that re-release of his books).

2.Root...I'm not saying it was a BAD film...I'm saying that in comparison to the book that it violated that it was a sack of holywoodised shite than needed to be inserted into the people who made it...

The film was good, but it was nothing like the book it was apparently 'based' on, even going so far as to utterly change the plot from the halfway point.

3.Seriously Alex, wtf, I have never read anything suggesting that Dick was satisfied with any versions of the film.

4. Saevus, read the book, many times - they turned it into a holywood action film, which the book was not in the slightest. I found it very difficult to see the philosophical themes presented in the book, although some of them COULD have been there, and have YOU read the book? Half of the plot was missing - there was nothing to do with the animals, Deckard's wife...you know what, Wikipedia has done all this for me;

Differences between the film and the book [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Androids_Dream_of_Electric_Sheep%3F#Differences_between_the_novel_and_film]

I didn't ask if you read the book, but if you'd watched the film. And I am well-acquainted with the fact that, like nearly every Hollywood adaptation, Blade Runner is utterly different from Dick's novel - but since they didn't call the film Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, I think that declaring it a travesty is taking things a touch too far, hm?

Also, similarly on Wikipedia:

Philip K. Dick became concerned that no one had informed him about the film's production, which added to his distrust of Hollywood.[18] After Dick criticized an early version of Hampton Fancher's script in an article written for the Los Angeles Select TV Guide, the studio sent Dick the David Peoples rewrite.[19] Although Dick died shortly before the film's release, he was pleased with the rewritten script, and with a twenty-minute special effects test reel that was screened for him when he was invited to the studio. Dick enthused after the screening to Ridley Scott that the world created for the film looked exactly as he had imagined it.[20] The motion picture was dedicated to Dick.

Not insinuating you don't know what you're talking about in terms of the author, but you seem to be expecting a bit much from a completely different art form/Hollywood in general. The film is never as good as the book, and the reverse situation is also true.

 

[The Lyre]

I have already edited that bit - I realised it as I posted.

And did you even read what I posted? Yes, he liked the special effects, yes he liked the second script - did he ever feel his book had been properly represented, however? No, not at all -

"What my story will become is one titanic lurid collision of androids being blown up, androids killing humans, general confusion and murder, all very exciting to watch. Makes my book seem dull by comparison."

Sound familiar? It should, he's basically described what the second script still was, albeit he didn't mention an android becoming a love-interest, instead of a morbid affair.

I don't expect the film to be as good as the book - that is stupid to even hope for. But I expect a film to at least seem like the writers read the book in the first place - it is like the writers skimmed through, and thought; needs moar android boobs and violence.

I can't think of another film adaptation I've seen where half way through the plot is thrown out the window - even the bloody Harry Potter films seem to stay on track with the plot.

 

[Saevus]

I have already edited that bit - I realised it as I posted.

And did you even read what I posted? Yes, he liked the special effects, yes he liked the second script - did he ever feel his book had been properly represented, however? No, not at all -

"What my story will become is one titanic lurid collision of androids being blown up, androids killing humans, general confusion and murder, all very exciting to watch. Makes my book seem dull by comparison."

Sound familiar? It should, he's basically described what the second script still was, albeit he didn't mention an android becoming a love-interest, instead of a morbid affair.

I don't expect the film to be as good as the book - that is stupid to even expect. But I expect a film to at least seem like the writers read the book in the first place - it is like the writers skimmed through, and thought; needs moar android boobs and violence.

Erm... Maybe I've misinterpreted you there, but...

Then in a short article written in 1981 called "Universe Makers... and Breakers," Dick describes his reaction to the first draft of the movie: "What my story will become is one titanic lurid collision of androids being blown up, androids killing humans, general confusion and murder, all very exciting to watch. Makes my book seem dull by comparison." (104). These somewhat sarcastic remarks would be tempered by his reaction to the second draft of the film and a reel of special effects that he was shown only a few months before his death.

Now, it seems that you're saying his comments on the first draft still apply to the end product - but the fact that he didn't have a similar reaction to the second draft insinuates otherwise.

And at least they thought of android boobs instead of 'mutant triple-tits'. Other than that, it was something of a spectacle.

 

[The Lyre]

I meant that his initial comment still applied to the second draft...because to be honest it does...

Look, I am not saying Blade Runner is a bad film, if that's why you're arguing this point so incessantly, then don't bother - I think as a stand alone film it would have been very good.

However, it was not a stand-alone film, it claimed to be an adaptation, and in that aspect it was terrible.

All I can find is that Dick liked the special effects and the world presented in the second draft, I cannot find any details on what he actually liked about the script, meaning that the against argument has one up, as whilst the evidence is not directly linked, at least it is there.

 

[Archon]

So wait. Was Decker a replicant, or not? That's all I really want to know.