Ayn Rand Movie Hits Theaters This Weekend

Ironically, both covered by Medicare for those too fat to breathe or walk: http://www.hoveround.com

never heard of it before today. read that it's a rush job by some teabagger. Too bad, big fan. Probably do more harm than good although by now it's been reduced to interesting fringe relic.

It was literally originally going to star Brad Pitt, no joke...he loves the book. It could have been good, I suppose, but now we will never know. A 6% on RT.

Looks to be a good movie.

If the movie is a flop, which it will be, it will be a huge embarassment for the Tea Party.

So far, the reviews of the movie have been awful... some of the worst reviews in history.

f the movie is a flop, which it will be, it will be a huge embarassment for the Tea Party
-----------------------
Ayn Rand was born in 1902. Atlas Shrugged was published in 1957.

The Tea Party started in roughly 2009 long after the book being written or Ayn Rand's death.
To the best of my knowledge the Tea Party did not produce the movie.
-------------------------
What a dumb statement.

Of coruse the Tea Party produced the movie. If it were not for the Tea pArty, no director would have turned the book into a movie.

Tea Party seems pretty influential!

Socialist appears to have been picked on quite a bit in high school. Adult anger/confidence issues..

jon23
2 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse

Socialist appears to have been picked on quite a bit in high school. Adult anger/confidence issues..

You must be new to this board. socialist IS in high school.

Thank you for posting this...I'll be sure to see it...read the book years ago.

Ayn Rand
I hate that bony know it all bitch.
False sense of individuality and integrity at the expense of the masses.
She writes as if sausage is was cleanly fished from the sea instead of the bloody messy process it is.
Good brain food for brains only capable of consuming predigested like brains.
This is how mad cow disease got it's start.
Grind up the cows and feed them back to the cows.

So this thing opened on Saturday (yesterday.) So how come there're tons of uniformly glorious reviews by people who've supposedly seen it already? Must be real movie buffs...
The flick wouldn't have gotten any attention were it not for the "base", probably the same one that went to see for Mel Gibson's crap by the busloads.
Ironic if so, because Ayn Rand was a Russian JEWISH writer.

Ayn Rand
I hate that bony know it all bitch.

Do Ideas frighten you so much? The whole point of living in a Democracy is to show tolerance for different ideas, some/many of which are not all that far apart from those championed by libertarians and ACLU.

Also noticed not one legitimate criticism. The attack relied on vitriol and lacked any substance.

ideas don't frighten me--crappy ideas, like those of the bony bitch (rand, not your woman du jour coulter) annoy me--read most of the bony nitches "books"--not afraid to say her ideas are garbage

hey redbaiter--check into the grapes of wrath--dont be afraid

WOn't it be embarassing if the Ayn Rand movie makes a fraction of what Michael Moore's films make?

Socialist, Michael Moore is just as much of a fascist manipulator and as little of real "documentary" maker as all other propagandists, on either side. He's by far the richest, though.

"False sense of individuality and integrity at the expense of the masses."

i'd call that a reasonably-voiced criticism. but maybe he doesn't find her as "intriguing" as you do RS. free love, rape and pillage, no constraints. yeah, baby, the late 1800's were great. let's do that again, no?

>yeah, baby, the late 1800's were great. let's do that again, no?

Most of us are younger than you and don't remember the late 1800s.

It opened FRIDAY out of the top ten and exactly 90% of the reviews on RT are negative. This was a hatchet job.

I just saw "Animal Farm." Unfortunately, I saw lots of truth in it.

The bottom line is that Ayn Rand was mental. Today, there would be treatments for her. Back in her day, she was allowed to run around harming and embarrassing herself. It makes me sad to think about it.

Don't be sad. Someone might accuse you of being mental.

Oh, everyone who makes gazillions of dollars will tell you that they did so because of their inherent merits and hard work, that they deserve every penny of it and that taxation is bad for everyone else. And only ignorant morons will chant in support of the latest movement to tear down the system when the changes they're militating for will only harm them, not help them. And that's the American way. By the way, the tax revolt in the British Colonies leading up to our nation's formation were not simply about taxes. Only an idiot who knows nothing about history can reduce things down to such a simplistic slogan. The specific taxes being levied from the center of the Empire were perceived as being to pay for the more recent war debts. Those same colonists rebelling against taxes were already willingly paying taxes to their local governments, and they never made any sweeping blanket generalizations about taxation being "bad." There were always plenty of taxes in the American colonies. Just go back and check your historical records. "Americans" had ceased thinking of themselves as subjects of the crown, because we were an insular group of (sorry, allan) British descendants descended from a pre-1700 wave of immigration not added to from the mother country for three generations prior to the rebellion.

Why "sorry"?

It's only a joke, alan. I remember you and I disagreed about the English-ness of American "whites." I know you didn't disagree with me that most were English before 1800, but I definitely disagreed with you about your claim that there were more Germans in the US by now than English. Regardless, the tax revolt that has been so much talked about by manipulative Republicans as supposedly a role model for stripping down our government was a reaction to taxes levied specifically to cover the war on the Continent whose extension in the colonies is referred to as the "French and Indian War." That's what the revolt was about, not about taxes, but about paying for things the American colonists felt was not their problem. About the "without representation," that was not an American innovation. The British were always taxed WITH representation, and it is precisely because of our ancestors' sense of the proper British system that they could feel outraged that they had no members of Parliament. It was a brilliant legalistic argument against paying our taxes - "but you didn't get OUR vote for this!"

And we can break down every single line in our federal budget and say the same thing. "But WE didn't vote for this!"

On the other side from radical Republicans, in the area of trade unions, one can also find pigheadedness. Budget cutbacks? Well, OUR union will NEVER agree to being FURLOUGHED to save jobs. Furloughs would mean more employees keep their jobs, although the pain would be spread equally across union membership, in the form of days without pay, at whatever the appropriate pay level. But those in the union the longest have the highest salaries, and by golly THEY are not going to agree to days without pay. It's simply not FAIR. Actually, what's most fair would be for each person to take their bitter medicine of furloughs now and then in order to keep the maximum number of families employed, covered by healthcare insurance and fed and housed. So unions are not always "one for all and all for one" as they claim to be. And without unions the working classes are unquestionably far worse off. But point out the inequities of unions and you can always get the working classes to clamor for the "freedom" of no collective bargaining, and so it goes. "Lemmings" is a word used frequently on SE threads, but I always had the feeling that lemmings threw themselves over cliffs in order to counter their overpopulation, not to keep up with the Joneses.

Oh, I forgot about that. I thought it was a reference to my insistence that the British Isles are the British Isles.

Iowan Bill Bryson has (in "Made in America", I believe) a very interesting comparison of the lives (and taxation) of American colonists vs. Brits in Britain just prior to the outbreak of the American Revolution. Essentially, only the tiniest fraction of Brits had "representation"; Americans lived much better, in larger houses, with much higher literacy; Americans were more lightly taxed even nominally, and didn't pay their taxes anyway; and the British military provided way more in defense against the French and Indians than Americans paid for that defense in taxes; etc. etc. Like GOP Texans or Alaskans, they were spoiled, ungrateful, resource-sucking, negative-focused seconda donnas ... from what he describes.

When the gov't takes actions to transfer wealth from Working and Middle Class Americans to a few privileged Financial institutions then perhaps Ayn Rand is not so off base. The gov't transfers savings from us to the big banks(by lowering interest to zero, allowing banks to borrow from the GSE'S at 5 bps and invest with the fed at 25 bps, ans also allows large conglomerates/businesses like G.E , Pfizer & MSFT to pay little or no taxes while benefiting from tax havens.

So maybe if the rest of us were a little "selfish" we'd be better off as a society.

The heroes of Atlas shrugged were not MIDDLE class, they were the upper classes.

I don't remember whether it was that book or Fisher's "Albion's Seed" but I do remember a comparison something like, especially emphasizing that common farmers in the Colonies ate enviously well compared to even the upper classes in Britain, because of abundant fresh fruits and vegetables, meat, grains, etc., but I think those idiots out there claiming to draw inspiration from the Boston Tea Party are a distortion. And the "no taxation without representation" reminds me of the clever tricks with words in Orwell's "Animal Farm." First the commandments say never sleep in beds. When the pigs are discovered to have been sleeping in beds, there suddenly appear added to the commandment two qualifying words - "in sheets."

or "with sheets."

It opened 13th.

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=13861&cmin=10&columnpage=3

This article says relative to the hype it was given, it disappointed at the BO:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3143&p=.htm

For the millionth time, had they been able to get the Brad Pitt version made, and not rushed this hatchet job, it made have both been AND done better.

It would be difficult for a movie like this to do well. Holllywood is very left of center and clearly would boycott such a film preferring to bank-roll Die Hard IX or a new Mel Gibson Christ film. Hell even a remake of Friday the 13th would be less offensive to the Hollywood establishment.

Uhhhh your post contradicts itself. Mel's Christ movie was embraced mainly by the right. See also this weekend "Soul Surfer." And many other examples (the Blind Side is the biggest recent one.)

If Brad Pitt had been in this movie, the thing might have worked.

It would be difficult for a movie like this to do well. Religious tracts do not make good (nor successful) pictures.

Fucking moron - passion of the Christ made how much....??!!!?!

That wasn't based on a TRACT, Caliboy.

...and AR was an ATHEIST, moron, so this was not a RELIGIOUS tract.

She preached the religion of anti-government, and it was laced into every one of her little insignificant publications.

Now that she is risen she has a lot of zombie cultists spewing forth passages from her tracts, and twisting and warping them to meet their evolving depraved spirituality.

>zombie cultists spewing forth passages from her tracts, and twisting and warping them to meet their evolving depraved spirituality.

Sounds like a great movie! Zombies, twisting and warping, depraved spirituality! All it needs is some skin.

"She preached the religion of anti-government, and it was laced into every one of her little insignificant publications."

"Atlas Shrugged" still sells over 100,000 copies *every year* half a century after its initial publication.

How much better are YOUR publications doing, Alan?

The villians in Atlas Shrugged were the corporations and the corrupt politicians that rigged the rules and looted the country's treasury to bail them out. Sound familiar?
We tax the rich & corporations at microscopic rates, and then hand them bonus checks when they wreck the economy. I'm a typical NYC democrat, not a tea bagger by any stretch of the term, but Rand sure sounds prophetic when you think about the great recession/financial crisis.

She did not "preach" any sort of religion. Its a philosphy, but if you go down the slippery slope of saying its a religion then all sorts of political philosphies, including those you espouse, are "relgions." Gay rights, feminism, progressism, being Green, etc...not religions either.

"Of coruse the Tea Party produced the movie. If it were not for the Tea pArty, no director would have turned the book into a movie."

So, Obama produced Wall Street 2?

Fascinating.

<"Atlas Shrugged" still sells over 100,000 copies *every year* half a century after its initial publication. How much better are YOUR publications doing, Alan?>

Do I understand you to say that "Atlas Shrugged" is better than books who sell fewer copies because it sells more copies? Would that not also mean that anything that sells more copies than "Atlas Shrugged" is superior? I think that might qualify lots of romance novels, comic books, recipe books, self-help books, Hollywood kiss-and-tells and fad diet books.

Dell Word Search comes to mind.

But anyway what's 100,000 divided by a zillion (the world's population)? A mere spit in the bucket, a phlegm glob.

Lowery, do you want to rethink?

Atlas Shrugged came in at 14th place, making $1.7 million. The movie cost $10 million to make.

No one ever said it would be a blockbuster. GIVE IT TIME.

In contrast, Capitalism: A Love Story made nearly $4.5 million in its first weekend.

"But anyway what's 100,000 divided by a zillion (the world's population)? A mere spit in the bucket, a phlegm glob."

And YOU have sold ... how many books?

50 year old book in top 10 on amazon. some people are buying

I liked the movie...extremely relevant and incredibly relevant since the book was written so long ago.
It's definitely not a movie for the masses, only for people that can think for themselves.

Mass media that's not for the masses; a movie for people "that" can think for themselves!

Beautiful!!!

The movie did poorly because it has no appeal to anyone outside the Tea Party movement. The movie was a horrible investment and that is why no major movie studio would ever touch it.

socialist, please start a thread on commercial success of the high school musical.. or read the book, they do teach reading at your grade level, don't they?

> In contrast, Capitalism: A Love Story made nearly $4.5 million in its first weekend.

Well, people do like comedies.

> The movie did poorly because it has no appeal to anyone outside the Tea Party movement.

I wasn't aware that Alan Greenspan and the multiple Nobel Prize winners and the other 20 million people who bought the book were all in the Tea Party... particularly those outside the United States.

BTW, per the Encyclopedia of Pyschology:
"A survey jointly conducted by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club early in the 1990s asked readers to name the book that had most influenced their lives: Atlas Shrugged was second only to the Bible."

btw, I own the book and didn't even know there was a movie. $1.7 mil without advertising is not too shabby.

The movie was heavily promoted through e-mail and other social media by Tea Party Groups like Freedom Works.

Ayn Rand relied on the same Medicare and Social Security she was against.

Well, she HAD to pay into Social Security/Medicare why shouldn't she get her money back! It's a forced form of savings....the biggest PONZI SCHEME ever! Of course, it only works if you live long enough to use it!

And if you live even longer, it continues to work -- much better than if you had saved/invested that income and outlived it. It's called an insurance pool.

If your point is that (statistically) it greatly favors white broads like AKA Ayn Rand, yes, that's true.

No,it favors people that either are genetically lucky or people that take care of their health and live a looooong life....that goes for any race by the way!!!!!!!!!!!