Atlas Shrugged Movie update

[Perd Hapley]

So Atlas Shrugged, Part One is finished, and will be released next year.  Looks like it WON'T include Angie Jolie, Brad Pitt, or any of the other A-listers that we've been hearing about. (And, no, Alec Baldwin did not produce it.)

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2010/07/20/exclusive-atlas-shrugged-producer-sets-record-straight-on-upcoming-film/

http://www.atlassociety.org/atlas-shrugged-movie-event


I purchased a used copy of the book today, at the Book 'N' Barber in Alton, Illinois. The man in the video told me the book was getting hard to find. I'll bet.

[Hawkmoon]

Book report due November 15th. 1,500 words.

[Perd Hapley]

Read it for yourself. 

[AZRedhawk44]

Book report due November 15th. 1,500 words pages.

Fixed.

[Scout26]

I thought it initially said James Marsden was in the film.  I just watched Death at a Funeral from the Library (along with The Book of Eli).  I thought he was funnier the hell as Oscar, but it's the wrong Marsden.

I hope this isn't like Starship Troopers. 

[Perd Hapley]

Book report due November 15th. 1,500 words.

I just started reading it a day or two ago. I'm about 7.5% finished with it, and I like it so far.

[Ned Hamford]

I've been reading it continuously for a day or two. I'm about 7.5% finished with it, and I like it so far.

Fixed it for you :)

[roo_ster]

I just started reading it a day or two ago. I'm about 7.5% finished with it, and I like it so far.

I had to skip through "the speech."

[Perd Hapley]

I had to skip through "the speech."

I've endured all the begats in the Bible, and the whole book of Leviticus, not to mention all that noxious verse in the LOTR; I think I can endure the speech.

I really don't get why anyone would skip the speech. You know the book is one giant polemic, right? So if you're going to skip the most nakedly polemical part, why read it all?

If the speech starts to bog me down, I'm also reading Life on the Mississippi, so I'll just switch to that for a bit. 

[Perd Hapley]

10.6

[lee n. field]

I had to skip through "the speech."

Ditto.  Real Randroids find the speech indispensable.

[BryanP]

I hope this isn't like Starship Troopers. 

Can't be.  With  Starship Troopers they took an extremely readable book with interesting ideas and turned it into a piece of crap onscreen.  Atlas Shrugged has some interesting ideas, but it's a horribly written piece of tripe.  Clumsy wording, stilted dialogue, impenetrable paragraph structure.  I've tried unsuccesfully to read it 3 times over the years, and I'm a big reader who doesn't give up easily.

[roo_ster]

I really don't get why anyone would skip the speech.

Because the same thing was already said many times before on previous pages, just with less verbiage.

And, it makes Leviticus and the begats seem entertaining by comparison.

[Doggy Daddy]

I'm getting prepped to read it myself.  I've bought a copy and placed it in the library.  I just haven't been constipated lately and therefore have not started actually reading. 

DD

[Ned Hamford]

I've found Rand's writing to be very holographic in nature.  Each part can be broken down or expanded, so tight is the mental schema of the work.  

I found it in audio book format through the NYPL read by a woman.  It has a semi hypnotic quality that makes for some very soothing listening.  Largely as you aren't worried about missing anything; every sentence fitting with the theme for a pleasant plodding.  

[freakazoid]

Because the same thing was already said many times before on previous pages, just with less verbiage.

And many times before that, and many times before that, ect ect... 

It is a good book. It can just be tiring to get through at points.
 

With  Starship Troopers they took an extremely readable book with interesting ideas and turned it into a piece of crap onscreen.

I thought the movie was pretty good, shouldn't of been called Starship Troopers though. Only similarities really was the bugs.

[280plus]

I read both her big ones when I was a wee pup. I recently tried rereading the one I have here. Couldn't do it.   

Meanwhile I am 34.954...% of the way through "War and Peace". Took a couple hundred pages to get into it but it seems to be moving a little better now. I find I'm not necessarily a big Tolstoy fan.

[Perd Hapley]

15%

[Scout26]

Try to have it finished by the time I get back.....

[AJ Dual]

I thought the movie was pretty good, shouldn't of been called Starship Troopers though. Only similarities really was the bugs.

Huh?

The bugs of the book had spacecraft, nukes, weapons etc. The only similarity with the on-screen bugs was that they liked to hide in tunnels underground which made them difficult to fight. And they didn't push an asteroid onto Buenos Aries with those big farting beetles. 

Only the names "Johnny Rico" (who was Philipino in the book, lots of people miss that...) and "Carmen", and "Seargent Zim" were about the same.

Thread drift, I know... but I just read John Steakly's "Armor". I'm not sure why everyone thought that book was so great. It was okay... but (shrug) 

[BryanP]

Only the names "Johnny Rico" (who was Philipino in the book, lots of people miss that...) and "Carmen", and "Seargent Zim" were about the same.

Thread drift, I know... but I just read John Steakly's "Armor". I'm not sure why everyone thought that book was so great. It was okay... but (shrug) 

A lot of people do miss Rico's Phillipino origin, but that's because the only reference is a single sentence mentioning his native language is Tagalog.

I haven't read Armor since high school.  I remember enjoying it, but it's a very different book.  If you want a much more interesting book about armored-suit types that isn't as gung-ho as Starship Troopers you'd be better off with Haldeman's The Forever War.

[AJ Dual]

That I liked. And I thought I'd heard of some noise on a movie development.

Since "The Forever War" was explicitly written as a critique of Vietnam, and as a direct counterpoint in opposition to "Starship Troopers", I'd expect Hollyweird to be much more motivated to keep it true to form and not butcher it.

http://www.scificool.com/ridley-scotts-the-forever-war-movie-has-a-writer/

The screenplay writer is reported as being the same for Blade Runner and Twelve Monkeys. And it being a Ridley Scott project does not hurt either. 

[Perd Hapley]

Only the names "Johnny Rico" (who was Philipino in the book, lots of people miss that...)

I guess I did. I thought he was Argentine.  (Also, I thought it was "Filipino.")

[BryanP]

Since "The Forever War" was explicitly written as a critique of Vietnam, and as a direct counterpoint in opposition to "Starship Troopers"

When asked about it, Heinlein and Haldeman have each said how much they enjoyed the other's book. 

[AJ Dual]

When asked about it, Heinlein and Haldeman have each said how much they enjoyed the other's book. 

I don't doubt it.

- I enjoyed both books. And I'm the smartest guy I know. 

- Heinlein had gone through his "hippy phase" by then. "Starship Troopers" was written in 1959. "Stranger In A Strange Land", was published in 61, which might as well have been a hundred years later, culturally for the U.S., and "The Forever War" came out in 1974. And in '73 He'd published "Time Enough For Love", where Lazarus Long was screwing his own (semi)identical cloned twin sisters/daughters, and travelling back in time to 1917 to screw his own mom.

So I get the sense Heinlein was a pretty open-minded guy. 

And in his books, I never got the sense Heinlein was a blind patriot, or would approve of the implied industrial/military complex cabal that got humanity into "mistaken" war with the Taurans in "The Forever War".