Posted on 02/11/2007 2:15:16 PM PST by saganite
We gotta get Tom Hanks in here somewhere. Maybe as Dagny's brother.
“From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”
Sounds good - but never worked and never will.
I want to shoot things with guns every time I hear Ayn Rand called a libertarian. She despised libertarianism, her followers split over the very issue of even cooperating with libertarians.
Everyone loves to talk about her, but very few have ever bothered to read anything more than newspaper articles (or FreeRepublic posts) about her.
IMHO, neither Jolie nor Brad have any idea what Ayn Rand stood for. They might just have gotten the idea that this was "cool" or maybe they want to trash her work or turn it into a promotion of their own agenda. Hollywood had perverted more than one novel.
I've read several of Rand's books and essays and am well aware of that side of her work. That said, to characterize her work as only limited to selfishness ("the bible of selfishness") is way off the mark - IMO.
It's rumored to be Brad Pitt per Wikipedia
After what Hollywood did to a Tom Clancy novel, I am not optimistic about the film version.
With the central importance of railroads to the story, you can't really set it anywhere near our present. Between Amtrak and the castrated freights in this country and the hollowing out of American steel and automotive, the book becomes preposterous.
Trying to modernize the whole industrial universe (Taggart Rocketlines, Rearden Carbon Composites, Wyatt Biodiesel) would be ludicrous.
Personally, I envision it set in an alternate-universe 1950s, when America still dominated these industries. Lots of tailfins, Art Deco and those streamlined visions of a Jetsons future.
I suppose one might get the wrong idea about her philosophical premises from "The Virtue of Selfishness," where she identifies egoism -- enlightened self-interest -- to be the cornerstone of all morality, and "altruism" as the wellspring of all evil.
It ain't a side of her work -- it's the core.
Bruce Willis is too ... smirky. He's got that look that's always on the edge of a grin. Hank Rearden was too obsessed to smile much. I'm afraid I've got to agree with Harrison Ford.
Please, not Brad Pitt. If it is, I won't see it.
LOL, I barely know who the guy is so it doesn't matter much to me who is in it.
He's a pretty boy. Not a particularly good actor. Certainly not the caliber needed to play Hank Rearden. He is as wrong for that role as he was for Achilles in the remake of the Iliad.
>>the burning question is Who is John Galt?
Not sure, but currently, the more burning question, is Who is Juan Galt? with respect to Venezuela.
It just isn't ALL of her work, which is what you are implying. And oversimplifying, too. Altruism is NOT the wellspring of all evil according to Rand, btw. More like forced altruism. I can hardly cover her whole body of work in a few paragraphs.
No - not at all.
Robert Duvall as Galt, Steve Buscemi as Reardon, Johnny Depp as D'antonia.
It will suck, you can't condense a great book like that into a n overly tested and vanilla and crowd pleasing film.
Won't work.
Who will direct?
I'd love to see Terry Gilliam or Christopher Nolan or Darren Aronofsky in the chair.
Being an atheist is one thing, trying to brag about it is another.
Egad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.