Steel... The Movie loses me everytime. - Atlas Shrugged: Part I (2011) Discussion

[–] BlackJAC 12 years ago

Because this is just a pre-teen's revenge fantasy.

reply

You're absolutely right on every point.

Plus, there's no way she could barter him to half price.

This whole film makes no sense. For instance, the government was essential in planning the railroads in the USA, otherwise they'd have never gotten the land to lay the tracks on.

I am the prophet of the IMDb Moderator Gods. Tremble in my presence!

reply

[–] SnoopyStyle 12 years ago

Thank you for agreeing. Sometimes things can be so annoying that I gotta rant. Nice to know I'm not alone.

As far as other annoying things like the lack of business reality or understanding, I don't think I have enough time to tackle another rant. It's as if the writer had no clue how a proper business operates.

reply

[–] Anon45876 8 years ago

The government was in no way essential to the railroad project. Please read a history of railroads in America. Track was laid through much of the nation prior to the government involvement in the railroads in the 1860s. The same was true of canal companies prior to the railroads. They simply negotiated with the land owners until both agreed on a price. The transcontinental railroad, on the other hand, relied on eminent domain since it was a quasi-governmental project. This resulted in a certain resentment, and was actually quite corrupt. It's when the beginnings of our current corporatism begin, and when we started to stray (if only a bit at that time) from free market capitalism.
Even in the United Kingdom, they had private developed roads and railroads until they started going down the same road we did with increasing government involvement in the economy. It didn't end well for them. It caused extensive misery for the British people culminating in the Winter of Discontent in 1978. Or look at the misery the Venezuelans are currently experiencing. The root is the same: Government involvement in the markets and the economy. This distortion of markets leads to shortages.

reply

[–] gabby_bm 12 years ago

1. Nobody would care if the rail steel is lightweight. It's not that big of a selling point.
It would certainly cut down on the cost of shipping. it would also be an integral selling point in the manufacture of bridges as seen in the film. It might even be an advantage in how much of a foundation they have to set beneath the tracks (and later, buildings). Is it a major selling point? Probably not. But it is a noteworthy advantage.

2. Steel would have to reduce weight incredibly before it becomes competitive in aircraft use. I mean today Aluminum is being phased out by carbon fiber.
I really don't recall if its weight is mentioned but yeah, it would definitely have to be as light or lighter than aluminum for aircraft. But I don't recall aircraft being a major point for its manufacture. It seems fuel costs would have to come down first, regardless. But it would be beneficial for cars, buildings, shipping containers and such.

3. Every time steel is mentioned, I feel like this is based on a book from the 1930s when steel was still a newish building material.
Surely, a new metal that had far-reaching implications, as would steel or aluminum. Hell, coupled with green energy it would be greatly beneficial. Speaking as a person who remembers drinking pop and beer from cans a lot heavier than today's models, there's certainly room for new and improved metals. The ramifications are exciting!

4. It would be SOOOO easy to test the material. Any place where there are a few run of the mill testing equipment would easily test the new steel all they want. There are literally 10000s of places that could do the test. And running the train once does nothing to prove it's resistance to fatique.
The points were that Rearden wouldn't release his steel for testing by "government approved" testing facilities. And a trial run certainly doesn't prove the stress and fatigue points. But obviously Dagny had no problem with going with it based on the results of testing that Rearden metals presented to prospective clients- and likely based on his reputation as well.

5. When the old rails are taken out, they are usually recycled. So this idea that the new rail line would eat up too much Iron Ore is ridiculous. And there is no shortage of iron as far as I can tell or any future shortage either.
Isn't that one of the "scare tactics" folks used to prompt government action against Rearden Metals- not due to a shortage of iron ore, but a potential shortage of iron ore customers? (akin to what the "Big Three" did to the Tucker car in Oliver Stone's perspective of the events)

Certainly these are points to question and consider. I still don't think the devil is in the details of this story, but the underlying personal philosophy behind these points. Noting such, I really don't have a desire to banter back and forth over the finer details of the story itself, as I consider them irrelevant to what Rand was saying - not about government, business, etc. but about ourselves and what we, as individuals, want and choose to foster in our society- and within ourselves.

My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.

reply

[–] SnoopyStyle 12 years ago

1. It would certainly cut down on the cost of shipping.
It's a 1-way trip... on train... directly from foundry to work site. The fractional savings is too small to calculate.
it would also be an integral selling point in the manufacture of bridges as seen in the film.
The bridge was decided later in the film. So it doesn't answer why they keep pointing to its lightweight even before then. And weight is not as big issue for a bridge than for a building.
It might even be an advantage in how much of a foundation they have to set beneath the tracks (and later, buildings).
They're replacing the tracks, not replacing the foundations nor a new building. So what does it have to do with THIS project. And considering the impact of a train, the weight of the tracks AGAIN has little consequence.
Is it a major selling point? Probably not. But it is a noteworthy advantage.
You're missing the point that it might be important to have a lightweight steel but JUST NOT IN THIS PROJECT.

2. It came up when Dagny Taggart and Henry Rearden were all excited discussing the new steel. They were listing all kinds of new uses which begs the question.
"Why use Rails as the test case? since other uses would compliment the many advances of the material."
And the new steel would have to replace CARBON FIBER not Aluminum for aircraft use.

3. Surely, a new metal that had far-reaching implications, as would steel or aluminum.
Well make it a truly new metal. THAT's my point. Why a metal in use for 1000's of years? We've used it for effectively for over 2000 years. But the latest improvement is MAGIC?

4. The points were that Rearden wouldn't release his steel for testing by "government approved" testing facilities.
This is where the story bends too far to satisfy a political point. Why wouldn't ANYBODY send it to test? And literally (I ain't kidding) 10000s of testing equipment are out there to do the testing. Any materials lab in any college/university/research/foundry/insurance ... the list goes on. I assume it has patent protection. In which case, it's not a secret. It makes no sense.
A small change, try "INSURANCE APPROVED" testing facilities. That could actually work. No insurance would approve, and there's a big business conspiracy with the insurance companys.

5. Isn't that one of the "scare tactics" folks used to prompt government action against Rearden Metals- not due to a shortage of iron ore, but a potential shortage of iron ore customers? (akin to what the "Big Three" did to the Tucker car in Oliver Stone's perspective of the events)
A shortage of iron ore customers?? what the heck does that mean?
And again the old rails would be recycled. No old Tucker cars would be recycled.
There're many new areas to mine iron ore like Australia, South America, Africa than the 1940s. Iron isn't scarce.
Finally you're looking into 70 years ago for examples. You just proved how out-of-date this movie feels.

I still don't think the devil is in the details of this story, but the underlying personal philosophy behind these points.
One point I agree with you. The details are not what this movie is about. The science is all wrong, the business feels fake, but nobody responsible cares. It's a message movie and everything else is subservient.

reply

[–] gabby_bm 12 years ago

1. It would certainly cut down on the cost of shipping.
It's a 1-way trip... on train... directly from foundry to work site. The fractional savings is too small to calculate.
it would also be an integral selling point in the manufacture of bridges as seen in the film.
The bridge was decided later in the film. So it doesn't answer why they keep pointing to its lightweight even before then. And weight is not as big issue for a bridge than for a building.
It might even be an advantage in how much of a foundation they have to set beneath the tracks (and later, buildings).
They're replacing the tracks, not replacing the foundations nor a new building. So what does it have to do with THIS project. And considering the impact of a train, the weight of the tracks AGAIN has little consequence.
Is it a major selling point? Probably not. But it is a noteworthy advantage.
You're missing the point that it might be important to have a lightweight steel but JUST NOT IN THIS PROJECT.

I would agree, the properties of the metal are probably not integral to this particular project. But wasn't Dagny's main priority affording to replace the rail? I'm under the impression that Rand's intention was to present a deal that was "mutually beneficial" to each party. Certainly the advantage in this deal wasn't the integrity of the metal inasmuch as the integrity of the deal. It was in Rearden's interest to get his metal sold and put to use and Dagny's interest to get it at a good price.
The lightweightedness of the metal certainly worked to Rearden's advantage in selling the bridge idea to Dagny who originally had no intention of replacing the bridge.

2. It came up when Dagny Taggart and Henry Rearden were all excited discussing the new steel. They were listing all kinds of new uses which begs the question. "Why use Rails are the test case? since other uses would compliment the many advances of the material." And the new steel would have to replace CARBON FIBER not Aluminum for aircraft use.
Unfortunately, Rearden didn't have any non-railroad owners clamoring for his metal as of yet. So it seems that Dagny's line would have to be the test-case for lack of any other interests at that present time. That's probably why Rearden was so pushy about the bridge project. That would be a good (public)test of his metal compared to the tracks. The trick then would be getting other manufacturers on board.
And since not all aircraft are made of carbon fiber, nor are there plans to completely make that switch as of yet (still cost-prohibitive? production limitions? I don't know.) I think aluminum was still a viable product to replace in aircraft, though I agree it does seem to be 'behind the times'. Maybe carbon fiber for aircraft was discarded by 2016 or all the manufacturers went belly up by then.

Well make it a truly new metal. THAT's my point. Why a metal in use for 1000's of years? We've used it for effectively for over 2000 years. But the latest improvement is MAGIC?
Well, it IS a work of fiction. "Star Trek" introduced "transparent aluminum". And I can see how metallurgists could develop ways of improving the weight and durability of metal compounds at the atomic or even subatomic level. (or am I being too optimistic here?)

This is where the story bends too far to satisfy a political point. Why wouldn't ANYBODY send it to test? And literally (I ain't kidding) 10000s of testing equipment are out there to do the testing. Any materials lab in any college/university/research/foundry/insurance ... the list goes on. I assume it has patent protection. In which case, it's not a secret. It makes no sense.
A small change, try "INSURANCE APPROVED" testing facilities. That could actually work. No insurance would approve, and there's a big business conspiracy with the insurance companys.
I'm under the impression that no one got their hands on it TO test it. Hell, i didn't even see any factory workers in the film! And apparently Rearden didn't put enough faith in the government to protect his patent rights.

Yes, this was definitely to satisfy a political point that when pushed into a corner by businesses "too big to fail" that the government will bend the rules/laws/morality.

A shortage of iron ore customers?? what the heck does that mean?
And again the old rails would be recycled. No old Tucker cars would be recycled.
There're many new areas to mine iron ore like Australia, South America, Africa than the 1940s. Iron isn't scarce.
Finally you're looking into 70 years ago for examples. You just proved how out-of-date this movie feels.
That if his metal is so damn good, it will be a threat to the steel manufacturers, just as if carbon fiber becomes the "new aluminum" in all facets of manufacturing and packaging, that Alcoa, Kaiser,etc might feel threatened - and raise a stink with the government as well. Rand's premise being that the government will interfere with free trade and basic progress to satisfy those who line their pockets or create enough fear to exact some particular course of action.

Like we both have agreed upon, the devil is not in the details, but the overriding philosophy. The details have their own little demons to contend with. Picking apart the story details themselves is like picking apart the science or politics of a Crichton or Clancy film. It's a good exercise, but hardly has much bearing on what she's really trying to say - which probably can't really be presented without the inclusion of a few 'strawmen' to hit the message home.

My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.

reply

[–] SnoopyStyle 12 years ago

Henry Rearden: I'm curious... is it alright with you that I'm squeezing every penny of profit I can from your emergency?
Dagny Taggart: I have to get the Rio Norte completely re-railed in nine months or Taggart Transcontinental will crash.
Henry Rearden: They're doing their best to make it harder for you aren't they?

I don't remember price as the big selling point but Rearden tried to gouge her. I've been thinking. Did they say the new Steel would be CHEAPER? Imagine if that's the big selling point. Wouldn't that solve so many problems? So many things would be more logical. Perfect solution? No, but it certainly would help.

Well, it IS a work of fiction. "Star Trek" introduced "transparent aluminum". And I can see how metallurgists could develop ways of improving the weight and durability of metal compounds at the atomic or even subatomic level. (or am I being too optimistic here?)
You're talking about nanotechnology which has continued potential. For steel, that tends to mean adding nanomaterials. It actually has a long illustrious history in steel. But it doesn't weight much different. It's still Steel with little mircrobits added. The hope is it makes for stronger, more uniform material and maybe these inclusions stop the advancement of cracks in the metals.

And apparently Rearden didn't put enough faith in the government to protect his patent rights.
The point is if he apply for a patent, then it's in the patent of what the Steel is made of and even how it's made depending on what you patenting. It's NOT a secret. It should be in the patent accessible by the public.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS MOVIE LOGIC. My brain hurts.

That if his metal is so damn good, it will be a threat to the steel manufacturers, just as if carbon fiber becomes the "new aluminum" in all facets of manufacturing and packaging, that Alcoa, Kaiser,etc might feel threatened - and raise a stink with the government as well. Rand's premise being that the government will interfere with free trade and basic progress to satisfy those who line their pockets or create enough fear to exact some particular course of action.
First the steel industry is so limited that it has no political power. No matter how you swing it, this is a problematic premise of who wants to stop a new steel product AND have the political clout. I don't know who this bad guy could be. Obviously the political doctrine of the movie dictates it has to be the government no matter how illogical.

Picking apart the story details themselves is like picking apart the science or politics of a Crichton or Clancy film.
The difference is whether it's Crichton's dinosaurs or Clancy's submarine, their science or politics is possible no matter how unlikely. Nothing here make any sense at all. It's like Ayn Rand has no understanding of material science or business practices.

-----------------------------------

BTW Carbon fiber is replacing all materials in aircraft productions. All the new planes have carbon fiber parts not just the body/wing, but everything includ seats except cushions. It's been happening in the last 10 years. In another 10 years, all new planes will have majority carbon fiber. The fuel savings from its reduced weight exceeds its cost which continues to drop.

And carbon fiber gives you an insight into how Real Life actually works. It's the new light weight material that's replacing older materials. SOUND Familiar? Aluminum producer like Alcoa can't stop it. Government isn't interested in stopping it. Aircraft producers aren't trying to hide it. Instead they're doing research to advance it's use.
THAT'S REAL BUSINESS LIFE. CARBON FIBER IS THE REAL "NEW STEEL".

reply

[–] BlackJAC 12 years ago

...it would be the bauxite mining concerns, because Popular Mechanics stated that recycling aluminum means that no new bauxite needs to be mined to make more aluminum. Seems like we got some more of those bureaucrats blocking the deployment of certain technologies at work here, and should expect an Aircraft Construction Materials Freedom Of Choice Act bill from McWhiny the Aqua Buddhist soon.

reply

[–] SnoopyStyle 12 years ago

McWho the What? I don't know if you're kidding, but it's hard to tell especially after watching this movie. There's always a small chance that you're serious.
At least you sound like you wrote this movie. The ideology dictates the government as the bad guy no matter how illogical.

reply

[–] Anon45876 8 years ago

The government is the "bad guy" when the government doesn't remain within its Constitutionally allowed powers. The government is the "bad guy" when it interferes in the markets, which always causes shortages.

reply

[–] Anon45876 8 years ago

She likely doesn't have an understanding of materials science, although you can't say for sure that she has none. It's less likely that you can claim she has no knowledge of business practices. She did grow up in the USSR, so she saw how government interference in the markets and economy strangled all initiative to create and produce. That is the central point here. The same can currently be seen in Venezuela. They have a shortage of food and electricity because of socialism. I've known people who grew up in the USSR who are now in the USA. They tend to understand the value of the free market better than many in the USA. They start successful businesses that many of us think would be impossible to do. We aren't as free as we should be or as free as we have been in the USA, but they are freer here than they were in the USSR. For that reason, we see restrictions and road blocks where they see opportunity Still, they see with a keener sense than many of us that we are heading in the wrong direction. It is disturbing how many people support Bernie Sanders when he is an admitted socialist.

reply

[–] mikidnan 12 years ago

I'm appalled at how many "smart" people think this story is about steel or its uses and/or advantages. We're talking about people, movers/shakers and losers/takers. Of course, the details about the story line are not scientifically reliable; but the principles of the message are not only sound, but current and everlasting. In essence, the entire novel is about the nature of man and what he needs to survive as what he was created/evolved to be. Thanks, Snoopy, for your closing line -- at last a semblance of sense and understanding!

reply

[–] SnoopyStyle 12 years ago

My point is everytime they say the word "Steel", it takes me out of the movie. It's ridiculousness just makes no sense. And would be evident to anyone with a minimal understanding of steel.

Perhaps ignorance is bliss. So if people don't know anything, they are more accepting of the film's message. And they wouldn't be distracted by all the non-sense.

reply

[–] Anon45876 8 years ago

Maybe your obsession with steel is what is distracting. Others can read or watch without undue distraction from the story, and calling them ignorant is unfair. Most see it as a vehicle to make a logical point. I think you are missing out on the bigger picture and larger points because of this concentration on steel.

reply

[–] There_Is_No_Sayid 11 years ago

But the details DO matter. I mean, yes, there's a certain level where you can call this just nit picking. But what Rand is presenting is a vision which is essentially supposed to be true. Rand's vision of the world is supposed to be based in objective reality and yet so many of her suppositions are pure fantasy. For example, I've earlier railed (no pun intended) about her choice of railroads as the industry of the main character. For someone who exalts the individual proprietor and loathes government interference in the market this is a supremely idiotic choice since no railroad in American history ever got off the ground without government subsidies.

"Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything."

reply

[–] formerninja 11 years ago

I think the point that folks are missing about the lighter weight, is the fact that since it weighs less and is stronger, means it TAKES less to equal the same strength as steel. Imagine the amount of steel they would have needed to use to make that huge bridge, it probably weighed a ton. Now, imagine if you could get the same STRENGTH, only using less material. That would be better. Meaning it WOULD be cheaper than steel. This makes it a strong selling point. It's cheaper because it takes less. The shipping cost is affected because it weighs so much less, and they have to use less fuel to transport it. I remember they said that fuel costs were like 40 bucks a gallon or somethin in that movie. So yeah, imagine using less fuel. If they make the tracks out of light weight material, then eventually they may end up making the trains out of lighter material. The fact that it's light definitely is a strong selling point.

reply

[–] Heretic_Of_Jeff_Bezos 11 years ago

I think the point that folks are missing about the lighter weight, is the fact that since it weighs less and is stronger, means it TAKES less to equal the same strength as steel.

No. We got that. It's just that steel is strong enough for what it's used for. Otherwise, it wouldn't be used.

Now, imagine if you could get the same STRENGTH, only using less material. That would be better. Meaning it WOULD be cheaper than steel.

The book blatantly says it's not cheaper. I don't understand what you're trying to say...

The shipping cost is affected because it weighs so much less, and they have to use less fuel to transport it.

This isn't a big cost in building railroads. Labor is much more.

If they make the tracks out of light weight material, then eventually they may end up making the trains out of lighter material. The fact that it's light definitely is a strong selling point.

First of all, aluminum and carbon fiber would be much lighter and cheaper than steel. Cheaper too. That's why planes are built out of those materials instead of steel. Also, being light is not a strong selling point for building bridges because weight is not a huge concern since a bridge is made to bear weight. Matter of fact, a heavier bridge would be ideal because it can bear more weight. Think about the three little piggies: was the straw, sticks, or brick the strongest?

I am the prophet of the IMDb Mod Gods. They act when I call.

reply

[–] formerninja 11 years ago

but carbon fiber and aluminum aren't as strong, nor 10x as strong as steel. I didn't read the book I watched the first movie. So I'm saying, imagine trying to get the same amount of strength as the rearden metal, from the same amount of weight of steel. It ain't happening. It's cheaper in the long run too, because it outlasts steel. Imagine how much it woulda cost to replace that whole line using steel. All costs considered, if you measure that out over 1000 years, which is the better investment. In the end, the rearden metal proves to be less expensive. It's cheaper since it lasts longer. Also,don't be a douche and try and quote every single line someone says and disect it. It's disrespectful. This is just a conversational fora, not a damn scholastic journal.

reply

[–] Heretic_Of_Jeff_Bezos 11 years ago

Imagine how much it woulda cost to replace that whole line using steel.

It wouldn't cost as much as you think.

The old steel rails would be melted down and reused. Very little new steel would even be needed. If you don't reuse the steel, you are in fact wasting lots of it.

I am the prophet of the IMDb Mod Gods. They act when I call.

reply

[–] formerninja 11 years ago

Imagine the direct labor involved in reclaiming the steel. Then reprocessing the steel, THEN they could rebuild it. That's like way more labor than necessary. Yeah, it's possible, and we don't actually have rearden metal, but Direct Labor is a huge factor in accounting for the cost of a product. Think of the extra cost of shipping, you have to double handle the rails, so it's a ton of gas going to the foundry, and then a ton of gas bringing it back.

reply

[–] phantom2-2 11 years ago

except they use the railroad to haul the rails back and forth, and it almost certainly goes right to the steel mill - no gas required.

of course the whole "we must rerail the entire line" story line is ridiculous anyways, since that's not how railroads operate in real life. train tracks aren't like dress pants, where if you get a hole in the knee you have to replace the whole pair of pants.

but in the crazy world of atlas shrugged, that's what they do.

reply

[–] Anon45876 8 years ago

Nope, nope and NOPE. Railroads need to be re-railed. It does happen. I take it you don't even have a passing knowledge of the railroad industry by your remarks. In my neck of the woods, there is a freight line which needs to be re-railed but apparently they haven't budgeted for it yet. Because of this, they have reduced the speed limit. This was also the case on a specific length of track when I took Amtrak once. It was a reduced speed limit for both freight and passenger trains because of the condition of that portion. It's sad this is the case in America that such projects can't be taken on sooner. Another freight line in my area was re-railed because it was more of a priority, and yes, it was the entire line.

reply

[–] phantom2-2 8 years ago

This was also the case on a specific length of track when I took Amtrak once.

thank you for agreeing with me.

often it's not the rails themselves that need replacing but the rail bed that needs work, and they probably would look at replacing the rails at that time too, if they needed it.

in any case the rails will be delivered (and taken away) by train.

reply

[–] Anon45876 8 years ago

Not much for context, are you? Give it a read again. I wasn't agreeing with you. The tracks themselves are wearable items.

reply

[–] phantom2-2 8 years ago

not much for context, are you?

since my point was not that track doesn't wear out (it does) but that it's very unlikely to all wear out at the same time and would be replaced in sections, you most certainly made my point for me. straight sections wear out much slower than curves, for instance. if dagny was your track manager for amtrack she'd be replacing every single rail from new york to orlando whether it needed it or not. if you're going to nitpick an argument, you should at least understand what you're nitpicking.

and the main point i was making originally was that the rail would be replaced by trains, not trucks or whatever other gas-consuming transportation he was thinking of, so transportation costs would be minimal. i suspect the labor cost to replace the track isn't nearly as high as he thinks, either - we don't have thousands of coolies laying track anymore.

reply

[–] phantom2-2 11 years ago

no, a heavier bridge doesn't carry more weight as long as it's the same strength. think about it - the bridge has to support itself, plus the payload. the heavier the bridge, the less capacity for payload.

i think the success of the various porcine domiciles is due to the strength of the materials, not their weight. the wolf couldn't blow down the brick house, so you never even hear about the fourth piggie in the carbon-fiber house.

reply

[–] gcattanach 11 years ago

You are wrong about what the book says about the cost:

"Because it's tougher than steel, cheaper than steel and will outlast any hunk of metal in existence."

Part 1, Chapter 1.

It is far more durable, cheaper, lighter, and melts at a much higher temperature.
I presume you really haven't read the book.

reply

[–] LalocheziaAddict 11 years ago

> 1. It would certainly cut down on the cost of shipping.
It's a 1-way trip... on train... directly from foundry to work site. The fractional savings is too small to calculate.

Maybe my mind is making this up and I am definitely too lazy to go back and check but I thought they said it was half the weight and ten times the strength.

---
I cheer a little inside each time I see 'too' used correctly instead of 'to.'

reply

[–] gabby_bm 11 years ago

I think it was only twice as strong (as opposed to ten times) and half the weight. Still, when you can pull two freight cars of the material for the price of one, that's a train twice in length which is a cost-saving factor. In 2009, the average cost per car @ 62 tons was about $1750 per car. Think of sending twice as much at the same price. A 100-car shipment would save you $175,000. That's no small roll of nickels there.

And of course, that's 2009 prices. Imagine how much it would be in Rand's world in 2016. It could easily be upward of $1,000,000 savings per 100-car shipment.

"Oh that's nice, sweetie" = Grandma's version of "cool story, bro"
#3

reply

[–] Jaymz13 11 years ago

The company was called Rearden Steel. The new metal was never referred to as steel. It was called Rearden metal. They developed this new metal, but had been in the steel industry for many years prior to this. And steel has most definitely not been around for 2000 years. Iron has, but iron and steel are not synonymous. Steel was developed in the mid-1700's.

Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

reply

[–] toothpastelaser 10 years ago

"And steel has most definitely not been around for 2000 years. Iron has, but iron and steel are not synonymous. Steel was developed in the mid-1700's."

This is false. It may be true that the name "steel" saw popular use later, but when metal fatigue became a life-or-death issue relating to bridge construction, those seeking a more durable material deliberately researched the techniques and composition of what had previously been referred to as "good iron" by blacksmiths of the ancient world. "Good iron" was wrought until it retained the ideal amount of carbon impurity to lend it flexibility and strength; i.e. "good iron" is/was steel, which definitely HAS been around even longer than 2000 years - try 2300 or more. This is objectively a fact, and hopefully being informed thus will cause you to at least consider putting your error-ridden posting here on hold so that you can conduct some badly needed personal research on the current topic. ;)

BTW, jumping into a discussion like this when you don't have a working grasp of freely available facts is typically a bad move, but I wouldn't expect anything more from someone trying to defend a derivative work of an Ayn Rand source text!

reply

[–] arturo92376-572-519193 9 years ago

Replying to this kind of late, but a recent advancement in iron-aluminium alloys has led to the development of a material that has the properties of titanium alloys at 1/10th of the cost. It is a pretty big deal when such advancements are made.

reply

[–] There_Is_No_Sayid 12 years ago

Not to mention that any rail line of any length anywhere in the country only ever got started cause of government subsidies.

"Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything."

reply

[–] SnoopyStyle 12 years ago

I think everybody has their own bone to pick. There's just so many I couldn't list them all.

reply

[–] imdb-15906 12 years ago

Haven't seen the movie, but the book had something called Reardon Metal. Its composition wasn't described.

reply

[–] SnoopyStyle 12 years ago

Well, it's steel in the movie... just a new and improved version.

reply

[–] KobiyashiMauru 12 years ago

This book, Atlas Shrugged, was published in 1957. So it should have been set in the 50's or early 1960's. That being said, the steel and railroads were BIG at that time. The extent of Governmental Control that Ayn Rand warned about wouldn't come into full fruition until 2008. So look upon it as Barack Obama and his federal Anus Holes set in the late 50's and early 60's. Hope this helps.

reply

[–] SnoopyStyle 12 years ago

I think you missed it by at least 30-100 years.

Steel's been in use for well over 2000 years. It's biggest use being weapons. The new change you refer to was it's use in skyscrappers culminating in the 1920/30's New York. Obviously railroads were started even earlier. By the 1950/60s, steel should be old-OLD news and standard practice.

Even if I give her leeway for being a novice, you'd expect her to do a minimal amount of research in the industry that she hoped to be writing about. Maybe imdb-15906 is right, and Rand didn't use Steel in the books. In which case, the filmmakers really screw things up.

And I didn't hear about Obama's takeover of the Railways or Iron production or that anybody has any trouble finding Materials testing facility.

reply

[–] KobiyashiMauru 12 years ago

You are missing the ENTIRE point of the novel/movie. It's about the interference of Government and a few cronies in industry who USE "Legal impediments" to stiffle innovation and progress. It doesn't matter if it's steel or healthcare or free cellphones for idiots. It's all the same. Stupid people telling smart people how to work, live and not prosper.

reply

[–] SnoopyStyle 12 years ago

Well that's the theory, and it would make for interesting read in an academic essay.
But as a story, it fails utterly. If it makes no sense in a story, then it makes the central message meaningless.

reply

[–] KobiyashiMauru 12 years ago

Well if THAT'S the case EVERY fantasy and science fiction movie in the history of the world is useless and meaningless. Since most of those premises are utterly fantastic and unbelievable.

reply

[–] SnoopyStyle 12 years ago

I don't consider this as strictly Sci Fi. And I find it interesting that you'd classify this as fantasy. That kinda says it all.

But even those catagories have requirements for logic. They still need to lay out their own movie-logic that they have to follow. Or else they face the same problem. I've had discussions on 'Revolution' about its TV logic. It doesn't get a free pass just because its Sci-Fi.

Finally, if the message is meant to be realistic, and the movie takes place in the real world, then the movie needs to be realistic. You can't just fake Steel and fake logic. That's why a fake material could have helped. They could make it even more a fantasy. Make it a fake country. Some fake tech. Still wouldn't solve everything.

reply

[–] gabby_bm 12 years ago

It was definitely a new product. That some referred to it as his new "steel" is like calling sparkling wine "champagne". Those who fully understand it know better, but calling it "steel" is a lot simpler (for the simple folk) and uses less vocal effort than its technical name.

My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.

reply

[–] SnoopyStyle 12 years ago

Sparkling wine is literally a rose by any other name to champagne. The only difference is where it comes from. Legally, champagne have to come from the Champagne region of France.

I'm not reading the book. So maybe the filmmakers dumbed the movie down (for the simple folk). It doesn't argue that it made the movie any better. Just a lot dumber.

reply

[–] toothpastelaser 10 years ago

lmao. Work done on this thread

reply

[–] KobiyashiMauru 12 years ago

You are living in Barack Hussein ObaMAO's fantasy world of a recovered Soviet Style economy. Right now! Atlas Shrugged is a movie that helps to explain what is actually happening in the United States, RIGHT NOW. This from an ex-Soviet transplant emigree, Ayn Rand. The steel is irrelevant. Substitute Oil, Natural Gas, Coal, Manufacturing, Small Business, everything except protected Wall Street Institutions and you have it all around you.

reply

[–] SnoopyStyle 12 years ago

You're a True Believer, and that's fine. But all your faith can't make this a good movie or a logical story.

I'm the one who keeps insisting that the filmmaker should have substitued Steel. However, I get the sense that nobody would do any reasearch no matter what the subject is.

reply

[–] KobiyashiMauru 12 years ago

The use of steel, to me, doesn't impact the film one bit. I don't consider this film a masterpiece, but it's thought provoking. Kinda explains what's going on in the World today.

reply

[–] gabby_bm 12 years ago

So maybe....Unobtanium from Pandora would have been better?

My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.

reply

[–] SnoopyStyle 12 years ago

gabby bm
There's a good reason why Avatar is superior in everyway to This movie. Consider it to be a message film wrapped in a sci-fi thriller. It's something Atlas can only hope to be.

reply

[–] gabby_bm 12 years ago

I would have to disagree with you there. I may be in the minority, but I found "Avatar" unbearably dull with unlikeable, cliched characters, a mundane plot, tiresome sets, and mentally-numbing dialogue.

...much how others perceive "Atlas Shrugged", I suppose.

The fact that it made billions whereas this film lost money is not so much a testament to the films' properties but a sad and sorry testament to the tastes and desires of the general public. Avatar is truly the "Star Wars" of these modern times. All bun...no beef.

My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.

reply

[–] SnoopyStyle 12 years ago

Complaints about Avatar is perfectly reasonable, but you can't be serious about Star Wars. If you don't like Star Wars, then there's no point in watching any sci-fi. Maybe you don't like Sci-fi, or some kind of Sci-fi snob.

Cliches are hallmarks of Sci-fi, and dialogue is always stilted with technolese. Sure the actors in Star Wars all complained about the dialogue, but nobody can expect flowery or some kind of Mamet/Sorkin rapid fire. That's photon geek talk for you.

And tiresome sets? I have complained about video game CG in many movies. Especially unrealistic CG people bouncing around like a video game. But Avatar is far superior in its CG. It's one thing I have nothing but praise. Maybe the military barracks were too spartan for you but that was very fitting to me.

reply

[–] bdbdbd-1 11 years ago

I see the movie was not to your liking. Worse things have happened. Why dwell on it? In the time it took to write all of your comments you could have watched Toy Story 3. I haven't met anyone who disliked that one.

reply

[–] SnoopyStyle 11 years ago

Why I keep writing the comments? Cause I started the thread. I figure I have the responsibility to reply to anyone who takes the time to comment on my original post. That's just me.

As for disliking this movie, sure I did but it wasn't the worst. I gave a 4/10. It was salvageable if smarter writers could do a couple of rewrites.

reply

[–] gabby_bm 11 years ago

I would have liked Toy Story 3 more had it been a poignant story of loss and aging with the toys being burned in the incinerator. But then again, I never got "attached" to the toys in the movies either, so doing so might have just seemed vicious to the big fans.

My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.

reply

[–] bdbdbd-1 11 years ago

I would have liked Toy Story 3 more had it been a poignant story of loss and aging with the toys being burned in the incinerator.

It's funny you should say that. I was more disappointed than relieved when the toys were rescued from the furnace. The way they were all joining hands as they slid to their doom was such a bold and moody ending. But the farewell playtime at the little girl's house was even better, I thought. But anyway, enough sidetracking.

reply

[–] gabby_bm 11 years ago

I'm not a heartless guy. i was moved by the ending as well. But i figured those kids who saw the first Toy Story were about 15 years older, and it would have been a real Oscar moment.

My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.

reply

[–] gabby_bm 11 years ago

If you don't like Star Wars, then there's no point in watching any sci-fi. Maybe you don't like Sci-fi, or some kind of Sci-fi snob.

yeah, I might be a sci-fi snob. But I'm not a pretentious one. it's probably because my momma raised me on good sci-fi writers. Like I said, Star Wars was pretty, but there wasn't a whole lot going on beyond visual and audio stimulation. I can't even imagine how much story-padding had to be done to the novelization just to bring it over 100 pages.

The dialogue was befitting to the story. At least it was consistent all the way through - which is more than I can say for Terminator 2.

When I say "Avatar" has tiresome sets, it's not to complain about the job they did with them (it wasn't nearly as laughingly pathetic as the CGI in Spiderman or 2003's Incredible Hulk, for instance). I meant "tiresome" in it was exhaustingly overstimulating to the eyes to look at for extended periods of time. The scenes that weren't out in the planet's ecosystem were probably the most enjoyable for me.

Maybe for the kids who play video games all day on their Xbox it was fine and dandy watching a computer-generated forest for a prolonged period. Speaking for myself, it became tiresome and draining.
But I can certainly accept that I, being an old fuddyduddy, was not part of the target audience for the film.

My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.

reply

[–] SnoopyStyle 11 years ago

Well snob it is.

I don't think Star Wars ever pretended to be more than what it was. Which is a classic good vs evil adventure. Don't look for subtlety. It basically change film history, and people will still point to it 100 years from now.

As for getting tired watching all the new fandangle CG visuals, all I can say is just relax and unfocuse every once in a while. Don't concentrate too hard and let your eyes rest every once in awhile. That's the new cinema. Can't avoid it ... unless you decide to just watch rom-coms or indies.

reply

[–] gabby_bm 11 years ago

I agree. Star Wars never pretended to be more. I guess I was just misled by the lines around the block and hearing it was the greatest movie ever. But it did change film history and I can certainly thank Lucas for leading the way in enhancing nearly every space-based film (and TV show) ever since.

My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.

reply

[–] phantom2-2 11 years ago

the lines around the block didn't mislead you, they told you that "this is a phenomenally popular movie" - and it was. :)

star wars the greatest ever? i don't think so, but it's the movie i've seen in theaters most often (only stood in those block long lines 14 times). the story was slight, but fun - and it looked amazing in 70mm.

for me, the difference between star wars and avatar is that star wars looked great, but also "real", and had multiple good characters with a cool idea or two (the death star, the force, jedi vs sith). avatar looked pretty and "almost real" - with way too many "look at the cool 3d effect for no purpose other than to show the cool 3d effect!" shots and a lame, too-predictable story (pocahontas in space).

reply

[–] SnoopyStyle 11 years ago

I'm glad I saw the original version of Star Wars before Lucas started to mess around with it. Too bad not in theater.

"Real" F/X vs CG
There's a real visceral sense of danger we derive from "Real" F/X. That's my biggest complaint about CG. It's not dangerous. Some of the biggest OMG moments in movies happen with "Real" F/X. I still remember a massive truck that almost ran over some Extras when it rolled down a mud hill as 10 guys ran for their lives. I must have watched it 10X, but I couldn't possibly name which B-movie exploitation it was. It was that Crazy.

Avatar is the pinnacle of where CG is right now. I especially love the faces. If you compare it to Adventures of Tintin, it still wins hands down. But you're right, there is still a need of real F/X. Immersion is not enough if we know it's fake. CG is still best as add-on to real F/X.

I thought Avatar was more Dances with Wolves in space.

reply

[–] phantom2-2 11 years ago

ah, the original star wars on the big screen really was That Good, and the bigger the screen the better. lucas's subsequent visual tinkerings haven't added anything. the death star blows up more prettily? who cares? my new hope (hah!) is that now that disney owns it, we'll see "star wars classic" in theaters again. i'd go see that, in a heartbeat.

real f/x are what make the movies magical. there's a sense of illusion that you just don't get from cg, and knowing that something was done "for real" impresses me on an unconscious level. the cg of avatar is nice, but i've played enough computer games that it seems routine. the real effects of a film like verdun, visions d'histoire from 1928 still blow me away.

dances with wolves...pocahontas...not much difference there either, eh? :)

reply

[–] gabby_bm 11 years ago

I would have to agree also. I think the main thing for me, about real F/X, is that they feel like they have substance and weight to them that CG just can't seem to get right. From Spiderman's swinging on the web to the dragons in Avatar, I just never got the sense that they had weight and that they were prone to the effects of physics like everything else in the world.

And yes, I too, in the back of my mind, have a real appreciation for the amount of work and planning it takes to execute a physical special effect which raises my interest far more than computer programming graphics.

And are you sure it wasn't FernGully in space?

My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.

reply

[–] SnoopyStyle 11 years ago

No Wait It's 'Medicine Man' in space....

reply

[–] phantom2-2 12 years ago

avatar is the modern star wars? not hardly.

the original star wars still holds up very well as entertainment and as an imaginary universe. avatar is already fading away.

reply

[–] phantom2-2 12 years ago

avatar was superior in every way? uh, no.

as bad as atlas shrugged is, at least the story is original.

atlas with an avatar-scale budget might almost be watchable.

reply

[–] SnoopyStyle 11 years ago

Every krappy story is krappy in its own unique original way. Being original by itself is nothing. Being a cliche is often a good thing. Cliches get repeated over and over again. There's a reason for the repeat business. Some of the best stories get repeated throughout history whether it's biblical, Homer, or Grimm.

IMDB estimated $20M budget. You're not getting Avatar $237M budget. For $20, you see most of it on the screen. Maybe they could scrap together another $10. But the money wasn't the big problem.

reply

[–] SnoopyStyle 12 years ago

KobiyashiMauru
So the thing central to the story is of no importance to you?
How does it explain the World if they can't even explain steel?

reply

[–] KobiyashiMauru 11 years ago

Steel was just used to illustrate a point. If you didn't see the point then I guess the steel would become a distraction.

reply

[–] SnoopyStyle 11 years ago

The thing is Steel was much more than a simple Hitchcockian MacGuffin. The movie continuously revolved around it. And film maker continuously tried to explain it and get it wrong. A MacGuffin is a simple say it and forget it. It's not the case here.

Even if we use my suggest of replacing Steel with a mysterious new material, there still needed many adjustments. But at least, if they say (for example) the new material is much lighter, they wouldn't sound pathetic.

It's like saying submarines don't matter in Hunt for Red October. or cars don't matter in Tucker. Sure, you could write these movies with completely different things. But NO MATTER what the thing is, You better know what you're writing about or else it's going to suck. Know what the difference is, those films KNOW what they're talking about.

reply

[–] gabby_bm 11 years ago

I just took it to be shorthand for the metal. Much like calling tennis shoes "tennis shoes" even though they're not even designed for tennis. My telephone no longer "rings", but i still say it rings because that's a commonly used term. And so that's how I saw it when some refer to it as "steel". It's just a lot shorter and simpler a term than the more technical one.

Even Hank refers to it as his "metal".

My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.

reply

[–] SnoopyStyle 11 years ago

Nobody actually calls Not-STeel materials Steel. And the fact was the main characters were calling it Steel, not a layman from the streets. It would be odd for them to call it steel if it wasn't actually steel.

Also if it wasn't Steel, it would be benefitial to differentiate themselves by calling it something else. That's Branding 101.

reply

[–] gabby_bm 11 years ago

I know it's not in the book, but I think it was called "Stee3l", the three being silent, of course.

My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.

reply

[–] SnoopyStyle 11 years ago

That would be TOO funny.
Exactly how a teenage girl would write it.
Does she dot her i's with hearts?

reply

[–] gabby_bm 11 years ago

When she's not too busy watching "Atlas Shrugged: The Twilight Edition
"

My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.

reply

[–] toothpastelaser 10 years ago

Quick, pass me some of that steel! *Visible items are: some copper coins, a copy of "Kazaam" on VHS cassette and a foam finger bearing the logo of Pittsburgh's NFL team*

reply

[–] There_Is_No_Sayid 11 years ago

Most scifi authors don't present their novels as telling actual truths about how human society is or should be organized.

"Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything."

reply

[–] toothpastelaser 10 years ago

Are you joking? Almost all sci-fi - and most fiction writing - intends to "[tell] actual truths about how human society is or should be organized."

reply

[–] There_Is_No_Sayid 11 years ago

You seem to be missing the point of the OP and other posters, Rand's premises are faulty and so her criticism of government intervention in the marketplace is off base. It would be like me saying that government shouldn't interfere in the marketplace because doing so causes unicorns to cry and leprechauns to get hemorrhoids. Without any basis in reality, which the OP feels Rand lacks, her critique is meaningless.

And stifling of innovation and competition isn't cured by a free market. Established entities are ALWAYS going to try and stop competitors from entering the market. Indeed, they were MUCH MUCH MUCH more efficient in doing so in the "good old days" before the government got involved in regulating competition.

"Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything."

reply

[–] gabby_bm 11 years ago

It would be like me saying that government shouldn't interfere in the marketplace because doing so causes unicorns to cry and leprechauns to get hemorrhoids.

but one could write a story that did exactly that and in doing so, point out certain "flaws" in how people think and operate. After all, I don't believe in androids, transporters, shape-shifters or warp drive, but that doesn't keep Star Trek from telling effective and perception-altering stories.

The details or even the premises aren't integral to the thoughts and philosophy behind them. Call it a plot-hole if you want, and I wouldn't argue. but that doesn't negate the ideas the story is designed to propogate.

My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.

reply

[–] There_Is_No_Sayid 11 years ago

Yes but Trek isn't trying to tell stories about the structural impact of transporters in modern society. If Rand's vision of corporations was just window dressing that would be fine. But it's integral to her real world philosophy of how society should work.

"Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything."

reply

[–] gabby_bm 11 years ago

Wouldn't it also be integral to her real world philosophy of how corporations should work as well?

My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.

reply

[–] There_Is_No_Sayid 11 years ago

Yes. But her vision is just as fantastical as transporter beams.

"Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything."

reply

[–] gabby_bm 11 years ago

But it gets her points across. Business owners like Hank Rearden are mythological, especially by today's standards. But a character like him was integral to the points she wanted to make. His was a romantic character, not unlike Mel Gibson's rendition of William Wallace or the Bible's portrayal of Jesus for that matter.

My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.

reply

[–] There_Is_No_Sayid 11 years ago

But she's arguing real world from a fantasy. It's ludicrous. She's saying "supposed unicorns exist then the world would be awesome!"

"Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything."

reply

[–] Rosebud_in_Flames 11 years ago

But she's arguing real world from a fantasy. It's ludicrous.

That's not even the pinnacle of the heights ludicrousness she achieved. In The Virtue of Selfishness, she quotes John Galt as if he were some entirely separate person - one with a great deal of gravitas, at that. If she were posting on IMDb, I'm quite certain she'd have a host of socks, all singing her praises and reiterating her arguments.

reply

[–] phantom2-2 11 years ago

i'm sure she'd be very disappointed that she only made it to #2 on the "most pretentious moments of all time" list on taibbi's blog with the moment being "ayn rand says anything at all":

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/the-10-most-preten tious-moments-in-history-readers-speak-out-20121226

i love that guy!

reply

[–] Rosebud_in_Flames 11 years ago

"Ayn Rand fits this list for many reasons, but the biggest is that she had absolutely no sense of humor. You can smoke a whole ounce of the world's most potent marijuana and not laugh a single time reading one of Rand's books."

Ain't that the truth?! Watching The Fountainhead, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter - guffaws galore!

...and, yes, Matt Taibbi is totally awesome!

reply

[–] gabby_bm 11 years ago

I thought she was telling us how to MAKE unicorns. And if we are ALL unicorns made in her image, then there will be no sorcerers trying to take away our horns. But in the meantime, those of us horny unicorns can deprive the hornless sorcerers from doing their magic by taking our horns with us into the magical gardens until the sorcerers die off and the minions beg for us to return.

Y'know....Had the movie been written like this, it might have at least broke even at the Box Office.

My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.

reply

[–] There_Is_No_Sayid 11 years ago

To some extent yes. Rand has a vision of society that doesn't yet exist. But her vision is based on premises that are fantastical. Atlas Shrugged isn't about how great it would be if the world were run by superhero industrialists. It's about how the world SHOULD be run by superhero industrialists because they're persecuted by the worthless peons.

"Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything."

reply

[–] gabby_bm 11 years ago

To be fair, her books were often too focused on the superheroes and not on the everyday joes (the plumbers?). People don't go see a Batman movie to watch Alfred- despite Alfred's value. But Alfred also didn't try to hose Batman like the peons in Rand's stories did.

My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.

reply

[–] There_Is_No_Sayid 11 years ago

But Rand was disdainful of the ordinary joes. She saw them as parasites who leeched off of the accomplishments of Great Men. It's also true that Rand's fantasy of the marketplace, like all conservative fantasies of the market, doesn't work as well when we're dealing with ordinary working people as opposed to business owners.

"Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything."

reply

[–] gabby_bm 11 years ago

I didn't see her disdainful of the ordinary joes who kept the "machine of the world" in working order. I found her disdainful of those who were the saboteurs of that machine, be it the slackers, those who interfered, or the political whores in bed with corporate 'johns'.
I will agree that Rand's presentation of the marketplace was idealistic and simplistic- especially compared to today's complicated arena. but her presentation as a foundation was still pretty sound as the "meat & potatoes" of the trade philosophy. We've just grown to overcomplicate things. It's certainly a different world than simple venders on the street, selling their apples.

Certainly Rand could never have imagined a world where an 'investor' would buy half a million shares in a company and then dump them at a profit two hours later. I don't think she would have rallied behind such a person. I think she would have considered that akin to playing a perverted game of poker, leeching off the lives and energies of others.

My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.

reply

[–] There_Is_No_Sayid 11 years ago

No she was disdainful of those who weren't titans of industry because they were, by definition, slackers and parasites who fed off of others.

"Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything."

reply

[–] gabby_bm 11 years ago

They only "feed off others" when they do not live up to the trade contract (i.e. "I perform this service for you, at this level of performance and in turn, you pay me this X-amount of dollars"). She was never disdainful of those who would live up to their end of a trade agreement.

And likewise, she would also be disdainful of the "titans of industry" if they didn't live up to THEIR end of the trade agreement, considering THEM the leeches.

There's no denying that she held an admiration for those people who worked hard and utilized their talents to build great things. But she held no admiration for those who did so with aggression, dishonesty or leveraged collusion- especially with government.

I think yours is a common misconception, that she saw anyone who wasn't a "big wig" as being a lecherous peon intent on stealing Capt. Queeg's strawberries. This is far from the truth, yet it is spread around like "factual manure".

And it sure doesn't help dispel the lie when leeching titans of industry (and Republican politicians), who do so with aggression, dishonesty or leveraged collusion tout Ayn Rand as having been a major influence and inspiration.

My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.

reply

[–] phantom2-2 11 years ago

hmmm... i'm pretty sure that at some point she says that ideas are the only things of value and that the craftsmanship to execute those ideas is worthless. i can't remember where that was, but the remark stuck with me because it was so...out there.

obviously all her characters act that way, but i am pretty sure she says that unambiguously.

reply

[–] gabby_bm 11 years ago

ideas are the only things of value and that the craftsmanship to execute those ideas is worthless.

That sounds familiar to me as well. But I believe it was in the context that the craftsmanship to build an item is worthless WITHOUT the idea to build on.

To put it in context, I'm betting there are many skilled people who would be capable of building a time machine. but without the idea of HOW to build one, that craftsmanship IS worthless.
This is, of course, solely in the context of building a time machine, as I'm sure such skills would and could be applicable in other areas of technology and craftsmanship - areas that require OTHER ideas.
It's not a devaluation of the person- only their non-applicable skills.

One could apply this to the "Atlas Shrugged" movie, for instance. All the skills and craftsmanship were in place. They had the laborers and the components. But without the idea of making a GREAT Atlas Shrugged movie, the craftsmen are only as good as the product they are crafting. They were technically adept. It's the ideas behind them that were inferior.

I'm sure not going to blame the key grips for this film's shortcomings. I will blame those who thought it was a great idea to go ahead with the project without quality ingredients.
But the key grip's skills in making an Atlas Shrugged movie were utterly worthless without the idea to go ahead with the film.

My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.

reply

[–] sammy45 8 years ago

You are missing the ENTIRE point of the novel/movie. It's about the interference of Government and a few cronies in industry who USE "Legal impediments" to stiffle innovation and progress. It doesn't matter if it's steel or healthcare or free cellphones for idiots. It's all the same. Stupid people telling smart people how to work, live and not prosper. 

Are there any real life instances where progress has been stifled by government?

reply

[–] There_Is_No_Sayid 11 years ago

The railroads and the steel industry were yesterdays businesses by the time Rand wrote her novel The railroads had stopped being the big industry in the country a generation or two earlier and US Steel had peak production in 1953.

"Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything."

reply

[–] farcoat 11 years ago

snoopy my friend

dont roll ur eyes its not manly
if ur a woman then, fine

i am holed up in a hotel w/ bad connection but i just surfed for this
and logged in just to say that u made some pretty good points here
esp with number 3

kudos snoopeh

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKAb-VOit0Q

reply

[–] barrygormley1 8 years ago

Your criticism is a tad anachronistic, don't you think? This is based on a novel from the 1950s. Now I agree there are some problems that arise from the director trying to make the film look more modern (i.e. they have the internet and news shows that look exactly like modern ones) while sticking to the original plot. It would have made more sense to keep it in a 1950s-70s type setting: presenting it as an alternate history rather than something that's happening in our own time.

reply

[–] Kling 8 years ago

3. Every time steel is mentioned, I feel like this is based on a book from the 1930s when steel was still a newish building material.

It is based on a book from 50s with a story setting around the 30s, so yes, this is correct.

reply