Could it be made into a good movie?

>good

Reardon - Henry Cavil.

Dagny - Kathryn Winnick

Galt - Bandwidthtest Condomatch.

This is perfect casting.

Nah, that's totally redundant, Rand was a Jewess who had secret Aryan-envy, her self-insert is a stronk Aryan woman, not some tubby Jewess. That would detract from it being her transracial power fantasy.

>Kathryn Winnick
Too attractive. Dagny was a Rand self-insert, and Rand looked like a fish.

Yeah, the modern version would just take it in a completely different direction. Make it a bowling comedy like Kingpin or The Big Lebowski and the Earth is a bowling ball like how the aliens at the end of Men in Black used universes to play marbles.

Attached: marbles.gif (240x130, 492.19K)

Yeah, but you're missing the point. She was her hyper-idealized fantasy; the woman she wished she was: a blonde bombshell boss bitch.

Is this book any good

Republicans are giving out free cash. This book is officially garbage-tier.

You know a book is convoluted tripe when there isn't a single summary of the story that makes any sense, and isn't a 800 word essay. Wtf is the book even about?

where is this from?

The better question is, will Zack Snyder's Fountainhead be kino?

Attached: snyder.jpg (220x320, 12.15K)

With that awful long & boring radio monologue ?
No thanks

soundcloud.com/nickameen/atlas-shrugged?in=nickameen/sets/jury-of-your-peers-objectivist

Who takes this trash seriously?

bioshock

I'm home for at least 3 weeks with nothing to do, I'm going to read this since I found a pdf online. What am I in for?

>since I found a pdf online
why are zoomers so tech illiterate?

fuck you i liked [the first movie]
couldn't give a shit about the underlying message

""Book""

id suggest you read Anthem and/or Fountainhead first, theyre more accessible and give you the gist of what you're getting into. Atlas Shrugged is difficult to get through unless you resonate with Rand's worldview.

Anthem is dogshit

UBI is a libertarian idea tho

40 hours left on this AS audiobook, should I keep going or listen to Fountainhead instead as everyone says it's better

It gets quite a lot of lip service from people either too dumb or too wise (I can't tell) to actually read it.

>Could it be made into a good movie?

It could work if you did it as a parody of the source material.

I have never toon so intrigued yet so bored while reading a book, AS is truly something else.

Why do lazy losers hater Ayn Rand so much?

i'm a lazy loser moocher, i like reading it for some reason

this board is filled with NEETs and virgins, what do you think?

i enjoyed the 1st movie, great casting imo. turned the 2nd off ~20 mins in

literally what does that have to do with the book? im convinced nobody itt has even read it.
the world slowly descending into a socialist hellhole where industries are nationalized en masse, entrepreneurs are forced to cooperate with corrupt and indolent government, people are growing dependent on handouts and once these run out and the government runs industriest to the ground poverty becomes rampant and everybody suffers.
basically our future.

yes and no. the trains and interconnected-ness of industry was interesting, the ayn rand wank bank self insert chapters weren't, literally every male character exists so she can get fucked by them including a fantasy flash back to her teenage years just so she can strum it to the bad boy investment banker before he turns 'morally bad' and the steel industrialist giving the ok for her to fuck gault because her happiness is the most important. not surprising to learn ayn rand married a cuck and had a whole train of lovers passing through her legs while he grew flowers

trains good, welfare bad. also women are whores but its ok because their happiness comes first, always

Listen to it while doing other shit.

D'Anconie was never a bad boy investor, he was first and foremost and industrialis who cut his teeth working from the ground up despite being an heir to family fortune, he was naturally a person with whom Dagny could connect on intellectual and moral level, his playboy persona was a ruse to lull investors leeching off his achievements into false sense of security to fuck them up later. You've got to remember that Reardan was a married man himself and their affair was just two people with similar outlook on life stuck in a morally abhorrent world finding a connection; nither were written to be pristine or presented as a moral mode. Galt was all that.

I always found it ironic how the story revolved a lot around trains, the least free mode of transportation there is.

It can't. Movie adaptations have been tried a few times. it never worked, cause it's just not a very good story. Rand is just loved by highschoolers, cause it's the first thing they've ever read that doesn't glorify equality, and the novelty of that is shocking for them; but there are better books for that.

>listen goy
>morality is a spook and ou should only care about you own best interest
>but you cant be mean to other people cuz uhh... im a jewish woman :DDDDD

doing gods work

that's...literally the fucking point. in the course of the story the state takes over majority of Taggart then fails to manage it as well as for-profit company and ruins it completly.

fair point it was ~8 years ago when i read it. it does(as i remember it) read as Dagny(Rands self insert) bed hopping from one man to the next as the plot unfolds around her

The 100-page long speech is basically unfilmable in the form it's presented.

>while he grew flowers
He was a painter actually, a damn good painter too. She considered him the light of her life and that marrying him was the best thing she ever did. Which really begs the fucking question as to why she slept with so many other men while married to him.

Attached: turbanbig.jpg (1133x1387, 831.07K)

I have issues with her work. There are plenty of self-respected philosophers out there who have committed dialectic sins, like starting with false pretenses and intentionally building an argument to justify their petty beliefs, but at least they managed to maintain a consistent idea in a single paper. What really gets to me about Atlas Shrugged is how every character is so...so hypocritical. Not just the looters mind you who are supposed to be hypocrites, but everyone says something but means something else. I feel like I shouldn't use hypocrisy as a pejorative after I've pointed out that everyone does it, but then I wouldn't have a problem if one of the book's themes was that humans are inconsistent. However, 1. that's not one of the themes, and 2. the characters are not humans. They're cardboard cutouts, sock puppets, mouthpieces, and strawmen. As bad as some books are about writing the plot first, Atlas Shrugged is even worse.

Here's an example for you: the good characters are those who are willing to admit to themselves and to others that they want a lot of money, and that a proper measure of success is net worth. Except that's not true, that's not why they do what they do. Early on in the book back when society could still be salvaged, Taggart and Rearden collaborate on a new rail line that uses Rearden's new alloy. They have to go through a lot of trouble to get the line finished since the official word is the alloy is untrustworthy and likely to fail. And as they're finishing constructing a bridge that no one thinks will hold, there's a moment where Dagny Taggart thinks to herself that she would trade away all her money and all her influence, just to stay in that instant the bridge is competed.

IMAGINE UNIRONICALLY LISTENING TO A WOMAN TALK ABOUT POLITICS

Attached: hr.jpg (640x426, 156.58K)

2/2
Later on there's another moment where her brother, the official head of Taggart Trains, manages to get the company even more money by manipulating government regulations in order to put their competition out of business. This act doesn't win him any respect whatsoever. Clearly then, the good people don't actually hold wealth as the highest of ideals, but rather it's that sense of accomplishment of knowing that you're won, and you've won fair and square without any cheating or trickery. This emotion is more valuable than physical resources and the main protagonist says so herself, and yet even after the book admits this, she and the others like her continue to insist that the fact that they are openly greedy is a virture. While I'll certainly agree that open greed is more honest than secret greed, their opposition states that there are things more valuable than money and apparently Ayn rand herself agrees.

And here's another piece of hypocrisy. Soon after the railway line is built, Hank Rearden and Dagny Taggart start having an affair. Dagny isn't married, but Hank is, and while he's admittedly stuck in a loveless marriage with a woman that tries to regularly emotionally manipulate him, Hank has a very strange view of what constitues a breach of contract. Maybe it's because Rand wrote this in the 1950s but apparently, despite the fact tht Hank views his marriage as a contract, he doesn't seem to realize that because he's having an affair, he has broken the terms of that particular contract and it is time for it to end. Instead, he doggedly sticks with his marriage, and quite naturally makes himself and everyone around him more miserable than they have to be.

>Which really begs the fucking question as to why she slept with so many other men while married to him.
>all women are whores
>women creates a philosophy where personal happiness is paramount
>WhY WaS ShE SuCh A SlUt
real big think

I couldn’t get through it but I’m glad my first impressions were correct.
Good analysis btw

Also just minor things like how the government has no characterization beyond being this vague, menacing presence, and how this book really, REALLY gives me far too much information about Rand's personal rape fetish.

>meet republican girl in college who loves ayn rand
>huge whore who cheats on her bf
>slept with a different guy every night

>Here's an example for you: the good characters are those who are willing to admit to themselves and to others that they want a lot of money
literally where? you spawn a wall of text building upon this assumption but where does that happen? wesley mouch is rich. james taggert is filthy rich. john galt works for 12 years as manual laborer. none of them are into it for the money or given their intelligence, connections, and resourcefulness they could've easily sold out to the governemnt and lived in opulence. they instead opt to go live in a fucking forest clearing in the mountains.
it's about integrity, celebration of achievement, fair compensation and unforced exchange between willing parties.

jews

>it's about integrity, celebration of achievement, fair compensation and unforced exchange between willing parties.

it's about just how much of a pretence people like them and rand have to make that they're about something other than greed. nothing like rich self pity

good by a randtard's standards maybe