Film Atlas Shrugged Discussion

Collapse/Expand Topics

11:00:48 AM Aug 19th 2013
edited by
Okay, so... The film is a low-quality work that few people pay to see. It can't earn any money. And yet sequels keep getting made, presumably funded by charity from people who can't possibly be expecting any return on their investments.

Isn't this pretty much dead set against the actual philosophy presented in Atlas Shrugged?
09:13:03 PM Jun 30th 2014
No. In the philosophy of Atlas Shrugged, those who fund this movie are not engaging in charity. They are choosing to use their money to support something they value. If they consider having the movie made to be a sufficient return on that investment, then it is.

07:43:13 PM Aug 8th 2014
If you look at another example of Ayn Rand's thought, The Fountainhead whose main character is extremely skilled, but mainly shut out of the market, but keeps trying anyway, shows that even the lack of commercial success doesn't mean that something is not worth doing.

Additionally Ayn Rand was not actually against charity. She was against the idea that lack of success entitles you to the fruits of others labor. So it would be phrased better as continuing to fund a financial failure, rather than as an act of charity. But in the end, money is not the only reason for doing something as stated above.
Collapse/Expand Topics