gotcha. . do it for free independently and send it to
them. . you have a copy of the book, right? -- j
.

I guess you don't know how this works. They own the rights. Having made the film, as bad as it was, these guys now own the rights perpetually. Without their permission, I can't do anything with a screenplay.

Atlas Shrugged is a good story that, for 20 years Hollywood wanted and tried to make but, these guys wouldn't sell the rights or make a deal.

Until they change their minds, the world is stuck with what they've made. No one can sell another screenplay or make another movie.

then, with your dedication and talent, start with the
book and write the movie. . I could do it, but I am 67
and want to ride my harley every now and then before
I can't, anymore. . go to it! -- j
.

Did you ever offer to mow one for free for someone who couldn't mow their own, yet be turned down, only to watch the lawn go to seed?

Aglialoro isn't the curator of Rand's heritage. He wisely obtained the film rights to the novel but, after decades of trying, Hollywood found they couldn't do business with him so, the film was never made and, his option was running out. Because he wouldn't work with them, he ended up having to do it himself. We know the result.

I'm not talking business transaction. I'm talking give me the screenplays, let me play with them then, give them back and you can use them or throw them away. No obligations, no money, no risk.

As an example of how bad the screenplays are, remember the train crossing the Reardon bridge for the first time scene? Compare it to the cliff jump scene from Butch Cassidy.

These guys put their heroes inside an enclosed box (the locomotive). They had no external sensory input, nothing to which they could react and, very little, poorly written dialogue. As they safely crossed the bridge, their heroes couldn't even share a private moment because - they had a third person in the scene, the engineer! What is this, a menage e trois?

It's the equivalent of having Butch and the Kid and a third cowboy, a complete stranger crawl into a cave and pull the rocks in behind them, then watching them hide in the dark while saying nothing for 5 minutes.

The cliff-jump scene works so well because it's our bromance heroes and no one else and not just because their dialogue is snarky, because they're active, not passive.

The scene from AS broke all the rules of thumb of screenwriting: no scenery, no action, no snappy dialogue, no love scene - nothing to make us wish we were there or wish the scene would go on. It was a serious anticlimax at one of the most dramatic parts of the story.

I understand why, from the book, the engineer is there; Rand was showing us the older workers were loyal to her. Too bad. It worked, though not well in the book, but it doesn't work on the screen. In a novel one may spend time ruminating on the thoughts of one's characters. On film, one may not spend time watching people think. It is cinematic death.

No matter what, Dagny had to end up taking control of the locomotive and, no matter what, Hank Reardon had to end up on the outside of the locomotive, if not on top of the train as it passed out onto the bridge.

Do we ever watch Tom Cruise take a quiet ride on a train? If ever we do, his career will go into serious decline.

Film is about spectacle, external conflict, not ruminations and internal conflict. If you're going to make a successful film of Atlas Shrugged you're going to toss out all of Dagny's thoughts and conversations with herself and pedantic conversations with others. You're going to find ways to dramatize them. You're not going to be able to hammer your audience repeatedly with the same concept the way Rand hammered her readers repeatedly with her dogma. Readers waded through it, cinema goers didn't and, won't.

I firmly believe this can be done. It won't be easy but, it's possible; it just isn't possible for the same people who've already tried and failed.

Get off your anarchy kick. No society can survive with your system.

as a kid, I mowed lawns quite well and my reputation
preceded me. . I maxed out at 12 of 'em and still got
calls asking me to take on more. . and if I were the
curator of Rand's heritage, I would be exceedingly
fastidious with my business actions. -- j
.

I would argue that limited gov't can be constrained with explicit limits and prohibitions, that the US Constitution was just an early effort that we have learned from. But that ignores your greater issue.

You seem to fear the growth of the state and the theft of your money more than you fear brutish men.
Only a man living in safety - in a civilized society - would make such a mistake.

All else aside - and not saying this is the true limit of choices - but I fear Conan the Destroyer much more than the IRS.

It's not just movies, y'know. That was the nature of human existence until the last few thousand years.

But thanks for the exchange, James. I know more now than I did before.

James5820, you are misspelling all 3 names of the lead characters in Atlas Shrugged. Objectively I rate that as not being serious about understanding Rand's ideas. Details count.

No I do not support IP laws. Ideas are not property. In order for something to be defined as theft, you must take it by threat of force. But a key part of theft is the fact it excludes the owner from still owning the property. So if I steal your car, you no longer have a car. You are now excluded from owning the property. That's part of what makes theft theft.
If I take your idea, I am not actually taking it. I cant exclude you. You still have the idea and can do what you want with it.
Who owns the wheel?
If you really believe in IP, why does it expire in 20 years. If I buy a car, its mine and its mine for good. Should I be forced to make my car public after 20 years so everyone can drive it?
If ideas are really property and can fit the definition of property, why should anyone ever be forced to relieve this property after certain amount of time?
Isn't that a violation of property rights?
The fact is in order to support the idea of IP property rights, you must forfeit regular property rights.
If you invent a new motor and sell it to me, and I want to build the motor in my own shop, the only way you can stop me is by using force on my person or property.
You must prohibit me from doing what I want with my own property. All based on the idea that I am somehow stealing from you.
If you build a new style of chair. Am I not allowed to build one? If you build an old style of chair but paint and brown and run to the patent office, am I now forbidden to paint my chairs brown. What actually constitutes an original idea? Can you define it?
Tell me about an original idea that did not have to use others ideas?
When Eli Whitney built his cotton gin, did he use gears and bolts all invented by him? or did he use others ideas?
Did he go find the inventor of the gear and pay him first.
True Story about Eli. He spent most of his life sueing others in courts and very little of his life making any invention or producing anything.

Yep you have a point. So I did include very specific points in response to you on two well defined issues.

"Self defense is not voluntary it is being forced upon you by the aggressor. Property rights are not subject to the voluntary whim of other people."

These show two huge flaws in anarcho-capitalism, which is not capitalism because capitalism is about a government that protects your natural rights. Anarchy by definition is a free for all where mob rule and violence rule.

If you post something under someone I've ignored, I don't see it. Sorry. If you're an anarchist then, I think you're unrealistic but, consistent. I'm wondering, when the anarchist gang comes to the door, whether you'll still think anarchy was such a good idea.

If you are actually an anarchist, thanks for your comments but, I have no further interest in the conversation. I've lived in too many places that did't have effective governments and rule of law. Anarchy kills the weak and everyone who's less ruthless than the most ruthless member of the herd.

Ignoring has its drawbacks but, it saves time otherwise spent conversing with people who inevitably end up losing it and calling me names.

Really, that's your answer? An appeal to authority?

At least we agree its evil. I find this statement telling. It shows you understand the state is theft. The state is evil. this much we agree on. Buwhat we disagree on is that accepting evil as something we "must have" is not a contradiction to yours or Rand's principles. No anarchist claims anarchy will get rid of all evil. What we are saying is look, there, a state, we all agree its evil, so lets get rid of it. You guys just refuse on the idea you can predict if we get rid of the evil state. a more evil ghost lives underground ready to pounce once its gone. Even if your 100% correct. its still a prediction. Its compromising your principles because of fear of evil that is unknown but still predicted

Who said no anarchy?
You should try and keep up before critizing

how would someone take your property if its not initiated force? How does your property get taken with retaliatory force?

Did you even think this out before criticizing my definition>?

for example
subjective : We cant have people driving too fast
Someone needs to make sure the roads are safe.

Objective :I can drive at whatever speed I wish so long as I don't harm anyone, if someone in a blue costume and has a loaded gun pulls me over takes my money, that is just theft

craig, I think you missed my point. The subjective argument I was giving is the counter argument to my own objective argument. I was giving common arguments people use to justify police and then giving my own objective counter argument as to why police are not justified.

This is from the descriptions on Amazon of the essays:

"Anarchic Contradictions":

A 2400 word essay examining the inherent contradictions in the concept of political anarchy.

The main contradiction in libertarian anarchy is that its foundational ideas are based on a circular argument (assuming as a premise what is supposed to be proven as a conclusion). The arguments for this style of anarchy rely on a variant of what Ayn Rand termed “the stolen concept fallacy,” that is, they use “concepts while denying the roots and the existence of the concepts they are using.” (Rand, For the New Intellectual, p. 154)

The irrefutable inner contradiction of anarchy is this: one cannot engage in free-market competition in a non-free society.

Libertarian anarchists (or anarcho-capitalists) should recognize that their vision for establishing a free society is impossible, riddled as it is with contradictions and fallacies. No anarchist can refute the arguments advanced in either this or my earlier essays on this topic because one cannot refute reality.

All one can do is evade reality. At that, anarchists should not try to succeed.

"'Imposing' Freedom":

A 2000 word essay analyzing the claim that those who seek freedom are no different than others trying to establish a particular morality via the force of government. Such a claim, however, is wrong. Liberty merely establishes the conditions required for any viable ethical code to operate. It does not favor any particular morality over another.

"Government and Anarchy":

A 2500 word essay examining some of the basic issues raised between those who support libertarian-style anarchy and those who support a Jeffersonian-style limited government.

There is nothing inherent in the structure of a limited government that inevitably leads to disaster any more than there is anything inherent in guns that inevitably leads to murder. But there needs to be a set of objective political principles anchored in an objective morality that can be applied to everyone, whether all individuals accept those principles or that morality or not. Anarchism fails in that requirement. A properly limited government does not. In either system, there remains room for problems to occur and for people to violate the rights of others. Unfortunately, the underlying rationale for an anarchist society is self-contradictory and must therefore be rejected.

"Government and Anarchy II":

A 1900 word essay that looks at objections to limited government and addresses errors made on the part of anarchists.

Governments should and must be extremely limited. But it is almost as though anarchists expect that a government should automatically continue to operate on the basis of limited, delegated power once it is established without continuous feedback and control placed upon it; that any deviation from its original intent condemns the very idea of “government” itself. But when people — such as today — forget what freedom is; when they condemn objectivity, rationality, and morality; when they forget TANSTAAFL; they create conditions for a government to run amuck. Don’t blame the very concept/idea of a limited government for what results; blame the individuals who seek the easy way out, who don’t engage in the work of maintaining the extremely important value that is freedom.

Keeping and retaining any value — especially one as important as freedom — requires constant and continual work. Compare this to a marriage: a marriage won’t function properly if the couple goes on autopilot once the marriage vows are completed. Same goes for a government. Both will go astray without work. But I would not say “marriage is impossible” or “inherently” evil simply because much evil and suffering can result from individuals who are married. Nor should such untenable a claim be laid at the feet of the concept of limited government.

Do you support IP laws? How will they be upheld in an anarchist society?

Craig,
I assumed the "initiated" part was implied as part of my definition (I think that's fairly obvious).

The reason I say this is quite obviously implied, a state can't exist without initiated force.

I am very curious about your reply because this is one of the few arguments I haven't heard before.

How does a state exist with only retaliation force?

Without initiated force, there is no such thing as a state.

james5820 said "theft is the taking of ones person or property by aggression or threat of force/violence." You have gone wrong from the start. Theft is the taking of one's person or property by INITIATING aggression or threat of force/violence. A just state does not initiate such action but does so only in retaliation/restitution of theft by others.

But what is the "subjective that you have removed"? The example you give is that the men/police are "justified". I.e., they have a right to do what they do. But now you are saying that rights are objective. A contradiction.

No, sorry I haven't had the time to respond to everything. I didn't forsee this post becoming this popular. But I am not the James you speak of. I am not an objectivist, but certainly would not call myself an opponent of it either. I see a lot of merit to Rands work