Because it is not being produced (or sanctioned, or even acknowledged, as far as I can tell) by Leonard Peikoff and the Ayn Rand Institute? Or because David Kelley is associated with the movie? Or some other reason? Here's the IMDB link to the movie: Atlas Shrugged
asked Nov 30 '10 at 22:53
The earliest reports left the strong impression of the movie shaping up as a low-low-budget, rushed project that was likely to be a disaster in content, production, and in revenue. Not exactly helpful to nudging the culture in a healthy direction.
However, some recent articles (see below) have adjusted that somewhat for me, indicating that perhaps the budget isn't so low, that the production wasn't completely rushed, and that the script might pretty faithfully represent the book, which would leave a bit less room for philosophical goofiness. So maybe the movie won't be an unmitigated disaster and could draw a lot of readers to check out the book itself. (But since it's dependent on the artists involved, I wouldn't bet either way on it being an artistic masterpiece, and the production's ties to IOS/TOC/TAS as script/philosophical consultants still leaves room for philosophical goofiness, both in the movie and in its promotion/aftermath.)
Bottom line? At this point I don't have an expectation that will be a great movie, and I sincerely hope it's not an utter disaster. But I'll definitely see it so I can at least know how people in the culture at large are being nudged regarding something that's darned important to me -- and then I'll act appropriately.
I have no plans to see the movie, largely because given what I've heard about it I doubt it will be an artistically or intellectually worthy adaptation of the novel. As such I have better, more life-enhancing things to do with my time and money. And since life is the standard of value, those would be considered moral grounds according to Objectivism.
answered Dec 01 '10 at 02:25
Kyle Haight ♦
NOTE: First, note that the movie rights were purchased from the rightful owners.
If David Kelley cured cancer, would that cure be a good thing? If he associated himself with a good movie, would you go see it? Is there something about David Kelley that precludes his doing a good thing? Certainly not. Is there something about David Kelley that precludes him being a good guy? Yes.
But another question is, if you patronize something that David Kelley is associated with, are you endorsing him? That is a problem with a little meat on its bones.
I don't endorse David Kelley. That won't stop me from seeing the movie. I don't think I'm sanctioning him or supporting him by buying tickets to a movie he had some association with. That's because the movie is not him. If David Kelley writes a good book, I'll read it. I won't think differently of him than I do now regarding his betrayal of Objectivism. That doesn't mean he has cooties.
It is only Kelley himself--the brand, "David Kelley," if you will, that is to be eschewed. David Kelley's good ideas are still good ideas. As a matter of logic, his good ideas are distinct from his brand, because his brand is specifically that of having betrayed good ideas.
There is a great quote: "Judge talent at its best, character at its worst." I live by that. So David Kelley's character continues to bear the mark of his betrayal. Whatever is quintessentially David Kelley is anathema. But what good things Kelley produces are still good things.
So, I wouldn't go to a movie if all I knew about it was that David Kelley was associated with it. But I will go to this movie, even though I do know that David Kelley is associated with it.