Atlas Shrugged: The Movie

Krylo · 04-05-2011, 10:04 PM

Actually, looking a bit deeper, I think Iron Man 1 may have been how one man ceases to be an Objectivist once he's forced to deal with the ethical consequences of it.

Tony Stark in the beginning doesn't really give a shit about anything. He doesn't think about the consequences of being an arms dealer, all he thinks about is the profit and the big booms. However, when he is captured by terrorists using his weapons and becomes friends with the doctor who is killed, he begins to realize that the people his weapons are hurting are real people, and he can no longer live with the objectivist views that his spoiled life had allowed him to.

The rest of the movie is him trying to make things right, from ceasing the sales of weapons to terrorist groups, to refusing to give any military the rights to his suit for fear of it being misused. I believe, though it's been awhile, that he even got into conflict with the villain over wanting to cease weapons production altogether and move onto alternative energy sources and other 'friendly' technologies.

Meanwhile, his villain (blanking on the name) is portrayed as a true objectivist. He has brought the company up under Stark's father using these tactics, and when Tony begins to dig, and suggest that the company begin more altruistic pursuits, he sees Tony as nothing more than a parasite who refuses to reach his maximum potential, and who is holding he himself back from reaching his. He thus decides that Tony is a non-person and simply an obstacle to be hated and removed.

A true Objectivist thought.

He then proceeds to do everything in his power to destroy Tony so that he can take control of the company and maximize itself and himself, while Tony fights to stop Stark Enterprises from being nothing more than an arms dealership. To stop being a merchant of death, and instead provide something more meaningful (clean energy and safety) to the world.

It's a deconstruction and demonization of true objectivism shown through the eyes of a character who started as one and realized its inherit flaws. The villain existed as a physical manifestation of the main character's older persona--where he had been heading under his objectivist philosophy--and was violently defeated by Tony, freed from objectivist ideals and brought into a more ethical and moral backdrop.

I would argue that the parallels between Tony and Rearden were purposeful, but were done to show how the philosophy breaks down if one is not completely sociopathic.

Edit: And while I'm typing this you're all 'done', but I'm not deleting this awesome deconstruction of a cheap popcorn flick.

04-05-2011, 10:04 PM	#38
Krylo The Straightest Shota Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: It's a secret to everybody. Posts: 17,789	Actually, looking a bit deeper, I think Iron Man 1 may have been how one man ceases to be an Objectivist once he's forced to deal with the ethical consequences of it. Tony Stark in the beginning doesn't really give a shit about anything. He doesn't think about the consequences of being an arms dealer, all he thinks about is the profit and the big booms. However, when he is captured by terrorists using his weapons and becomes friends with the doctor who is killed, he begins to realize that the people his weapons are hurting are real people, and he can no longer live with the objectivist views that his spoiled life had allowed him to. The rest of the movie is him trying to make things right, from ceasing the sales of weapons to terrorist groups, to refusing to give any military the rights to his suit for fear of it being misused. I believe, though it's been awhile, that he even got into conflict with the villain over wanting to cease weapons production altogether and move onto alternative energy sources and other 'friendly' technologies. Meanwhile, his villain (blanking on the name) is portrayed as a true objectivist. He has brought the company up under Stark's father using these tactics, and when Tony begins to dig, and suggest that the company begin more altruistic pursuits, he sees Tony as nothing more than a parasite who refuses to reach his maximum potential, and who is holding he himself back from reaching his. He thus decides that Tony is a non-person and simply an obstacle to be hated and removed. A true Objectivist thought. He then proceeds to do everything in his power to destroy Tony so that he can take control of the company and maximize itself and himself, while Tony fights to stop Stark Enterprises from being nothing more than an arms dealership. To stop being a merchant of death, and instead provide something more meaningful (clean energy and safety) to the world. It's a deconstruction and demonization of true objectivism shown through the eyes of a character who started as one and realized its inherit flaws. The villain existed as a physical manifestation of the main character's older persona--where he had been heading under his objectivist philosophy--and was violently defeated by Tony, freed from objectivist ideals and brought into a more ethical and moral backdrop. I would argue that the parallels between Tony and Rearden were purposeful, but were done to show how the philosophy breaks down if one is not completely sociopathic. Edit: And while I'm typing this you're all 'done', but I'm not deleting this awesome deconstruction of a cheap popcorn flick. __________________ I am very tired. Last edited by Krylo; 04-05-2011 at 10:08 PM.