'Atlas' shunned
To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it."
— Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Milligan, 1816
Listening to Vin and one of the co-producers of the movie “Atlas Shrugged, Part 1” on the radio with Alan Stock on KXNT Monday evening, I chuckled at one of Vin’s comments, borrowing from the old movie trailer hype: “Ripped from the headlines.”
Yes, though Ayn Rand’s book was published in the 1950s, it envisioned a past/future (New Deal, Great Society, Great Recession) in which the central federal government calls all the shots — who can build what where, subsidies for this but a ban on that, unequal taxation, social justice, class warfare.
As Vin pointed out on the radio, and in his Sunday blog posting, the movie has been met with disdain by the professional reviewers, but embraced by the movie-going public. At last check the website Rotten Tomatoes has 8 percent of reviewers liking the flick, while 85 percent of the audience liked it. Fandango had a similar dichotomy.
It turns out the guerrilla marketing that Vin, that’s Vin Suprynowicz by the way, described in his Sunday column is working. According to a booking service, the film grossed $1.7 million the opening weekend on 300 screens. It cost $10 million to make.
For those wondering whether to invest a couple of bucks from your meager paycheck or an hour and a half of your time, I’d say it is worth it, just so parts 2 and 3 can be made. The movie is less an adaptation of the book than a visual editing. I went back and reread several scenes and in the book and found they matched closely with the dialog in the movie — editing for length (it is a 1,200-page book) and to let the actors convey the nuances Rand had to describe.
Take the confrontation with the railroad union boss from the book:
“Well, it’s like this Miss Taggart,” said the delegate of the Union of Locomotive Engineers. “I don’t think we’re going to allow you to run that train.”
Dagny sat at her battered desk, against the blotched wall of her office. She said without moving, “Get out of here.”
It was a sentence the man had never heard in the polished offices of railroad executives. He looked bewildered. “I came to tell you …”
And the scene from the movie:
This entry was posted on Tuesday, Apr. 19, 2011 at 06:56 AM
and is filed under Thomas Mitchell.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response.
55
Responses
to "'Atlas' shunned"
I agree with Mr. Mitchell that the Ayn Rand movie is popular because the inverted Bolshevism of "Atlas Shrugs" and "Fountainhead" represents the core values of the modern Republican Party and the tea party movement.
First of all, tea party members don't read very much. Broadening their horizons consists of watching Fox and reading a Bill O'Riley book almost simultaneously. Let's make a leap of faith and surmise that tp followers are not the sharpest knives in the drawer.
The chance to claim some semblance of pseudo intelligence by latching on to the famously verbose, overwritten tome, "Atlas" was too irresistable for the tp sheeple.
Bottom line is: Rand had a pathetically ingenuous notion that capitalists are without faults and always rise to the public good. In other words, give a capitalist enough money and power, keep regulations out of the captalists world, and society benefits.
Wrong on all counts !
Simply reference the economic annihilation bankers and brokers wrought upon us. As deregulation became all encompassing the miscreants of capitalism raped society. Without the government bailouts our corrupt capitalist system would be just a memory.
A system of checks and balances is always the required mix. Greed in Not good..Rand was naive and wrong headed.
The chance to claim some semblance of pseudo intelligence by latching on to the famously verbose, overwritten tome, "Atlas" was too irresistable for the tp sheeple.
Bottom line is: Rand had a pathetically ingenuous notion that capitalists are without faults and always rise to the public good. In other words, give a capitalist enough money and power, keep regulations out of the captalists world, and society benefits.
Wrong on all counts !
Simply reference the economic annihilation bankers and brokers wrought upon us. As deregulation became all encompassing the miscreants of capitalism raped society. Without the government bailouts our corrupt capitalist system would be just a memory.
A system of checks and balances is always the required mix. Greed in Not good..Rand was naive and wrong headed.
Grossing $1.7 million in the opening weekend is not successful by Hollywood's standards or by anyone's except those who have an overriding interest in seeing the movie succeed. Now that the true believers have seen it, let's see what happens.
At an average ticket cost of about $9, a gross of $1.7 million means that fewer than 190,000 people nationwide saw the movie. I would hardly call that the "movie-going public." By contrast well over 4 million people saw Rio this weekend. The movie-going public aren't voting on Rotten Tomatoes and other web sites, the movie-going public are voting with their feet.
Mr. Mitchell uses the same faulty logic as Mr. Suprynowicz. He believes the critics are biased against the film because of their politics, but that those who went to see the film are not biased in favor of it because of their politics.
What utter tripe.
At an average ticket cost of about $9, a gross of $1.7 million means that fewer than 190,000 people nationwide saw the movie. I would hardly call that the "movie-going public." By contrast well over 4 million people saw Rio this weekend. The movie-going public aren't voting on Rotten Tomatoes and other web sites, the movie-going public are voting with their feet.
Mr. Mitchell uses the same faulty logic as Mr. Suprynowicz. He believes the critics are biased against the film because of their politics, but that those who went to see the film are not biased in favor of it because of their politics.
What utter tripe.
Put it this way: Using the "logic" of Misters Mitchell and Suprynowicz you could get a more accurate read on the literary worth of some Glenn Beck tome by asking the book-buying public than by asking a professional critic.
So if you were Thomas Mitchell or Vin Suprynowicz and went to Amazon.com to peruse the reader reviews you would conclude that Glenn Beck and Anne Coulter are litereary lights on par with Tolstoy and Faulkner.
In other words, you would be as wrong as wrong can be.
So if you were Thomas Mitchell or Vin Suprynowicz and went to Amazon.com to peruse the reader reviews you would conclude that Glenn Beck and Anne Coulter are litereary lights on par with Tolstoy and Faulkner.
In other words, you would be as wrong as wrong can be.
Worst film ever. People wasting money on this nonsense will at least get a few hours sleep though.
By comparison, the movie An Inconvenient Truth grossed over $24 million domestically (nearly $50 million worldwide), and over $1.9 million in its first weekend of wide release.
John F, not bad. Both have rabid fringe support mixed with some mainstream interest, drama VS documentary. IMDB.com has AlGore at 7.9 stars 5 years later (2 oscars, 5 nominations) and Rands story its first weekend at 6.8 stars. Wonder how they stack up in 5 years.
Jack, since you obviously saw it, was it really worse than "Plan Nine from Outer Space"?
Even with the book's weaknesses, the question remains: Is it correct for government to tax and regulate businesses to the point where they are basically under total government control? Wasn't that what corporatism/fascism was all about?
Even with the book's weaknesses, the question remains: Is it correct for government to tax and regulate businesses to the point where they are basically under total government control? Wasn't that what corporatism/fascism was all about?
Winston: Jack hasn't seen the movie.
I downloaded the movie from a bit torrent site and after about 10 minutes couldn't bear to watch it anymore. The nonsense political fantasy aside, it really is a horrible film by any measuremnt.
"Is it correct for government to tax and regulate businesses to the point where they are basically under total government control? Wasn't that what corporatism/fascism was all about?"
Corporate Fascism is the same now as it was under Mussolini and Hitler. The corporations appoint a dictator who will destroy the unions and keep a docile, minimally educated work force that will benefit the fascist corporate regime. You do that through threat of physical violence, not taxes and regulation.
Let me recap for the slower students... threat of physical violence and death vs. regulation and taxes. One method hurts far more than the other.
If you want to live in Ayn Rand's utopia, it exists right now in Somalia. I suggest Vyn and Mitchell move there and enjoy the sun.
Or stay here until the Koch brothers and the joke of a SCOTUS destroys any financial opposition to the GOP, and the morons in the GOP who can't govern, but give great SLOGAN, will continue to destroy any middle class that's left and just leave the 1% RICH and the 99% poor. Then the GOP will have effectively turned America into Somalia and you can look forward to all the associated fun like death squads, bombings, mass riots, and fortresses for the rich to hide in.
"Is it correct for government to tax and regulate businesses to the point where they are basically under total government control? Wasn't that what corporatism/fascism was all about?"
Corporate Fascism is the same now as it was under Mussolini and Hitler. The corporations appoint a dictator who will destroy the unions and keep a docile, minimally educated work force that will benefit the fascist corporate regime. You do that through threat of physical violence, not taxes and regulation.
Let me recap for the slower students... threat of physical violence and death vs. regulation and taxes. One method hurts far more than the other.
If you want to live in Ayn Rand's utopia, it exists right now in Somalia. I suggest Vyn and Mitchell move there and enjoy the sun.
Or stay here until the Koch brothers and the joke of a SCOTUS destroys any financial opposition to the GOP, and the morons in the GOP who can't govern, but give great SLOGAN, will continue to destroy any middle class that's left and just leave the 1% RICH and the 99% poor. Then the GOP will have effectively turned America into Somalia and you can look forward to all the associated fun like death squads, bombings, mass riots, and fortresses for the rich to hide in.
Movie piracy Jack? For shame. Lucky you know how to be anonymous.
Unless you gave them too much info on registration that is. Pirate! ;)
Wow, Jack, talk about stuck in the false left/right paradigm! As if the GOP was the only purveyor of corporate fascism. You really need to take the blinders off and see that both "sides" of the klepto-republicrats are the same, using government power to put the masses into dependency while taking control of corporate America and destroying our freedoms.
Take the Red Pill, man, and see past your partisanship.
Take the Red Pill, man, and see past your partisanship.
You mean you want the fascist democrats to 'nanny-state' the multi-billion dollar entertainment companies because they lack the 'industry and hard work' to protect their own revenues stream by learning basic encryption techniques?
How un-ayn rand of you!
How un-ayn rand of you!
Like the really good pr those Sony rootkits created Jack?
There is little doubt of the impact the far right wing lunatic author of this tale has; anyone mentioning her name in support of a proposition loses. Akin to Godwin's law for Nazis.
Tom - By the looks of it, the other nanny-staters who posted commentary, didn't see the movie either.
I don't even see how you can sit through the dreadful acting in this tiny clip here. Regardless of the content, this movie is really really bad.
It's not left/right Winston... that's your problem. You see left vs. right.
It's labor vs. management. The poor vs. the rich. Been that way forever.
Teddy and company tried to fix it in the mid 1910's by implementing death taxes to stop the concentration of wealth into smaller and smaller percentages of the citizenry. They succeeded within a few decades in growing the strongest middle class the world had seen since Roman times.
Then Ronnie Raygun showed up in 1980, busted the ATC union, and started us down the long dangerous road of making this a country divided along financial lines again.
If we don't undo this sequestering of wealth into smaller and smaller percentages of people, this won't end well for anybody.
And what makes you keep thinking I am a democrat? I've been an anarchist since the punk rock days. "Eat the rich!"
It's not left/right Winston... that's your problem. You see left vs. right.
It's labor vs. management. The poor vs. the rich. Been that way forever.
Teddy and company tried to fix it in the mid 1910's by implementing death taxes to stop the concentration of wealth into smaller and smaller percentages of the citizenry. They succeeded within a few decades in growing the strongest middle class the world had seen since Roman times.
Then Ronnie Raygun showed up in 1980, busted the ATC union, and started us down the long dangerous road of making this a country divided along financial lines again.
If we don't undo this sequestering of wealth into smaller and smaller percentages of people, this won't end well for anybody.
And what makes you keep thinking I am a democrat? I've been an anarchist since the punk rock days. "Eat the rich!"
"Simply reference the economic annihilation bankers and brokers wrought upon us."
Are you seriously going to argue that this was caused by a truly free market? Who do you think taxes and regulates the bankers and brokers in such a way to encourage the economic annihilation brought upon us? Wake up!
Are you seriously going to argue that this was caused by a truly free market? Who do you think taxes and regulates the bankers and brokers in such a way to encourage the economic annihilation brought upon us? Wake up!
Explains the pirate in you Jack
Civil War in America. It's a battle for the heart and soul of our proud country. Remember the vitriol over Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ"?
Control the language. Control the media. Marginalize the opposing message. Demonize the messengers. Attack! Attack! Attack!
The Ends Justify the Means.
I'm going to see the movie, tonight.
Control the language. Control the media. Marginalize the opposing message. Demonize the messengers. Attack! Attack! Attack!
The Ends Justify the Means.
I'm going to see the movie, tonight.
This is the third editorial about this movie in the last few days... Are you guys getting paid to advertise it or what?? It is basically a conservatvie version of a Michael Moore editorial/documentary disguised as a love story.
Justin it had to happen didn't it?
Al Gores film has been refuted by none other than Al Gore himself. East Anglia got caught cooking the books. The "science" was proven to have been manipulated. Gores' film and actions did bring more awareness to the environment, which is a good thing. it got the country thinking more about alternative energy sources.
Rands book hasn't been refuted. She's been proven correct. For a 50 yr old book, not too shabby. Gov't has intruded more and more into our lives.
And it seems that the Party of Tolerance is anything but tolerant of opposing views.
And why is it that when the economy tanks, capitalism is blamed, but when the economy is soaring, capitalism is never credited? Regulation is fine, but the ones who are regulating businesses are more corrupt and greedy than the businesses themselves. regulations are supposed to be checks and balances against abuse. Both parties have proven they are in over their heads when it comes to regulating businesses.
And remember who was overseeing Fannie and Freddie. They were not Republicans.
If greed is not good, why is it OK for Soros to keep making billions? Why is it ok for him to use his greed to get what he wants, but a republican billionaire gets villified for doing the same thing? I don't blame Soros or any other billionaire making money. They are the ones providing jobs. The poor do not provide jobs, so it takes the rich to make the economy go. They put their money into the risk and were rewarded, just like when they failed as well. They took the risks, so why should they be punished for being successful? Without the rich investing and building new companies, the job market would be pretty bleak.
Rands book hasn't been refuted. She's been proven correct. For a 50 yr old book, not too shabby. Gov't has intruded more and more into our lives.
And it seems that the Party of Tolerance is anything but tolerant of opposing views.
And why is it that when the economy tanks, capitalism is blamed, but when the economy is soaring, capitalism is never credited? Regulation is fine, but the ones who are regulating businesses are more corrupt and greedy than the businesses themselves. regulations are supposed to be checks and balances against abuse. Both parties have proven they are in over their heads when it comes to regulating businesses.
And remember who was overseeing Fannie and Freddie. They were not Republicans.
If greed is not good, why is it OK for Soros to keep making billions? Why is it ok for him to use his greed to get what he wants, but a republican billionaire gets villified for doing the same thing? I don't blame Soros or any other billionaire making money. They are the ones providing jobs. The poor do not provide jobs, so it takes the rich to make the economy go. They put their money into the risk and were rewarded, just like when they failed as well. They took the risks, so why should they be punished for being successful? Without the rich investing and building new companies, the job market would be pretty bleak.
Rand is correct today because her roots were in a totalitarian government from which she was able to escape. To a country with a government trying very hard to overcome that same totalitarian one. This country at that time had real competition, keeping it reletively honest. Rand firsthand experienced what could happen with absolute power so she wrote, what she hoped would remain fiction, about it. Since that balance no longer exists this country has and is becoming what it fought against. Hopefully the checks and balances built into our government can help it survive the present Empire status which is currently killing the USA.
Just got back from the movie. Thumbs up for entertainment.
Can't wait for the parts 2 and 3.
Not quite up to the Matrix, and I wonder what it would have been like to have Julia Roberts, and Tom Hanks as Dagney and Hank, but then, I guess they were busy.
Can't wait for the parts 2 and 3.
Not quite up to the Matrix, and I wonder what it would have been like to have Julia Roberts, and Tom Hanks as Dagney and Hank, but then, I guess they were busy.
Meanwhile; we saw ENRON go down the same tube as Bernie Madoff, and now we see the Obama administration saving us from a depression, saving the auto industry (and they are paying us back) and all major economic indicators going up. The market continues to go up as fast as the new housing, here in Vegas. The economy is recovering and you look for ways to denigrate it by reviewing a movie?
Flop. Movie for clueless people.
Tommie Boy quotes Jefferson ??? That's funny. If Tommie actually read Jefferson, he might have come across this article recently released by The Nation magazine: http://www.thenation.com/blog/37038/thomas-jefferson-feared-aristocracy-corporations
Athos loved the movie. Gee. Who EVER could have predicted that?
But from this we know it must be a good movie, because Athos is far more objective than any left wing tool of the mainstream media critic. Right?
Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts - if you know their politics - would never have had anything to do with this film, regardless of how much money was thrown at them.
But from this we know it must be a good movie, because Athos is far more objective than any left wing tool of the mainstream media critic. Right?
Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts - if you know their politics - would never have had anything to do with this film, regardless of how much money was thrown at them.
Attack a messenger lately mister Sturd? Athos likes a movie and you balk like children. If you guys are the face of the liberal movement, call me happy to be out. I perfer adult conversations over grade school name calling and endless hate speech.
@ Deep.Thoughts: You're missing the point entirely. Misters Mitchell, Suprynowicz, and Athos are all saying the movie is being panned by the critics because of their politics and some sort of left wing media bias. The only "proof" they offer up is that the members of the general public who have seen this movie report having liked it.
Their "logic" is deeply flawed, to say the least. It rests on two unproven - actually demostrably fallacious - assumptions. The first is that the 90% plus of critics who have panned this movie all share a liberal bias against the movie and its message, and that all of those critics are ignoring any sense of professional ethics and panning the movie not for its artistic inadequacy, but because of its politics (including the film critic for the Wall Street Journal, I might add). The second is that the members of the general public who report having liked the movie bring no political bias of their own to their reviews.
I'm not attacking Misters Mitchell, Suprynowicz, and Athos for enjoying the film. I'm sure they enjoyed the book it's based on, too. For them to suggest, however, that they and others like them are possessed of some greater sense of objectivity than professional critics is absurd. Would they even have seen the movie but for its politics? Would they have reported loving a remake of The China Syndrome?
Their "logic" is deeply flawed, to say the least. It rests on two unproven - actually demostrably fallacious - assumptions. The first is that the 90% plus of critics who have panned this movie all share a liberal bias against the movie and its message, and that all of those critics are ignoring any sense of professional ethics and panning the movie not for its artistic inadequacy, but because of its politics (including the film critic for the Wall Street Journal, I might add). The second is that the members of the general public who report having liked the movie bring no political bias of their own to their reviews.
I'm not attacking Misters Mitchell, Suprynowicz, and Athos for enjoying the film. I'm sure they enjoyed the book it's based on, too. For them to suggest, however, that they and others like them are possessed of some greater sense of objectivity than professional critics is absurd. Would they even have seen the movie but for its politics? Would they have reported loving a remake of The China Syndrome?
John F to simplify. This is Thomas Mitchels' OPINION Blog. Hence anything he posts here is just that. Take it or leave it. Respond as you want. It is not sold as fact.
And my point is - in this case, at least - Thomas Mitchell's opinion is worthless.
John F, standard comment, right? What I find odd is that Julia Roberts and Tom Hanks have no problem demanding (and receiving) 8 figure contracts to do ONE film.
Think of all the starving actors out there, that are paid scale. Why shouldn't the Hanks, Roberts, Pitts, Cruises, Will Smiths, etc. share their $20 million with their fellow actors?
Why are they such greedy capitalist that demand (and receive!) the money they feel they're worth?
Or am I missing something, John F?
Think of all the starving actors out there, that are paid scale. Why shouldn't the Hanks, Roberts, Pitts, Cruises, Will Smiths, etc. share their $20 million with their fellow actors?
Why are they such greedy capitalist that demand (and receive!) the money they feel they're worth?
Or am I missing something, John F?
Assthos, since you asked - you are missing:
-Brain
-common sense
-ability to reason
-mental health
-slavery
-Brain
-common sense
-ability to reason
-mental health
-slavery
Athos, you forgot their king, Michael Moore.
John F, that is your opinion and as always you are welcome to exercise your first amendment! :)
My goodness the gnashing of teeth from the uptight leftists on this blog is deafening.
Scout, always with his tolerant, adult, and charming responses. *sarcasm*
There were quite a few funny parts in the film. The typical blue blood wife asking "Oh, are you finished now?" or the brother asking for $100,000 donation, but not wanting his 'save the whales' type organization to know it came from his rich, capitalist brother, was another ironic moment.
Or the politician saying there will be an additional tax on Colorado, because they're doing so much better than their neighboring states, and that's the fair way to go.
I also liked the brother that would rather play with his choo choo set than work at his own company.
That one reminded me of Harry and the choo choo to Victorville!('cause after all, we're only $14.2 trillion in debt, so what's a little more gonna hurt, right?)
Oh, and Scout, you shouldn't project your deficiencies on others. Get your own house in order, then your posts will actually be amusing!
Or the politician saying there will be an additional tax on Colorado, because they're doing so much better than their neighboring states, and that's the fair way to go.
I also liked the brother that would rather play with his choo choo set than work at his own company.
That one reminded me of Harry and the choo choo to Victorville!('cause after all, we're only $14.2 trillion in debt, so what's a little more gonna hurt, right?)
Oh, and Scout, you shouldn't project your deficiencies on others. Get your own house in order, then your posts will actually be amusing!
Deep, Larry, XFM, You know where you can stick your opinions. Lap dogs. Arf! Arf!
Hey, Larry! Good to see ya! Tell me, been making punchlines out of the grief of the mothers of dead American soldiers lately? I know you like to do that. We need more patriots like you, Larry. The kind that hate the families of dead American kids if they happen to be liberals. That's what we need.
While watching the paint dry and for Tom's next blog.......
Athos, will The Train stop at Calico? If so, like everyone else, I'm all aboard. If not.....hahahahahahaha
What Winston said.
Athos, will The Train stop at Calico? If so, like everyone else, I'm all aboard. If not.....hahahahahahaha
What Winston said.
Sout, RE: Apr. 21, 2011 at 11:22 AM Really? which post on this one blog did you take from me for that response? Or were you simply prejudging me?
Scout you must be the most open minded, unhating, liberal I ever met? Grats.
Deep, you delicate little flower, I did not mean to hurt your precious feelings.
:)
:)
Guess thats my answer.
Atlas holding its own, link:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480239/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480239/
@ xfmrhsd: I followed that little link of yours and saw that, yes, Atlas Shrugged was getting pretty good reviews.
But then I took a closer look. It was receiving nearly 7 out of ten points because, of the 12 reviews from critics, one was from the Atlas Society, and FOUR, count them, FOUR, were from the Atlasphere.com.
One publication sending four people to review a single film?
Reminds me of how right wing think tanks and societies will buy up huge quantities of books by people like Coulter and Beck to get them on the best seller lists. It's laughable, really, except for the fact that so many people are taken in by it.
But then I took a closer look. It was receiving nearly 7 out of ten points because, of the 12 reviews from critics, one was from the Atlas Society, and FOUR, count them, FOUR, were from the Atlasphere.com.
One publication sending four people to review a single film?
Reminds me of how right wing think tanks and societies will buy up huge quantities of books by people like Coulter and Beck to get them on the best seller lists. It's laughable, really, except for the fact that so many people are taken in by it.
Oh yeah, Mr. Mitchell. You realize that little clip you're showing is copyrighted material, don't you? Did you get permission before posting it? Should Righthaven be notified?
John F those are the external reviews and you are correct about them. Now look at the ones people post, they are where the IMDB gets it main ratings. You can sort the feedback in several ways to look for the positive or negative and so on. In just a quick skim of the individual reviews you can pick out the pors and the non pros. That site will build on those making the rating more accurate over time. I have never not found any show or movie available for sale that is not listed on that site.
John F, its a click through to you tube. You realize that don't you?
Atlas drops from 6.3 to 6.1 as more people vote. 1501 votes today. Actual viewers effecting ratings. link:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480239/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480239/
You can bet that all the dedicated lefties have copies of Bowling for Columbine, Fatso and Fahrenheit 911 in their libraries. Talk about ideological purity. They can't handle the truth. The downfall of our economy came from crony capitalism and a too cozy relationship between the large banks and the government. The banks sold out the government and when it was margin call the taxpayers footed the bill. Rand's work is as poignant now as ever. Capitalism and government shouldn't be too close. It's bad for both.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Comments (55)
Registration Notice: The Review-Journal has implemented a new registration procedure that requires all existing and new accounts to validate and login using Facebook. Visit the Registration FAQ for more information.
Share your thoughts on this story.
Sign in or register to make a comment.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.