Vince Vaughn on Ron Paul and The Fountainhead


Actor Vince Vaughn is interviewed in the June 20 issue of Rolling Stone (in a piece I can't find online yet) and comes clean on his love for Ron Paul (a topic he did not want to be interviewed by me about for my book Ron Paul's Revolution, alas) and The Fountainhead.

He's asked "what's it like being a Republican in Hollywood" re: his Ron Paul love:

Some people are more accepting of differing ideas, and other people aren't. But I've never considered myself a traditional party person. I really do like Ron Paul–I agree with him on most things.

Then Vaughn is asked if he'd consider working on a remake of a movie based on Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead.

Vaughn makes a perspicacious point:

God, no. But I always thought it was interesting that the whole point of the book is that it's about this architect who's on a singular vision. And the DNA of making a movie is so different than that.

NEXT: Turkish Protesters Present Demands to Government

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Typical Hollywood conservative.

    1. Typical? Let’s see how smart you are…

      Likes Ayn Rand (most conservatives don’t; see any conservative magazine)

      Not a traditional party person. Unlike say Clint Eastwood or Bruce Willis, who are pretty much tried and true Republicans.

      Likes Ron Paul. Again… Oh, do I really need to go on? It’s a simple, five-paragraph article and yet you’ve proven yourself once again to be a class-A dumb-shit with an inability to read and understand simple sentences.

      Typical liberal douche-bag.

      1. many libertarians also don’t like Ayn Rand.

  2. Rule #105: Never alt-textblock a fellow Crasher.

  3. Okay, now I can almost forgive him for Sullivan & Son.

  4. Also I’m not sure Conan O’Brien would be willing to play Roark. We’d probably end up with Clint Howard.

    1. Which would automatically mean that Ron Howard was directing. Because no one but his brother has cast Clint in anything since “The Corbomite Maneuver”.

      Hey Hugh, how about some tranya?

      1. Is…are you propositioning me? Because sure.

        1. Sure, why not? Isn’t tranya an aphrodesiac? I sort of remember Kirk and Spock gang-raping Balock at the end of that episode. Don’t you?

      2. Wasn’t Clint Howard in Silent Night, Bloody Night 2?

        1. Oops, that was actually Silent Night, Bloody Night 4: Initiation.

      3. Because no one but his brother has cast Clint in anything since “The Corbomite Maneuver”.

        If you weren’t such a fucking purist, you’d know that he played a Space Jew on Enterprise.

        1. Don’t be an idiot. Ron Howard was secretly behind the creation of Enterprise.

          “Calm down, Hitler. You think Ron Howard just wished Willow was great? No…and yet it was.”

  5. God, no. But I always thought it was interesting that the whole point of the book is that it’s about this architect who’s on a singular vision. and the DNA of making a movie is so different than that.

    Pretty sure the movie would have to end with Roark awaiting execution for crimes against the state, just to be more realistic.

  6. God, no.

    Vaughn is smarter than I thought.

    1. For real

    2. It’s still a bit galling to know that he and I agree on something.


    The Onion calls The Internship the “Best Movie of 2005”!

  8. my roomate’s aunt makes $79/hr on the laptop. She has been without work for 6 months but last month her check was $21084 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this web site….


    By the way, until Vince Vaughn does any better, The Simpsons are responsible for the best adaption of The Fountainhead to date.

  10. Peter Jackson is making up new characters for The Hobbit and even adding a romance. I’m definitely going to pass.…..Smaug.html

    1. Yeah, but it’s Evangeline Lilly, so…win. Except that fake red hair looks like shit on her.

      1. Who the hell really digs red-haired women? Seriously, who?

        1. Can’t tell if serious.

          1. I’m sure he’s joking, but seriously, Lilly looks far better with her natural hair color. Red hair doesn’t work for everyone.

            1. I agree with you last sentence. The other other one, not at all. I think I am done work for the day now.

          2. I’m not saying I don’t find any redheads attractive, but IMO they’re probably the group of women (if we’re just talking about hair/skin color) I’m least attracted to. Not that there’s anything wrong with people who do find them attractive (Auric Demonocles I’m looking at you). Different strokes for different folks and all

            1. As a whole, Asian women I find least appealing; for every lithe young beauty with sharp cheekbones, silken hair, arched lips and pretty smiles, there are two old maids who are squat built and have chunky hips and hanging tummies from eating too much rice over the years. Prettiest when young, ugliest as they age is perhaps the most common tendency I have seen.

              1. I thought the stereotype for Asian women was that they don’t age? Haha. And don’t Asians have a lower obesity rate than other races? Not that I have a huge thing for Asian girls. In general, I don’t find very many ugly Asian girls, but I don’t find that many that I’m really attracted to. Most are either average (not attractive, but not really unattractive either) or moderately good looking IMO.

                I’m open to girls of all kind of different looks, and I think there are attractive girls of every race. In general, I prefer brown or black hair and brown eyes. My skin tone preferences are pretty broad, I’m just not a huge fan of really pale or really dark skin. I’m a big fan of everything from moderately tan white to light skinned black. And if I had to pick one group of girls I’m attracted to most, it’d be Latinas

                My preferences

                1. Not sure why that little two word paragraph is there at the bottom haha

        2. I’ve got two words for that: Karen Gillan.

    2. whoever posed her has no idea how to shoot a bow.

      1. Kinnath holds his photographers to a near impossible standard of archery verisimilitude.

        1. this made me laugh…lol…again

          1. By the way, if you’ve ever been to an archery range, you will have noticed that it is impossible for a woman to draw a bow properly with putting her breasts in the optimal position for display.

            The photographer cheated us on this one 😉

            1. I thought optimal display position was “colliding.”

              1. Well, there’s public display and private display.

            2. She sucks at being an elf, too, I hear.

          2. This is how it’s done.


        2. The photographer didn’t want to block her face. So artistic license I suppose.

    3. I never thought a team of writers would ever have to invent a character when adapting a Tolkien work.

      1. Remember, according to the screenwriter of the trilogy movies, Tolkien just didn’t understand drama.

        1. Tolkien’s not that good of a writer. He just managed to create an epic story that a lot of people really enjoyed. George R.R. Martin is light years better of a writer than Tolkien, for instance.

          The ironic thing is that The Hobbit is by far his most entertaining work, and that’s the one they’re going to interject something like a romance into?

          1. My main grips is if some upstart hipster young film student chick is going to change LotR ’cause she doesn’t think JRRT understood drama then she better damn well do a good job.

            I agree with the excising of Bombadil (worthless in the book too) but the most painful part was what she did with Faramir.

            Boromir and Faramir CLEARLY represented the two moral sides of man, Results and Principles. Boromir was tempted, he did repent. Faramir was never tempted. SHE F’ED THAT TO MAKE THE WHOLE PLOT LINE MEANINGLESS!!!!!!!

            then she goes on to the dvd to say “Tolkien doesn’t get drama”.


            1. “I agree with the excising of Bombadil (worthless in the book too) but the most painful part was what she did with Faramir.”


              Farimir was by far my favorite character in the books and the one they most successfully destroyed in the movies. He never wanted to replace Boromir, and recognized he would never be Boromir in his fathers eyes, he wanted neither fame nor glory merely to protect his people and do his duty and they turned him into a whiny toddler screaming daddy liked Boromir best.

              1. Worthless??? His songs are stronger and…yellow boots.

          2. Better writer? He commits almost every literary sin that Tolkien did x 10. I like Martin’s books well enough but he needs an editor and he should probably have had an idea of how the story will end before he started.

            In 100 years people will still read and enjoy Tolkien. In 100 years people still won’t know how Song of Fire and Ice ends.

    4. Argh idiot actors can’t even get basic facts correct…

      “‘She’s a Sylvan Elf, which means she’s of a much lower order than the elves we all became acquainted with in The Lord of the Rings.'”

      She is actually the exact same “order” of elves as Legolas, and it is not “Sylvan” but Sindarin elves. The only differences between her and Legolas is their gender and the fact that she is not the kings son.

      That said I don’t have a ton of problems with this because Jackson is expanding on a part of Tolkien’s world which we know happened concurrent with the events of The Hobbit but Tolkien himself never really detailed. So no, this is not “The Hobbit” exactly as written, but rather “The Hobbit” plus additional new material.

      Honestly I prefer these changes to some of the crap they pulled in LoTR to exapnd on the roles for Arawen and Galadriel

    5. You can’t stretch a long novella into a 3 film arc without adding random shit.

      1. There’s plenty in the Hobbit for three films without adding anything.
        You put the fight with the goblins under the mountains in the first movie. The fight with the spiders in the forest in the second. And wrap it up with the Battle of the Five Armies. Voila! Three films!

        1. If one film is good enough for Ralph Bakshi*, its good enough for me.

          *I know, Bakshi only did LOTR, while the hobbit was Britomation.

        2. Not really because not a whole hell of a lot happens between those battles.

          You could pretty easily stretch it to 2 movies, end the first one with their arrival at Beorn’s house or possibly a little later as Gandalf leaves them at the edge of Mirkwood, then the second movie starts off with the building tension of the trek through the wood followed by the battle with the spiders then lulls down with 20 minutes or so of an invisible Bilbo trying to find a way break the Dwarves out of the Elven Kingdom little adventure as they effect the escape, then you finally kill Smaug at about the 3/4ths mark ending with a 10 minute battle of 5 armies and a quick 10 minute Denouement of Bilbo back at home in the Shire.

          But really there just isn’t enogh that happens between Beorns Cabin and the end to sustain 2 whole movies.

          1. They do have the whole ‘root the Necromancer’ out of Dol Guldur’ fight to do.

            When I first heard about the Hobbit project, and that they were thinking of making it two films, I thought the break point would be Bilbo trying to bust the Dwarves out of the Elf King’s palace.

            I liked the LOTR movies. Quite a lot. But if Jackson had started with this first Hobbit movie, I don’t think he’d have had nearly the success he did, and I don’t know if TPTB would’ve greenlit him doing the LOTR afterwards.

    6. And the Mail outdoes even itself. “Write caption here.”

  11. That makes a lot of sense dude.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.