FORUM Discussion of ATLAS SHRUGGED: PART ONE

So, considering that this movie has been butchered by critics and is destined to be a box-office disaster even with an incredibly modest budget, this obviously has to be considered for Worst Picture. Some of the cast might also receive consideration. What about other possibilities?

Worst Sequel, Prequel or Remake? It is a prequel after a fashion, since two more installments were originally planned. The fact that they almost certainly won't get made could be viewed as splitting hairs. I could also make a case for this as worst remake. As noted above, The Fountainhead was made into a movie back in the 40's. Granted, this isn't a direct remake, but since Rand's career was built upon rewriting the same book several times anyway, one could reasonably argue that it is effectively the same movie also.

There's a story that when The Fountainhead was being turned into a movie, Rand flew into a fit when she learned the film-makers planned to abridge the six-minute speech. Also, Ayn's forward to Atlas Shrugged states that she's the only author in history to write about a new idea. As you can all tell, Ayn had a massive ego. Also, she idolized a child killer and based several of her characters on him. 

A lot of people seem to think Rand was some sort of genius. I personally don't understand the notion. Atlas Shrugged was written back in 1957, and there has long been an interest in making into a movie. This particular version was rushed into theaters because the people who currently own the rights were about to lose them. Back in 1949, Rand's equally looney novel The Fountainhead was made into a movie, and it was also absolutely dreadful. 

This doesn't sound like a good book. Is that the trend now? Hollywood has already adapted every best seller in the world, so now it's going after just any book?  

Ayn Rand pretty much lived her life (and wrote her books) based on the credo that one should never say in one sentence what can be stretched out to 50 or 60 pages. One can understand why all those tedious books from the Victorian era (that English teachers love) are so long and tedious -- the authors got paid by the word, and their works were serialized originally in the contemporary publications. Ayn Rand, on the other hand, was just a long-winded blowhard who really didn't have anything relevant, or even logical to say. But that didn't stop her from taking 1200 pages per book to spew her nonsense...