Who is Randall Wallace?

[Chris Grieb]

Michael;

Even if it all the things you say I don't think it will get any Oscar nominations.

I don't think Hollywood is ready to honor Ayn Rand.

But let's get the movie made.

[John Dailey]

Martin:

~ Not to be too picky, but I don't think your argument applies to my list. Neither Lucas' 1st SW, nor the Bros.' 1st Matrix really had any basis for expectations of sequel hits and (where the real profits come nowadays) DVD-buyings based on making the originals. LotR and Harry Potter had their own already established mainstream-wide book-fan-base, yes; they also stuck close to the books. PotC had Johnny Depp, so, this didn't have to count on the sequels for money-recoup; the latter's sequels were icing on the cake.

~ Ah, well, so much for this. Hope the thing gets made, one way or another.

LLAP

J:D

[Robert Jones]

I am with Michael on this one.

I was quite flabbergasted many months ago when I heard Lions Gate would be doing this as a one-parter, 2-hour movie. That is because -- at the time -- I thought this was a production decision, one that had basically been thrust onto Randall Wallace.

Michael's arguments are spot-on for what makes a great movie. He understands both the construction and sense of tension-and-release needed for the cinematic art form.

I particularly liked Randall Wallace's explanation of turning the philosphy into action. That's good, and a much better understanding of screenwriting than I think Rand had.

Now, I am in the minority on "The Fountainhead." I think it is a superb movie, visually. Storywise, it's 3 stars; but that's because Rand thought much as most Objectivists think, and that is how to squeeze in the speeches. That is precisely what stopped the action in "Fountainhead," so that we could listen to a "greatest hits" countdown of philosophical jargon.

But what are the things I most remember from the movie?

* Smoke billowing away from Ellsworth Toohey's mouth and cigarette holder

* Gail Wynand picking the soggy front page of the Banner off the pavement in the rain

* Roark walking past construction sites with other architects' names on the placards

* Dominique whipping Roark's face with the riding crop

* Roark helping Henry Cameron into his office at the end of a long corridor under an arc lamp

* "Mrs. Roark" rising up the e;evator outside the construction site to meet Howard

* Pudgy Pasquale Orsini showing up instead of Roark in Dominique's boudoir

* Roark looking at Dominique lustily as he is about to take her

These are all purely VISUAL elements, and these are the things that drive a screenplay.

Because Wallace isn't as wedded to the dialogue from the book, I have a feeling that "Atlas Shrugged" will be given the room to breathe that wasn't afforded to "The Fountainhead."

Now, I am dead set again Angelina Jolie playing Dagny. She's a lightweight, and every role I've seen her in confirms this for me. I think Julianne Moore or Catherine Zeta-Jones would be far better.

[John Dailey]

~ I find that I'm acquiring a prob understanding those who find any cinema which involves 'talking heads' a prob. Cinema is made for 'visuality', for sure (interesting that I suspect that 'audio' [as in music and narration] is really the more emotive 'driving force' over the last decades; but, I digress...) Like, stage-plays aren't made for visuality? Picture a stage-play (even if 'original') done without talking.

~ Popcorn-'action' is a necessity...for certain types of movies. NINOTCHKA was not one, anymore than THE MALTESE FALCON, THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL, nor even BAREFOOT IN THE PARK. ATLAS SHRUGGED should not be viewed as flawed if it's not up to INDIANA JONES/TERMINATOR criteria.

~ O-t-other-h, if it could be made as a 'silent' movie (a la METROPOLIS) by a Lang or Hitchcock of today, it could be interesting, even if...lacking...'something.'

LLAP

J:D