why did they think a second one would do any better?

The guy who owns the rights (the owner of the NHL Philadelphia Flyers) is an ultra-right ideologue. Even he was on the verge of abandoning the project after the first installment, but felt he needed to finish Part II to get it into theaters before the election, in the vain hope that it could influence the election.

My dislike for Ayn Rand aside, there was one obvious reason why plans for a film version of Atlas repeatedly came to nought for almost fifty years -- it was already out-of-date, in terms of period, the day it was published. By 1957, the world had changed; at the time when air travel became the standard, a story centered around a railroad empire was already "retro" (indeed, the whole book has the unmistakeable aura of the late 1930s about it, which speaks to how long it took for Rand to write it). For a filmmaker wanting to translate it to the screen, it left one of two equally-unappealing choices:

1) Shoot it as written, with the world as portrayed in the book. But, then, you get the bizarre-if-not-laughable notion of a "prophetic" cautionary tale of the near-future in what is obviously the past, a warning about "what might happen" that clearly didn't happen.

2) Find a way to "update" the story to the present-day. In fact, that is what these film makers did. But coming up with some far-fetched scenario about why we'd need to be once again dependent on passenger railroads -- not to mention the (by now, nonexistent) U.S. steel industry -- in the next few years was obviously "a bridge too far" for most moviegoers. To hook viewers into a view of the future, you need to present a plausible future, and I see little way Rand's 1939-in-1957 vision can be translated to 2012 without making it unintentionally hilarious.

So, will there be a Part III? There certainly won't be an election to influence next year. But I can't see how the rights-owner would pull the plug with only one more installment to go. (Not to mention that quitting would instantly put him at the top of the hate-list for Randroids world-wide.). So, maybe the best thing about this is that one right-wing billionaire will wind up throwing a significant chunk of his change down a rathole, instead of using it in a way that might actually influence the election.

by saying all energy has to come from transmitted electricity, with no burning of fuels that emit CO2. But that would mean acknowledging global warming, and that would go against all that the far right hold sacred.

of crummy dialogue. Every character preaches a speech at each other. Normal conversation does work like the speechifying in Rand's "works." Also, Rand thought "rape was love" and "compassion was evil." Any kindergarten age kid would be able see the flaws. Plus, how do you get around the 45 minute soliloquy by Galt near the end? No film-goer would be able to handle it regardless of their tea party cred.

Its in outer space, see, and instead of Ayn Rand, you have Yeoman Rand, see and their flying around the universe in a space ship that the job creators built, nobody else, see

Instead of :



we have this:

(1,012 theaters). Serious drama to Ayn Rand accolytes, hilarious comedy to the rest of us, its gross fell from Friday to Saturday – never a good sign – for #10 for the weekend."

Even seven psychopaths beat out Ayn Rand's sociopathic nonsense.