ell

Right you are JASKN. My mistake, that'll teach me to try read boards coherently in the wee hours. I tried to go back and edit but only after the option was no longer available and didn't want to waste band width. On Blanchett vs Jolie . . . well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

?? I would hope there would be much broader criteria that that. Like quality of performance, tone and nuance that are on circumstance. Off the top of my head Blanchett would be a much better fit.

Sopranos Deadwood The Office (only the BBC original) South Park I wanted to like Recue Me because I liked The Job so much but it's way too uneven for my taste -- toggling between melodrama and cartoon without enough connective tissue. TJ was much more cohesive. I always wonder if RM would benefit from a half hour cap.

Did Ayn Rand also engage in passive aggressive baiting, then retreat behind cover my ass retractions like, "Don't worry I'm just f*cking with you?" We get it, you hate homosexuality, now how about getting back on topic.

Well one has the right to hope. Too funny.

EC I find your response puzzling. I know plenty of straight guys who can identify other men as attractive or at least as their definition of a physical ideal. Though obviously we all have a somewhat different standards of beauty, most people I know have some standards for both genders. Now if you said you didn't care all that much if a man is attractive or not, that I could understand. Actually because we all have different standards of physical perfection, we'll never agree on the perfect physicality for characters in the book but I do think the resonance of the performance and skill of the actors is more important. I didn't think Dagney and John were supposed to be a stunners anyway, attractive yes but not knock-outs like the two actors described at the end of the book. In fact I didn't remember Taggart as a blonde, I always imagined her with brown hair but I don't think that stuff matters very much, myself.

Yeah film in particular is widely regarded as a directors medium. Directors have final approval over everything artistic (though lurid tales of wrestling studio heads to the death for that privilege are legendary). They have direct influence over the angles of shots and lighting which creates the emphasis of a scene, editing, set design, blocking, sound and writing. Of course some are fortunate enough to pen their own scripts, like Scorsese. Characteristically television is considered a writers medium and stage an actors medium. In fact I've read that a lot of writers flee to television because their work is so bastardized on wide screen. I also heard this from a friend who's a writer/producer . He told me it was commonly known "real" writers, work in television, obviusly there are constraints but they're different.. I'm not saying there are no exceptions but that seems to be the rule.

That's the trouble with mainstream movies, they have to sell them to 14 year old boys who'll see them regardless of tepid reviews and buy lots of popcorn and snickers to keep the theaters happy. So they play it safe by saturating films with massive action sequences and special effects and stunt casting. But on the current 30M budget the action will be constrained by comparison, especially when you consider close to half the budget goes to advertising. Anywy that's why studio flicks are often such a compromise. That said, if they do a studio film (though frankly I think there would be a big advantage in teaming up with HBO --thinking of the success of American Splender) Paltrow makes a lot more sense to me as Dagney.

However handled, it'll need to be cut a lot for 3.5 hrs. It's too bad they're not considering giving it the same treatment as 'Lonesome Dove" -- maybe one of the best things ever produced for television or on celluloid for that matter. It was originally slated for a feature film but they found they couldn't whittle it down to even 3 hrs without seriously compromising the story. So with a budget the size of the Grand Canyon (mostly location shots) and top guns like Duvalle, Glover and Huston they created a stunning 6 hours epic. It ran for three successive nights and I don't think there was a false note in it. Of course there was a lot of buzz about it because the book had just won a Pulitzer, which might explain the "spare no expense" attitude. And maybe also why CBS apparently sent their censors off on an extended holiday. But things like that and "Sybil" -- which even Tom Fontana ("Oz") said couldn't air today --wouldn't get the green light now on the "nets". But on HBO it would work. Plus, you can bypass the glitzoid star loop entirely.

Yeah Bale is much closer to the mark for me too. Even Jones, though incredibly glamourous usually, has range. But Foster -- who does not have a southern accent in real life -- is probably the closest in resonance. Actually I saw a clip of Ledger in "Mountain", he might deliver a powerful performance with subtlety where needed. The Brits are often skilled, flexible actors, and their bodies, faces and voices tend to be in sync. They should explore the BBC roster. Lesser known actors -- including females --would be fine. Besides by the time they get around to the project Pitt will be 44, which might be workable if his skills were sharper but otherwise it's a bit old for Galt. Also by the time this wraps the Brangelina buzz will have quieted and the heat between them is probably how they're planning to sell the movie. The triangle which was tainted with lurid gossip is believed to be why Smith did well at the box office, in the first place (well that and some poorly placed explosions). LOL Even 5 minutes is an eternity to listen to someone talk blandly. In any event they could certainly search the stage loop for more fertile ground for all the roles.

I think there are reasons why we generally identify actors like De Niro, Blanchett, Woodward, Phillip Bosco, Emily Watson, Franz, DuValle, Mirren, Brando, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Robin Weigert, Christian Bale, Ed Norton. . . as VERY, VERY good. And I don't believe Pitt never made the list because his good looks have upstaged him all these years. I think it's because he's not specific enough in his work and so tends to dull down his lines rather than landing them with conviction, far too often. He's just not as engaged as he ought to be. He also lacks a solid vocal instrument. A double whammy since one of the most notable things John Galt's character does is deliver a long speech. Given all that, I don't think there's a worse actor to do this than Pitt -- even if they cut it to a third. Otherwise both Pitt and Jolie tend to play things from a singular point of view in just about everything they do. That may work fine for movie stars in roles tailored to their range but less fine in material that's not -- just ask Julia Roberts. If the star loop doesn't yield any good, "available" fits, they should go the time honored route and audition. Isn't that one of the reasons David Chase has been so successful with Sopranos, he NEVER compromises roles with a lackluster fit. There are always a lot of known actors looking for work, so casting need never be the greatest worry. I think you can get much more resonant actors (certainly tighter fits and no I don't think the fact that both have recently taken to aviation is enough) for these roles. Sure any production would bring exposure -- but a bad one, no matter how much cash they throw at it, (Waterworld anyone?) can also induce mass eye-rolling, snickers and/or snoring and shunting off product to DVD, fast. It's been a long time coming, I hope they do it right.