The Real Lance Brown

As Socrates said to Plato, "Please don't tell anyone what you heard here."
March 31, 2006

Nothing to show but 53 shows

Author: Lance - Categories: Arrested Development

CHANNEL ISLAND – Nothing to show but 53 shows

Lame duck ‘Arrested Development’ will expire 47 episodes short of the 100 mark. And, apparently, that spells failure.

By Scott Collins, Times Staff Writer

The strange fate of “Arrested Development” reminds us once again of the odd up-is-down commercial imperatives of American network TV.

Variety reported Tuesday that creator Mitch Hurwitz has decided to bail on the sitcom about a grandiosely strange Orange County family, which won an armload of glowing reviews, a best comedy Emmy after its first season and whispered reverence from Fox executives, who referred to the show the same way nuns might speak of a medieval relic associated with the Virgin Mary. Unfortunately, what “Arrested” could never do is get arrested. Not nearly enough viewers ever tuned in to justify all the heroic attempts to save the show, which is now evidently dead beyond all doubt.

“The fans have been so ardent in their devotion and in return … I’ve given everything I can to the show in order to try to live up to their expectations,” Hurwitz told Daily Variety. “I finally reached a point where I felt I couldn’t continue to deliver that on a weekly basis.”

In the annals of Hollywood, “Arrested” will go down as a tragedy — not because it was a creative flop (its small but intense legion of fans say quite the opposite) but because it committed the unpardonable sin of crapping out after three seasons. To TV executives, that is just about the worst thing a series can do, because it means that the studio has spent big money to keep alive a show that in all likelihood will never produce serious cash in syndication, where it takes about 100 episodes, or almost five seasons, to prosper.

Does that make any sense? Only to accountants at the TV studios. The economic model that American viewers are stuck with tends to encourage painfully incremental storytelling among dramas and formulaic situations in comedies. Why? So the shows can reach the vaunted 100 mark more easily. Producers lean toward that magic number whether creativity dictates it or not. For all the talk of the death of network comedies, precious little thought has been given to changing the financial formula.

This is the not the way it is everywhere. Consider the BBC. One of its most highly regarded sitcoms, John Cleese’s landmark farce, “Fawlty Towers,” produced precisely 12 episodes. Twelve! That’s one-half of an American season. BBC’s “The Office” produced a grand total of 14 episodes. The NBC version, in its second season, has already made roughly twice that many.

“Arrested” lasted 53 episodes. Only in America would that be considered an early death.


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

A+E : The End of “Arrested Development”

Author: Lance - Categories: Arrested Development

This is another great example of a journalist who wants to write the AD is dead story so bad that he damages his craft in the process.

Check out the first sentence: “It now looks as if ‘Arrested Development’ is officially dead.

If it was officially dead, it wouldn’t “look like” it was officially dead. There would be no need for equivocation. It’s kinda like saying “I usually always do such-and-such.”

And note the gradual lightening of the show’s status as the article goes on. In the title, it’s the end of Arrested Development. No way to misinterpret that, right? But then the first sentence is “it looks like” it’s officially dead. (Michael: “Wait, you mean he is dead, or it just looks like it?” Literal Doctor: “No, it just looks like he’s dead. He’s got blue paint all over him or something.”) And then by the third paragraph, we’re down to “it now seems highly unlikely the show will get another season.”

By the end of the article, the show is renewed, and outlasting The Simpsons. (Just kidding.)

A+E Interactive: The End of “Arrested Development”
by Charlie McCollum

It now looks as if “Arrested Development” is officially dead.

Just days after sources said that a deal to move the Emmy-winning comedy from its old home at Fox (which pulled it off the air earlier this year) to Showtime was all but finished, show creator Mitch Hurwitz pulled out over what were reportedly creative and financial differences. Hurwitz confirmed his departure in interviews late Monday.

Imagine Television and 20th Century Fox, the comedy’s producers, could go ahead with “Arrested” minus Hurwitz. But since Showtime entertainment president Robert Greenblatt has said repeatedly he wouldn’t take the series unless Hurwitz was involved, it now seems highly unlikely the show will get another season.

Since making its debut in fall 2003, the often-brilliant satirical take on the lives of the Bluth family of Orange County has been widely viewed as television’s best comedy. It won the Emmy for best comedy in 2004 and was nominated again last season.

But the series never found an audience, despite heavy promotion by Fox after its Emmy win and again last fall. (This is one case where you can’t blame the network for not backing a good show.) At the end, “Arrested” was attracting barely 5 million viewers a week and often finished last in its time period.


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Variety.com – Hurwitz takes a hike

Author: Lance - Categories: Arrested Development

Variety.com – Hurwitz takes a hike

‘Arrested’ creator bails as showrunner

By JOSEF ADALIAN

“Arrested Development” creator Mitch Hurwitz says he will not be continuing with the series, throwing a major — likely fatal — monkey wrench into attempts to keep the Emmy-winning laffer alive for a fourth season.

Series producers 20th Century Fox TV and Imagine TelevisionImagine Television had agreed on a deal to move “Arrested,” previously on Fox, to Showtime — assuming Hurwitz was willing to come back. In the end, however, a mix of creative and financial concerns has prompted Hurwitz to move on.

“The fans have been so ardent in their devotion and in return … I’ve given everything I can to the show in order to try to live up to their expectations,” Hurwitz told Daily Variety on Monday in a telephone interview from GothamGotham. “I finally reached a point where I felt I couldn’t continue to deliver that on a weekly basis.”

Nonetheless, Hurwitz said he put off making a final decision on his involvement so Showtime and 20th could talk about a possible deal.

“Of course, if there was enough money in it, I would have happily abandoned the fans’ need for quality. But as it turns out, there wasn’t,” he said.

Indeed, Hurwitz and 20th have long been at odds over finances, sparring over everything from the show’s budget to Hurwitz’s own compensation. The two sides were unable to come to terms on an overall deal last year, and while creative concerns were clearly at play in Hurwitz’s decision, coincoin may have been a key factor, insiders said.

Hurwitz said he had briefed most of the show’s cast about his decision, as well as some of the writers. He also talked with exec producer-narrator Ron HowardRon Howard, who asked Hurwitz if he would be willing to continue as a consultant on “Arrested” should 20th and Imagine find a network willing to continue the skeinskein without Hurwitz.

“I said I’d be happy to do that, but that as showrunner, I’ve gone as far as I can go,” he said.

Showtime entertainment toppertopper Bob Greenblatt made it clear in January that Hurwitz’s participation in the show was essential to a deal (Daily Variety, Jan. 20). With Hurwitz out of the equation, Showtime is no longer a viable home for “Arrested,” insiders said.

It doesn’t help that one of Hurwitz’s key deputies, exec producer Jim Valleley, also says he won’t do the show without his boss. “We couldn’t do the show without Mitch Hurwitz, and I wouldn’t want to be the guy who tried,” Valleley said, who called the apparent end of the show “heartbreaking.”

Hurwitz said he had lunch with Showtime entertainment chief Bob Greenblatt even though he was leaning against continuing with the show. “He was actually very persuasive in telling me how much he believed in the show. I walked away thinking, ‘Maybe,’ ” Hurwitz said.

Despite word of tension between Hurwitz and 20th, scribe said the studio and its sister net deserve credit for having produced and aired three seasons of the show.

“I can honestly say I’m appreciative. They put a lot of money into this, and I put a lot of my life into this,” he said.

He also hinted that while “Arrested” may have run its course as a TV show as far as he’s concerned, he would be interested in reviving the franchise as a feature film.

Reps for 20th and Showtime declined comment. One person familiar with the studio’s thinking, however, said fans of the show shouldn’t write an obit for “Arrested” just yet, noting 20th is the studio that revived “Family Guy.”

(Denise Martin contributed to this report.)


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

UPI: “Arrested Development” is a No Go on Showtime

Author: Lance - Categories: Arrested Development

This article is sloppy in its reporting…another of many to try and report the death of the showtime deal, though there is reaon to believe it could still live.

ABC 4 – “Arrested Development” is a No Go on Showtime

Arrested Development creator Mitch Hurwitz says he is exiting the show, which quashes a deal to air the Emmy-winning series on Showtime.

A deal was in the works with 20th Century Fox TV and Imagine Television to air the series on the premium cable network, but it was contingent on Hurwitz coming along, Daily Variety reported Tuesday. …

E!: Unfortunate Development for “Arrested”

Author: Lance - Categories: Arrested Development

I’m archiving this article, but the original at E!’s site has a lot of links to articles covering the various developments mentioned in the article.

Unfortunate Development for “Arrested” – Mar 28, 2006 – E! Online News

by Sarah Hall

A new development may keep Arrested Development off the air for good.

Series creator Mitch Hurwitz announced his decision to quit the Emmy-winning comedy Monday, dealing a blow to fans still holding out hope that the canceled Fox show might be revived on another network, Daily Variety reports.

The move by Hurwitz was not entirely unexpected. E! Online’s TV columnist Kristin Veitch reported last month that the executive producer was “hesitant” about sticking with the series, despite a tentative deal in place to move it to Showtime.

Though series producers 20th Century Fox TV and Imagine Television had hammered out an agreement with the cable network, it was forged on the understanding that Hurwitz would be continuing to script the various misadventures of the Bluth family.

However, the writer told Variety he had reached the end of the line as far as Arrested Development was concerned.

“I’ve given everything I can to the show in order to try to live up to [the fans'] expectations,” Hurwitz told the trade. “I finally reached a point where I felt I couldn’t continue to deliver that on a weekly basis.”
“hurwitz”

He said he held off on making a final decision to give 20th Century Fox and Showtime time to reach a potential deal but ultimately had to move on due to a combination of creative and financial concerns.

“Of course, if there was enough money in it, I would have happily abandoned the fans’ need for quality. But as it turns out, there wasn’t,” he said.

Hurwitz said he had briefed most of the show’s cast and writers about his decision. He said executive producer Ron Howard asked him to consider serving as a consultant on the show if 20th Century Fox and Imagine figured out a way to continue it without him.

“I said I’d be happy to do that, but that as showrunner, I’ve gone as far as I can go,” he told Variety.

In a statement, 20th Century Fox offered a teensy bit of hope. “While there are no plans to resume production at this time, we know all too well from our experience with Family Guy…that anything is possible,” the company said, referring to its resurrection of the irreverent ‘toon after the show’s success in reruns and on DVD.

The tragically underrated series about a dysfunctional Orange County, California, family debuted in 2003 to critical acclaim but never registered with viewers, despite winning the Emmy for Outstanding Comedy Series in 2004.

Last month, only 3.3 million viewers tuned in for what Fox billed as a season finale, but what was most likely the series finale for Arrested Development.

Despite his defection from the show, Hurwitz left fans with one final straw to grasp, hinting to Variety that he may still be interested in adapting the series to the big screen.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

IGN: Arrested Development Creator Quits

Author: Lance - Categories: Arrested Development

Arrested Development Creator Quits

March 28, 2006 – In a very depressing bit of news for my fellow Arrested Development fans, series creator Mitch Hurwitz has decided not to return to run the series, despite Showtime’s offer to pick the show up. This move very likely means that the chances of the series continuing are over. For months now there has been a lot of speculation about the negotiations with Showtime for the beloved but ratings challenged series to move to the cable channel from its previous home on Fox. Many reports had also noted that Hurwitz was feeling burnt out and might not want to continue on, and that without him, the possibilities of Arrested continuing were slim.

Hurwitz has now confirmed to Variety his decision to leave the series. There have reportedly been some arguments over money issues between Hurwitz and 20th Century Fox, who produces Arrested, and financial aspects may have played a part in Hurwitz’s decision. However, more than anything, Hurwitz said he simply felt unable to give his all to the series anymore. Commenting on the loyal following the show has, Hurwitz told Variety, “The fans have been so ardent in their devotion and in return I’ve given everything I can to the show in order to try to live up to their expectations. I finally reached a point where I felt I couldn’t continue to deliver that on a weekly basis.”

While the article notes that executive producer/series narrator Ron Howard has asked Hurwitz to remain connected to the show as a consultant should it continue without him, the chances of that happening seem extremely unlikely. Showtime head Bob Greenwalt had previously stated that he would not want the series without Hurwitz. Even more damaging to the show finding another home is executive producer Jim Valleley, who plays a key creative role in the series, saying he wouldn’t continue on the show without Hurwitz remaining too. Sad to say, but it’s likely time to really say goodbye to the Bluth family. While Hurwitz’s decision is an extremely frustrating one for those of us who’d love the show to continue, the idea of it going on without him also seems highly questionable.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

TV.com: Arrested Development is a no-show

Author: Lance - Categories: Arrested Development

Arrested Development is a no-show

With show creator Hurwitz bailing, hopes grow dim that Showtime will pick up acerbic sitcom.

For Arrested Development creator Mitch Hurwitz, the show mustn’t go on.

Hurwitz confirmed Monday that he has decided against continuing on with the series because he feels the show has reached its creative end. Showtime president Robert Greenblatt said previously that the cable channel was interested in picking up the series, but only if Hurwitz was involved as the show runner.

Hurwitz told Variety that he would consider continuing on as a consultant, and that he would be interested in making a feature film of the series.

“I said I’d be happy to do that, but that as show runner, I’ve gone as far as I can go,” he said.

March 27, 2006

TWoP – The Will Arnett Interview

Author: Lance - Categories: Arrested Development

If you can live with clicking through 19 pages of interview, you get a pretty good look at Arrested development’s Will Arnett (“GOB”) in his interview:

Television Without Pity » The Will Arnett Interview

March 19, 2006

Bill of Rights Day Op-Ed (2001)

Author: Lance - Categories: Op-eds, Political and Opinion Writing

This is an Op-Ed piece I wrote in 2001 about Bill of Rights Day and threats to the Bill of Rights in the post-911 America. It was published in The Union(Nevada County, CA) on December 15th, 2001.


Today is Bill of Rights Day, the anniversary of the ratification of the first ten amendments to our nation’s Constitution. Since the Bill of Rights seeks to defend our freedoms from encroachment by government authority, that document’s birthday seems like the perfect time to examine those freedoms, and see how well they are holding up under the strain of 210 years of growing government (and 3 months of ballooning “wartime” government).

Take the 4th Amendment, for example. It’s the amendment that has been hit hardest, particularly in the past 3 months. The 4th Amendment was designed to ensure our right to be secure from “unreasonable search and seizure.” In the past, the government has tried to comply with the 4th Amendment by ensuring that only criminal suspects were subject to search and seizure. Aside from a few major exceptions, like asset forfeiture laws, and the surveillance of “subversive” activist groups, the government has largely taken steps to ensure that searches and seizures were reasonable. Until now.

The new “USA PATRIOT Act” has legalized the use of “Carnivore,” an FBI Internet wiretapping tool that searches the e-mails (and web surfing, and instant messages, and more) of thousands of non-suspects each time it searches the e-mail of a potential criminal. What’s more, the 4th Amendment requirement of “probable cause” has been ratcheted down to “reasonable suspicion” in many instances. And if that wasn’t enough, warrants that used to require a judge’s approval now only require approval from a state Attorney General or a federal attorney. In other words, instead of convincing an impartial judge that a suspect needs to be searched, police and D.A.s need only convince fellow law enforcement officials and prosecutors.

The 4th amendment has more to say. Aside from insisting that warrants are based on probable cause, it also states that they must specifically describe “the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized.” For the most part, the government has tried to obey that rule. Until now.

Carnivore, mentioned above, has the capability to scan the communications of every subscriber to an ISP, and search for keywords, names, e-mail addresses, or anything else that’s going through the pipeline. By its design, it doesn’t just search the communications of one suspect, it searches hundreds or thousands of people’s communications. A “real world” parallel would be if police were able to use a search warrant for one person’s apartment to search all of the building’s apartments, looking for anything related to their suspect. What happens if they stumble upon unrelated “suspicious” activity in the process? We’ll have to wait and find out, as the courts try to make constitutional sense out of the most significant and disturbing law-enforcement legislation of our generation.

Another major blow to the 4th Amendment is the notion of “roving wiretaps.” In the past, in order to obey the 4th Amendment, law enforcement was required to get a warrant for each phone line they wanted to tap. In other words, they had to “particularly describe the place to be searched,” as the amendment says. Until now.

The “USA PATRIOT Act,” that wolf in sheep’s clothing, gives the green flag to “roving wiretap” warrants— open-ended warrants which allow police to tap into any phone which can be associated with their suspect. That includes pay phones, friends’ phones, cell phones, pagers, faxes, e-mails- any medium which can be related in some way to the person they are investigating. This amounts to interpreting “particularly describing the place to be searched and things to be seized” as permission to say, “we will search and/or seize anything that the suspect comes in contact with, if we choose.”

Lately, the federal government is disrespecting so many of the limits imposed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that it can’t be covered in one column or article. I focused on the 4th Amendment because it has been disregarded the most. There will be hundreds of thousands of pages written about the aggressive “wartime” law enforcement measures being employed, and their impact— on our right to due process and public trial by jury, freedom of speech and the press, attorney-client confidentiality, the rights of non-citizens in our country, and many more issues. We as citizens need to get informed and join in the dialogue.

We should celebrate our Constitutional freedoms, on Bill of Rights Day, and every day— but we must also stand up for them, or they will continue to be disregarded, and eventually forgotten altogether.

March 15, 2006

Atlas Shrugged and me (and a movie makes three)

Author: Lance - Categories: Political and Opinion Writing

May 28, 2003

There is no book which has had a greater influence on me than Atlas Shrugged.

I first read Atlas when I was 15. My favorite teacher ever, Jim Duquette, was a major fan of Ayn Rand — a rarity among high school educators, I believe. He was a rarity in almost every way possible — a truly extraordinary teacher. Fearless, funny, super-energetic, a little bit crazy, strict but soft, demanding yet understanding. He had such a zest for life, and for learning, and for, as he said, “getting at the meat” of things. He passed away last year, and I regret that it had been years since I had visited him or talked with him. He ranks as one of the top 5 influences on my development, and probably will hold that standing for the rest of my life.

A big reason why I treasure Mr. Duquette so much is because he introduced me to Ayn Rand. When I read Atlas Shrugged, it was like I was reading an epic permission slip for me to be what I had become — confident, individualistic, unrelenting in pursuit of my achievements, and unbending to the pressures and whims of others.

I had long been a bit of a self-imposed outcast among my peers — I was very smart, I was cocky and sarcastic, and I was unique almost to a fault.

An example (and you’re going to think I’m really weird): For most of my youth from 5th grade on, I wore button-down “dress shirts”. (Eventually this evolved to unbuttoned dress shirts with a t-shirt underneath, which is quite often still my major mode of “fashion”.) Anyway, in 6th or 7th grade I decided for some reason to start rolling one sleeve of my shirt up, while leaving the other down. If I had to explain it now, I’d say I was challenging the norms and expectations of my peers — a fancy way of saying I was just doing it to be weird, which is what I thought of it at the time.

I wore my shirt like that, every day, for quite some time — I can’t recall if it was weeks or months, but it was quite a while. When people would ask me why I had one sleeve rolled up and the other down — and they did ask me, regularly — I would usually respond with, “Why do you have both sleeves rolled down (or up)?” The answer was, of course, that they were conforming to the norm, and some would say something to that effect — “Because that’s how you’re supposed to wear them,”, or “Because that’s the normal way to wear them.” Most, however, would just express frustration, or say “You’re weird.”

That was not the first or the only time I was weird on purpose, but I remember it the best of all of them, because it was so overt, and because it was really a significant test. The pressure to conform is practically almighty in K-12 school, and at some level as a child, I recognized that I had no interest in submitting to such a thing. Which isn’t to say I never followed a trend, or felt embarrassment, or conformed to what my friends and peers wanted of me — I did each of those things sometimes — but more often than not I consciously or unconsciously resisted those pressures, and I sought to look, act, and speak up in a way that broke the norms, or challenged the expectations of those around me. I can’t begin to estimate the number of times I was told “You’re weird.” Or, for that matter, the number of times I saw the look in a teacher’s eyes that indicated that I made them nervous — not fearful of physical harm, but nervous because they knew they did not control me. Sort of an “Oh my God, what do I do with this one?” look.

And it was hard, being like that. Challenging people is either my nature or I learned it very young, because I’ve been doing it for as long as I can remember — and most of the earliest stories of me are stories of me disobeying or resisting in some way. And if you’ve been through school, you must know how hard it is to not be accepted, or to stand up against peer pressure. I basically made an effort to not be accepted, and stood up to peer pressure every time I could. And it was hard. I’m not complaining — I’m just sayin’.

But then I met Ayn Rand, through a little huge book called Atlas Shrugged. And Ayn taught me that being unique, standing out, achieving and being smart, and resisting peer pressure were all good things. She taught me that pursuit of my happiness — in the broadest sense of the term — was supposed to be my main objective, and it wasn’t my job to do what others wanted me to do to make them happy. She gave me permission to be me — she showed me me, in the characters of her book, and she showed me the people who had tried to mold and control me as well. She laid out clearly what was wrong with what they were trying to do, and why it was right for me to do what I was trying to do.

But that was only half of the bargain, and the other half of the bargain almost certainly helped me more than the first. Part A of the bargain, which I had intuited all my life, was “you get to do what you want, you get to decide if you’re right or wrong, and being selfish is not just OK — it’s the right thing to do.” That’s the “permission to be me” part. But for Part A to work, you have to do Part B — you have to live morally. You get to decide if you’re right, but you have to actually be right. You get to do what you want, but you have to do the right thing. Being selfish is the right thing to do — as long as you are living a good and productive and moral life.

Part A of the deal went pretty quickly for me. I had already been training to be an utterly unique egomaniac for a long time. I got my permission slip, and just went back to being weird me, with that much more zest. And as you can tell, I never looked back. But Part B has become a lifelong journey.

Up until then, I was basically winging it. I didn’t have a philosophy to speak of — I just did what I felt like doing. I didn’t have much of a moral structure — I knew the basics, like don’t hurt people, etc., and I had honesty as a characteristic deeply ingrained in me, but that was about it. I didn’t have any rules for myself, unless you count “be weird” and “make trouble” as rules. ;-)

Ayn Rand didn’t so much teach me the rules — she showed me why there are rules, and why it’s important to figure them out and follow them. Ayn Rand’s philosophy is called Objectivism — it’s a whole school of philosophy that started with her — and its two main premises are essentially (I paraphrase heavily), “Reality is. Deal with it.”, and “Human achievement rocks!”

The extension of “Reality is. Deal with it.” is that there is a system to how things work, from the physical to the psychological to the philosophical to the sociological and so on. The system is a knowable and definable thing. That’s “Reality is.” Ayn Rand says it most often as “A is A.” “Deal with it” means that your job is to follow the rules of the system in the correct way. Not the rules that are handed down from people, or written in rulebooks and religions — the natural rules. In other words, doing what’s right — what you, as an entity in a system defined by rules, are supposed to be doing.

It’s not as lame as it sounds, because what you’re supposed to be doing is maximizing you — being the most you, the unique you, that you can possibly be. That ties into the other premise of Objectivism — “Human achievement rocks!” Ayn believed that mankind was pretty damn amazing, and that when unleashed — when let free — humans are capable of phenomenal achievements. She thought that when individuals work toward their greatest achievement — doing what it is they love best, and doing it the best they can — that the greatest good could be achieved. She thought that that was the proper moral system.

I couldn’t agree more. Practically since the first year I read it, people have been telling me that I would grow out of my “Ayn Rand phase”, and now as often as not people will try to look down their nose and say “Oh, I used to really like her when I was young/a teenager/in college, but then…” Fill in the blank — “…I grew out of it”, “…I got out in the real world and learned that it’s not always black and white like she says”, “…I grew to realize that sometimes you need to compromise…” , etc.. Well it’s 15 years later, I’ve read the book 4 or 5 times now (once every few years), and my “Ayn Rand phase” is getting along just fine — showing no signs of stopping. So as not to offend all the people who told me I’d grow out of it, I’ll continue to entertain the idea that it’s just a phase — but just between you and me and the world wide web…I think it’s permanent.

I don’t agree with everything Ayn Rand said or believed in, I don’t necessarily hold all the same values that she held, and her and I come from very different backgrounds and as a result see the world in a very different way — but I believe that most of the tenets of her philosophy are true. I think she was right a lot more than she was wrong. And I value Atlas Shrugged as much as or more than I ever have in the past. If someone demanded a one-book-only essential reading list from me, it would say Atlas Shrugged. I’d probably put a smiley face next to it.

(There’s a lot of clarification and explanation I’d like to stuff into here, but it will have to wait for another entry. I could go on at quite great length about this topic, and likely will in due time.)

On that note, onto the news that prompted this entry: it looks like Atlas Shrugged is finally going to be made into a movie. People have been trying to make that happen for over 30 years, and there have been three and a half failed attempts during that time, most recently in 2001. But it sounds like some pretty hardcore folks have hold of it now — people with money, names, and serious dedication to making it happen. The screenwriter has done bunches of big-name book-to-movie adaptations, and has read the book 4 times in the past 6 months. They’re talking about making it big budget, with known stars — the whole shebang. And they’re all into it because they are into Ayn Rand’s vision, and sharing that vision with as big an audience as possible.

I’m trying not to get too worked up about it just yet, but this would be pretty sweet if it pans out. Atlas is an enormously popular book — I’ll never tire of the fact that it ranked the second most influential book in an important survey, after The Bible. The idea of getting tens of millions of people all worked up about it via a big Hollywood movie makes me smile. I don’t want to start musing about the potential impact it could have until I see more confirmation that it’s actually going to happen. But, woo hoo! :-)

Some articles (each as good as the next, all with worthy tidbits):

The Objectivist Center: Film Company to Bring “Atlas Shrugged” to the Screen

Box Office Mojo: ‘Atlas Shrugged,’ Take Five

Box Office Mojo: ‘Atlas Shrugged:’ Who is James Hart?
(about the screenwriter)

And Miss Liberty’s Film and TV World has an Unofficial Atlas Shrugged Movie Homepage which has been following the development of the project for some time.