The studios also gave Spielberg excuses for not wanting to release Schindler's List (too narrow an audience; too depressing; etc.).

I don't know the specific problems Aglialoro-Kaslow might have had getting studio backing, or whether they even tried to get it. Given the "American classic" status of the novel, I think there might have been a ready-made audience for a *well made* picture. It would have required 2 very important things to make it work aesthetically: a dynamite screenplay that could compress the essentials of the story into ONE self-contained movie, not a trilogy; and a strong director with experience directing on a "large canvas." I also think the whole thing would have worked much better in terms of "resonating" with today's situtation vis-a-vis philosophy, morality, politics, and economics, had they left the entire thing in the time period in which it appears in the novel: the 1950s. Obviously, a period piece requires period wardrobe, period automobiles, special backdrops to create period skylines, etc., but this sort of thing is old hat for Hollywood. Yes, it increases the budget (often significantly), but perhaps it could have convinced studio execs to fork over more money. Studios are usually not averse to handing over big bucks IF they feel confident they'll make it back, plus a profit. That's why filmmakers today have to "package" their projects with name-brand directors and stars (known as "bankability"). It doesn't guarantee success, of course: if you remember, none of this past summer's big-budget action blockbusters turned a profit, despite major stars.

Short of all that, I think AS would have worked much better as Miss Rand had originally conceived it for the screen: as a television miniseries. In other words, if you really must break the story into separate episodes, it's better to do it over, e.g., 10 episodes, where you can really get into some of the finer detail of the events, AND (more importantly) really develop the characters; as opposed to 3 big-screen motion pictures, where audiences have to wait over a year to connect the events they first watched with the events they're watching when they've paid for a ticket and they're in their seats.

For me, the best choices would have been:

1 big movie (even one that was longer than the usual one, with perhaps, an intermission. Lots of "spectacle" films from Hollywood's golden days have intermissions in them, and audiences generally had no problem with them). or,

A longer made-for-television mini-series, with more "granularity" to the storytelling, perhaps over 10 episodes. Telling AS on screen is somewhat similar to telling a long Dickens novel on the screen: lots of characters (many of them minor, but important to the overall theme). If you go to http://Hulu.com you can watch for free an excellent BBC production of "Bleak House" starring Gillian Anderson that was done six or seven years ago. I don't remember exactly, but I think it was done over 10 episodes (though it might have been less, perhaps 6 or 7). But to tell such a complex story as "Bleak House" over 3 episodes would have required leaving out many things that help move the story along.

In sum:

A trilogy for AS is actually an awkward number because it doesn't give rigid enough constraints for a strong screenwriter to properly **compress** the story elements in a way that will flow over a 2-3 hour viewing. I understand that Randall Wallace (who wrote "Braveheart") wrote a standalone version of the AS screenplay. I understand from an online source who claims to have read it that it was VERY interesting and VERY intense . . . intensity and interest being two things conspicuously lacking in the screenwriting of AS-1 and AS-2 as they appeared in movie theaters.

Just a few thoughts.