In the summer of ’08, I took part in an ecoinformatics internship for Oregon State University. This means that I spent two and a half months in the middle of a forest in Nowhere, Oregon, with twelve strangers as my only company. I knew that I’d have a lot of time to kill, so I picked up “Atlas Shrugged” in advance, one of the longest novels ever written in the English language at roughly 1,100 pages. Flash forward to a month ago, when I was taking classes five days a week, with two hours on public transit going either way. Once again, I turned to “Atlas Shrugged” to pass the time. At present, I’m roughly two-thirds through this second reading.

For those who haven’t read it, the book was written solely to illustrate the philosophy of author Ayn Rand, known as “Objectivism.” The story is very repetitive and blunt as a bulldozer about describing those ideals that Rand despises or praises and I’m not exaggerating when I say that Objectivism has an answer for everything. Be it money, lying, the nature of reality, love, government, personal safety, art or anything else you’d care to think of, “Atlas Shrugged” addresses it through an Objectivist lens in great detail.

But while I respect “Atlas Shrugged” for how thorough its arguments are (though I certainly don’t agree with all of them), I love the book for its scope and its characters. Rand does an outstanding job of illustrating her alternate America, describing its past, detailing its present and taking us through the causes leading to its future. It helps that “Atlas Shrugged” has an immense cast, almost all of whom carry the burden of making the world function — for good or ill. While the characters are all painted in stark black-and-white terms, I find it impossible not to cheer for Dagny Taggart, care for Hank Rearden or sit in awe of Francisco d’Anconia or John Galt.

You may be wondering why I’m discussing a book in a blog devoted to movies. Well, it shouldn’t exactly come as a shock that efforts have been made to adapt this book for quite some time.

According to Wikipedia, “Atlas Shrugged” has been in development hell for thirty-five years. Countless talents in Hollywood have attempted to make a movie or a TV miniseries out of the book. Ayn Rand herself was working on a television adaptation when she died. Angelina Jolie was once attached to play Dagny Taggart and not even her box office clout could get the project going.

But now, Variety is reporting that an “Atlas Shrugged” adaptation is finally underway. And it’s already a beautiful farce.

Back in 1992, a man named John Aglialoro (now the CEO of an exercise equipment manufacturer, by the way), bought the rights to an “Atlas Shrugged” adaptation for $1 million. Nearly two decades later, Aglialoro pushed the adaptation into production solely to avoid losing the rights. And it only gets better.

The project will be directed by Paul Johansson, a television actor with a resume going back to 1989. Unfortunately, his only directing credits are a couple of movies Wikipedia doesn’t recognize and some episodes of “One Tree Hill,” in which he’s currently acting. But the real cherry on this sundae is that Johansson has cast himself as John Galt. I will repeat that: The director has cast himself as John Galt. Arguably the most pivotal character in the book, the character that Rand presents as the perfect, ideal man… and the director cast himself in this role. I don’t know if this was done out of egotism or desperation, but it doesn’t bode well either way.

The rest of the cast isn’t much better. Dagny Taggart — one of the greatest female protagonists in the history of American literature — will be played by Taylor Schilling, whose sole credit is for a show called “Mercy” that got cancelled after one season. Grant Bowler is another TV actor, with a few episodes of “Lost,” “True Blood” and “Ugly Betty” under his belt, but I’m looking at pictures of the guy and I can’t imagine him playing Hank Rearden. Notably missing from the announcement is Francisco D’Anconia, and I can’t wait to see who gets to bungle that part.

But if you’re not yet convinced that absolutely no competence or effort is going into this project, just consider the budget: $5 million. Five million dollars. I’ll grant that they’re only shooting the first part of this adaptation (out of a reported three), but still. This is a story with all of America as its setting. A novel that demands multiple sets, elaborate costumes and a recreation of a time before cell phones or the internet (which would shoot the story full of plot holes if they were available). And they’re doing it all with the budget of a TV commercial. At this point, I’m not entirely sure that we’ll ever see it. This could be a production made purely to maintain the rights and unintended for public viewing, like the infamous Fantastic 4 movie made by Roger Corman.

Nevertheless, I’m blogging about it because this is one to keep an eye on. It’s a classic David vs. Goliath match… if David was in a wheelchair and had both arms in plaster. In the best case scenario, this team defeats all the odds and delivers a superb onscreen telling of an epic story. In the worst case scenario, we get a messy backstage tale of incompetence that will go down in movie and television infamy. Either way, it’s gonna be fun to watch.

No release date has been announced yet. In fact, I’m not even sure if this is going to be in theaters or on TV screens. Keep your ears to the grindstone, folks.