John Galt didn't look anything like Ayn Rand depicted him either! However, I never liked her description of him anyway, and (to my mind) the guy they used was a big improvement.

Imagine redoing the movie, using AI generated Caricatures' of modern Senators and Congressman?

I remember my daughter watching it with me and the grocery store scene really struck her. She recognized it as "now"... She read the book after...

None of the characters in the book were black, which was normal for its time. The movies were set in the 21st century, when an all-white cast would have been unrealistic.

What struck me was that the only black character was Eddie, who was basically Dagny's stooge. If they could have found an unknown with the acting chops of a young Denzel Washington, he's have made a good Ellis Wyatt. And surely a couple of the bureaucrats could have been black.

Or me! But wait, if you click on my name you'll get a way-too-old-for-Dagny pic of yours truly.

More like Autistic license . . . they have to fuck with everything to no avail.

They should have looked more like me. HAha....

Premise accepted. The fact that Eddie is African-American is really of minor issue in this case. Thank you for your response and helping me better understand this quirk in the movies.

I was more upset when John Galt and Hank Rearden didn't look anything like me. Haha...

Being anti-racist I don't think Ayn Rand would mind much as long as the character is true to his place and purpose in the novel. Eddie Willers is the "common man". Loyal and hard working, but doesn't put his neck out to change the world. He is a support character whose race is virtually irrelevant. Besides, if some Hollywood woke inclusiveness didn't blackwash a piece of the cast in this movie the left's bitching about everything "Randian" would reach a whole new level. Oh and "cultural appropriation" is never brought up in these cases because it doesn't fit the woke narrative to which we are all supposed to be genuflecting.

Hollywood's "artistic license".