Ahhh... check out this answer in the FAQ: http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/faq#faq5...

I post of one of the local newspapers. They use to use a yellow thumbs up for agreed and a red thumbs down to disgree, to put it mildly. The posts we're very lively to say the least. Anyway, when I saw the Galt's Gulch up and down thumbs, I thought of the same. What do the thumbs mean and the numbers?

This article answers my question. Interesting, thanks! BTW, this is the most asked question on the Galts Gulch site and as yet (only about 10 commenters), your the only one that gave me the correct answer. All should read the article.

Why do you think you got 3 thumbs down Blue? Negative numbers will have a "-" in front of them. What are you looking at exactly?

Hmmmm, like the threat of black listing or the fear of it. I don't think the progressive, elitist Hollywood crowd is fond of this movie.

I don't buy that reason. After all, Jennifer Lawrence managed to have the time to win an oscar in between the Hunger Games and the ongoing filiming of Catching Fire. Well it's in the process of being filmed because she's in Hawaii(?) getting ready on set. A funny note to that is that she was observed smoking a funny looking cigarette on a balcony (lol).

I agree that presenting the Objectivist Philosophy is more important than an actor playing the part. But Part 1's Dagney was right, right on. So were the others. I was just disappointed. I've watch each movie twice but the second first, the latest time I viewed the movies. I'll have to watch them sequentially my third time..

BTW, thanks for the read from your link.

BTW, does nayone as I do, feel like we're on a railroad track with train bearing down and can't get out of the way? The Chinese have a saying for everything. The one at the trun of the century was "May the times be interesting." And, this is not a phrase that is positive. These are interesting times for America and I hope the greatest experiment in history, can a people ruke themselves, goes on some how.

Why did my post get a 3 thumbs down for a simple question? Believe me my feelings aren't hurt. I'm just curious. I post on many papers and am very provocative, but more often than not, I get good ratings.

I read the book. I've read her philosophy. I've listen to the head of the Ayn Rand institute (name?) on Fox News of course. When asked who is the real day Lesly Mooch, without hesitation he retorted Barney Frank. And, he was right on.

Being religious, the only part of her philosophy I don't follow is the non-belief that there's a God but I can see her point. The human being must be unteathered by rules and she had to be true to herself.

I should read the Fountain Head but I feel that would be going backwards because Atlas Shrugged was her masterpiece where she presented her Objectionist Philosophy.

Now having said that and given some thought to why the wholesale actor change for Part II, I think it is related to politics in that Hollywood (the actors) is a lefty (progessive, socilaist) town that supports BHO's politics and objectives wholeheartedly. If an actor is in a movie, and plays a major role, that goes against BHO's politics, there may have been some threat of more likely an implied threat of blacklisting. Just my opinion but according the objectivist philosophy, my opinion is correct within my realm.

BTW, an actor played Ayn Rand in the Jackdon Pollock movie. Not believing in rules that govern your way of life, she was quite the gal in that she had an affair with her friend's husband. Now there she talk the talk and walk the walk

Sorry for my rambling but I just can in from the cold weather and I'm lucky I can keep my hands on he keyboard never mind organizing my thoughts..

David Kelley from the Atlas Society, a consultant on Part II, actually wrote up a pretty good article about it: http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/56...

The "official" reason was that too many of the original actors were not available in the timeframe for making part 2. Jsu Garcia posted online that he would have liked to be in part 2, but that's the only main character I know that was available.

nova, I get your point. perhaps massaging played a role here, but, I feel very confident these movies were made by capitalists and Objectivists, for capitalists, Objectivists, those searching for answers to important economic and philosophical questions of today. Sure the actors carry the story along, but it is the story itself, that withstands the interpreter's vision. focus on that.
Have you read any other Rand titles besides AS? jsut curious

Yes, you gave many reasons and a lot to think about but I was hoping there would be a simple answer. As shown in the Rand Paul 13-hr filibuster, it's very difficult to even get a simple, one word "NO" answer. But that's par for the course in DC.

Thanks, but I thought there may be some rational involved. I guess some inside story may come out some day and then we'll know. I can see 1 or 2 changes but the wholesale changes just don't make sense to me, at least.

political pressure? I guess I don't get the political part.
think of it in terms of mission. you've got a tough uphill battle getting this movie out there. it is initially financed in large part with personal funds. take a moment, re-read that last sentence and absorb. even wealthy people see their fortunes or investments as allocation of scarce resources to risk/reward matrix. so, you go through alot: media coverage roots for you to fail, you gain a following, and experience success with that-but now you have a shot of making II much bigger and more like a blockbuster movie instead of indie low budget.meanwhile, your actors have to get other gigs, make other commitments because you couldn't hold them thru a three movie deal contract. heck, you didn't know, once you signed a new director, how they envisioned casting. also, you have absorbed and weighed accolades and criticisms from Part I and have specific goals for for part II. you will make changes accordingly, roll with punches, etc. I have no idea as to why the cast change, but I can understand lots of bumps in the road as well as opportunities, which may have led to the decision. Snafu (love the name btw) go look in the Producer's Lounge, and check out my post on Guest Speakers. I see some questions answered in your future. :)

I would not be surprised if it was due to an absurd level of political pressure...

that said, I have no real idea.