F. Other: Because I want it! (shameless capitalist)

Sorry, but while casting is VERY importaant, getting the MESSAGE of Atlas Shrugged out is paramount! Especially with recent D.C events (all the scandals - who knew???) people have to be made aware of the dangers from large government!

B:
Get the message correct about the War wagged against the Constitution. Most people are too ignorant about Philosophy to understand the fine points of this Book!.

B Getting the message right.

Casting; the message is important, but it the actors do not deliver it, it will be lost. Casting in the first 2 was good. Casting in the 3rd will be most important in the John Galt character...he should be a believer in the message (no small task in Hollywood)

B

Everybody from the original cast were far, far superior. Dont know who decided to change the cast but it was a monumental mistake. They should come back.

Agreed

A. Casting - The actors who are selected, if they convey each character's dominant traits in an effective manner, will get the messages of Atlas Shrugged across.

There seemed to be a better chemistry between the original Dagny and Hank. I agree with previous comments about the confidence/determination Taylor Shilling projected in part 1.

I agree to BOTH points here! Second cast and movie total flop because of the change!

AMEN and AMEN!

A. Casting

RETURN to the ORIGINAL Atlas Shrugged I cast! The second movie was RUINED by the new cast, no investment, no payoff. I won't even buy the Blu-ray. Won't see Part III in theater with new cast either!

B The message IS the real reason for the movie I hope.
My vote to be John Galt goes to very conservative, and supporter of our nations military veterans, Gary Sinise (Lt Dan).

My feelings exactly... do this and you'll make the series rock. And it might even make serious money! Sure, not cheap... but honestly? Hire AS1's cast back. And to make something right, and have it carry the honor of YOUR names forward, remember the thing that Businesspeople understand, and rotters fear... "Price no Object." Takes money to make money, and takes GOOD money to make GOOD money. Would Hammond build Yugos? Hank Rearden be the "King of Potmetal"? When you strive for, and demand, excellence, your excellent product WILL pay for itself. Settle for something cheaper, easier, and weaker, and your returns will be as dismal. Remember... A is A. It's not just a cliche...

A, Definitely A, then E.. Just remember - A is A. Bad casting = boxoffice failure.

You need the RIGHT actors - like going back to AS1 and hiring them back, then do a remake of 2 with that same cast. You almost killed the story by changing actors between 1 and 2; changing them *again* for 3 would be like deliberately torpeoding the movie. The cast of 1 worked... Add to this you NEED to pick the right actor for Danneskjold. And all 4 of the protagonists (Dagny, John, Ragnar, and Francisco) should be the same age... in the book, they're all in their mid-late 30's. And well capable of carrying off the "raid" sequence later on.

And then E - Directing. The Director NEEDS to undestand the book as well as the actors, if not better... and take EXCELLENT actors and bring them together like Halley did in his 5th concerto...
Finally - DON'T FORGET THE MINOR PLAYERS... everyone from Richard Halley to Ken Danagger to Cuffy Miegs and Kip's Ma... Even Fred Kinnan... that one is tough because you have to have that "looter" greed , pull-mongering, and corruption, yet his character has something underlying that makes you think had he not been a rotter he may have been an OK guy... Oh heck, Weasally Mr, Thompson to boot...

Casting. Get Galt and Dagny correct this time. Stay true to the book, don't worry about CGI.

ALL of these are important, but if I had to choose ONE, then clearly, B is the one!

I would generally agree with you.

I am personally of the opinion that using different actors for all three at this point would be more likely to keep it about the story and the lessons of the power of thought/thinking that it presents than going back to either of the previous casts.

The actress that they get to play Dagny in the 3rd act had batter be able to pull it off wonderfully. She will bring the glamor or she wont and the rest of the cast will follow suit.

Obvious answer is B, but based on how extraordinarily well Paul Johansson and John Putch did with parts 1 and 2, respectively, I think getting the right director is the most important priority.

The casting is critical. None of the cast in part 2 cut it at all. Taylor Shilling and Grant Bowler should be the measure of the the top two characters. Taylor personified the tough aggressive Dagny and Grant was exactly what I was expecting Henry Reardon to be. The entire cast of Part 1 did far better than Part 2. The benchmark for the characters was set in Part 1 and should be kept in Part 3

stress the importance of the 10th amendment; repeal of the 16th amendment

Casting. The first movie was low budget and came across that way, but the second movie was just flat. At least in the first, I enjoyed the interactions of Dagny, Francisco and Hank. The second movie had no real chemistry between them.

Statistically speaking, it's suspicious when a movie takes place in America and the majority of villians come from a group that's only 2% of the population. It would also have been been suspicious if the heroes were similarly statistically aberrant from the population.

It's knowing the difference between "There are more villains than heroes", and "The villains are predominantly jewish."

The first casting director didn't seem to know this difference, luckily the second one did.

statistically speaking, the whole point of Atlas Shrugged is that there are many more villains than the good guys. also, villains are much more fun to play. everyone knows that :) furthermore, I don't hear the a fore mentioned actors complaining about the roles they had