b. Getting the message of Atlas Correct. Otherwise you end up with something like the last Tom Clancy movie and the terrorists are not believable.

I really enjoyed the casting of the first movie. I didnt feel the chemistry between the second set of Reardon and Dagney. The brother Taggert was way too old in the second movie. Reardon was too in the second movie. I watched then back to back. Both movies endings were weak. Both movies could have been combined into one. We are headed the same direction as a Country. I hope the third movie answers some questions and resolves the problems. By the time the third comes out, I'll have to watch the first 2 over again.

Yes, please bring back Taylor and Grant! Ditto to my objectivist colleague below.

Casting is essential!! Atlas 2 was difficult to watch because both Dagny and Hank looked like defeated, consummated reactionaries. Quite the opposite of the desired effect, I'm sure.

Absolutely right about the Galt speech. In the book it takes up 1/8 of the whole thing. (Ayn Rand did like to preach!) The second time I read the book I skipped most of Galt's sermon. Running it uncut would destroy any movie.

IF the message *does* come across loud and clear, then by default all the other aspects have fallen into place.

B

What difference does it make? Atlas Shrugged took decades to write and was full of anachronisms. Only one bridge across the Mississippi in the 1950's, when the novel came out? Railroads still dominating the transportation picture? Twentieth Century Motors was the least of it.

Really? I thought Michael Lerner, the first Wesley Mouch, who did a great Tip O'Neill impression, was spot on. What if he is Jewish? So was Alisa Rosenbaum, alias Ayn Rand.

The change in the cast going into Atlas II was very disruptive and took away from the emotion that was planted in Atlas I. Bring back Taylor and Grant and all will be forgiven.

A, I love the original cast ... The second cast was good but I was shocked by the recast felt cheap.. But still great movie

Has to be B. If you miss on that mark what is the since of even making he movie.

B. Getting the message of Atlas Shrugged right.

Jim Caviezal would be absolutely PERFECT to play John Galt. He is the best in the businees. He would be most eloquent to deliver the long speech that John Galt made when he went on strike.

#1: B- Get the story accurate, right on is most important.
Casting is #2.
Right Director is #3

First in importance is B followed closely by B third most B then worry about the rest. People are not drawn to the book because of great direction.

E because so far no good. 2 was better but.....

Professionalism.
I think that if we look back on Rand's work there was a timelessness to it and also some very dated bits. And there were also her own idiosyncrasies. the casting was great in the first two movies but her writing lends itself to a wooden sounding dialog if the actors aren't careful. So, leaving behind some Rand and keeping sets, clothing and technology up to date (I liked the cars or a Tesla would do next time) sounds good. Not smothering interested people in wooden dialog sounds good and while it is interesting to wonder who Galt would be -let the casting directors-professionals do it. On a more personal note, just because I was asked I like Tom Sellek, Dean Caine, and Ricky Schroeder. But I think the person ought to be an actor before anything. It's difficult to to ask someone to take a philosophical exam while auditioning for a part. The mostly white cast is very dated as are the roles of women, so step away from Rand for a bit.

A and E are equally important. Excellent actors who make their characters truly believable is so critically important. The right director will be certain his actors accomplish the goals and will naturally get the message of Atlas right.

I couldn't disagree more. Jason Beghe was far more believable, more edgy, than the "pretty-boy" male model type who was his predecessor. As someone who has truly worked in the steel and metals industry, and having started, and sold high-risk manufacturing businesses myself; I cannot identify with a GQ type who spends more of his time polishing his cufflinks and staring in the mirror; than WORKING at great risk, to build an industrial empire from nothing. Although Taylor Schilling was OK; she too is too young and too much a fashion-model type. Think.....Kyra Sedgewick and Russell Crowe in terms of "type".

What's up with Dagny being blonde? I mean, if we are going to talk about Eddie being black ... Dagny was not blonde in the book

I liked everything about Part 1. The casting, director, and getting the message right were excellent.
I was not impressed with part 2 at all. Part 2 just didn't bring the message to the screen.

B - you need to provide a bit more detail so those who have not read the book can "get it"

Hard to pick between A and B - If B. is not done right A. really won't matter much and and if A. isn;t done right it can ruin B. - no matter how good the message is.

Casting - frankly I'm so disappointed in the wholesale casting changes between 1 & 2 I think the investors have destroyed any chances of creating the masterpiece to which they aspired. Sadly I don't think anything is more important and it no longer matters. Obviously finances had a lot to do with actor selection and the principals were cost driven rather than quality driven. Rather unlike the principals of objectivism.

B. By far. Get the message RIGHT. The message is enough. If the message is clear, the rest will take care of itself.