In this order:

1) Remove David Kelley from the production team. It doesn't need a Cadre Officer in Charge of Philosophy Compliance. The screenwriter, producer, and director, need to make their own creative choices and contributions to the project without worrying whether they "comply" with Objectivism.

2) Hiring the right screenwriter who can create a screenplay that works dramatically qua movie: he doesn't need to include (nor should he include) every character or event that's in the novel. The writer needs to find the dramatic "through-line" and stick to it: from the standoint of structure — STRUCTURE, not the philosphy of Objectivism — E.g., why does he need the Wet Nurse (especially since he wasn't brought in until Part 2 and didn't influence any of the dramatic action, or choices, of the characters)? E.g., Why does he need Richard Halley at this late date (especially since the producers missed an opportunity to integrate Halley's music with the movie themes themselves, such as a "Galt's Theme", a "Dagny's Theme," etc. As in Doctor Zhivago (music by Maurice Jarre), it could have been both memorable and effective by supporting the dramatic action rather than merely being TV-style episodic "accompaniment".

3) Hire a director who understands the medium of film; i.e., scenes where people stand around, sit around, drive around, etc., and dialogue with one another create dead spots. In real life, e.g., people rarely simply talk to one another while doing absolutely nothing else. In real life, they tie their shoelaces, they smoke a cigarette, they text or check email, they eat, they sip coffee, etc. This is acting-class 101.

4. Casting. I thought Part 2 was a bit of an improvement over Part 1, despite the audience jolt of having to experience all new faces and approaches to characters. I wouldn't have another cast change at this point. Work with what you've got.

As Jack Warner famously said: "If you want to send a message, go to Western Union."

I fail to understand why the producers don't trust the basic dramatic action / plot to "get the message across." The message is NOT in dialogue with people speaking "messages" to the audience. The message (in all movies, not just AS) comes across on its own via the plot events. In a well-written screenplay, the theme emerges from the plot events of its own accord. You don't need to emphasize it with long speeches or "on the nose" dialogue. JUST TELL THE STORY.

You don't have to worry about the cinematography or f/x. This is basically a character-driven story (Dagny is the protagonist; it's her story), and the writer has to decide WHAT, precisely, is the plot, since there are many to choose from in the novel.

My own vote is that AS should have been a story about Dagny overcoming obstacles to building her own railroad line, The John Galt Line. Instead, this was made into a subplot in Part I that didn't really go anywhere as far as advancing the story in Part 2.

B. Anything less would be a waste of time
You also need to have the part with Ragnar Donashield and that conversation.

F. I know it's from The Fountainhead, but if there's any way they can incorporate that beautiful rape scene, I would be in heaven.