>>> I'd pay, Darren

You and who else?

It was obvious by the end of Part I that the producers never had any intention of making a commercially successful movie. They set out to make a niche film, and that's what it became: a niche film for a niche audience. They should've gone direct-to-DVD instead of releasing it in theaters.

>>>not for the average movie goer

Not for any movie goer, judging from the box-office. The only ones who understood what was occurring onscreen were Objectivists and a few others who had read the novel. This was in no way whatsoever an **adaptation** of a novel. This was an attempt at a literal transcription, from text to images.Like all such attempts, the final result (at best) was clunky. Combine that with consistently poor decisions by the production team — weak writing, absurd casting, amateurish directing — and one has the makings of a disaster.

If the producers had been more interested in actually making something called a "MOVIE", as opposed to complying with David Kelley, they might have achieved something more interesting, more memorable, and above all, more entertaining to more people.

>>> In the story telling mode of film, people just aren't used to watching one thing for that long.

With a 3-hour-long speech, people wouldn't be watching anything. They'd be forced to listen for 3 hours, turning the "movie experience" into a "college lecture experience." Why would anyone in search of entertainment pay good money for that?

>>> too much would have to end up on the cutting room floor.
In my humble opinion, not enough of the first two movies ended up on the cutting room floor, which accounted for the fact that no audience member *except* an Objectivist (or anyone who had read the novel) understood what was going on. The number of elementary filmmaking mistakes committed by the production team was embarrassing.