I'm not sure if it's just the way I've got this set up or not but I hope you guys have a way to read these comments in the order they come in. You are getting a lot of great ideas from the members here and I am trying to follow along but it seems like you have people responding to posts that are 4,5,or 6 days old and I have to scroll through all the posts, checking the date stamps to find the new entries.

B. Getting the message of Atlas Shrugged right.
As discussed below, this includes getting the point across to those who know it intuitively but have not yet connected the dots between the fictional story and the reality that is coming in being around us.

Casting is always critical. Keeping familiar faces important too. Atlas Shrugged message is most important. We adopted novel name for our teaparty in Montana...Montana Shrugged Teaparty Patriots. It was great to see the novel modernized for current viewership..Cheers

Casting. Bring back Taylor Shilling. Very importat casting of Galt. Suggested types- Cam Gigandet, Jude Law, Josh Lucas. The train scene in AS part 1 was very effective (special effects- the bridge, speed, success) thrilling moment.

The present administration is following the book with their regulations and other nonsense. Too bad we don't have a real Gaults gulch to go to. I'm in.

I tell everyone about the first two films and offer to loan mine to them so they too can come on board the train.

I agree. I couldn't connect to the cast in Part II. I thought Dagny and Henry were passive in Part II ... almost like they were simply going through the motions. IMO, Part II definitely lacked an accurate portrayal of the characters in the book.

What's the point of getting the message right if nobody sees it?

We have to be above all honest with ourselves. And if we're honest with ourselves we have to admit that despite our efforts, the first two movies failed at the box office. Stings to say it but it's true. Maybe half a million people tops saw Part II in the theater. "The Great Gatsby" made twice as much money yesterday as "Part II" did in its entire theater run, and that was a Sunday. That shows that intelligent and thought-provoking literary adaptations don't automatically fail in the US if (and here's the key) they're done well and are entertaining.

The producers are basically asking this question: the first two parts preached to the choir, and did it so much that pretty much only the choir came to see it, because all it was was preaching to the choir. Should we stick with that path, they're asking, and make a lecture movie nobody sees, or should we focus on the entertainment value and try to grow the audience, hoping that this will plant the seed in their minds (rather than jamming it down their throats).

Well, the way I've put the question tells you where I'm at, and if we're honest with ourselves, there's no reason to plan on Part III doing any better than the previous two unless something significant changes.

A couple of days ago I saw, in front of the new Star Trek movie, a preview for something called "Elysium" - a science-fiction treatment of the 99%/1% narrative. You can bet that the 1% are not going to come out on top. But that will be seen by tens of millions who won't even know Part III exists. Why? Because most people go to movies to be entertained, not lectured to, and the guys making "Elysium" are doing their damnedest to make it entertaining, and only THEN slipping the message in.

If you strip yourself of wishful, magic-unicorn thinking, which one is going to have a bigger impact with its ideology, a movie tens of millions will see, or a movie that once again falls flat if you haven't already read the book - that is, if you're not already in the choir.

Act III Very important; a lot happens in Act III. First I agree you need to bring back Taylor Shilling and Grant Bowler. Those two are great. Second really show society breaking down. Show people what happens when a majority of people i.e.. moochers figure out that they can vote themselves a paycheck. The producers stop and everything stops. But that's not what's happening to our country right now. Or is it???

B !!! however, I hope that you can (please) make JG's speech an effective but reasonable length. I can't help saying that I would enjoy III so much more if you could get the cast from I back (especially Dagny)

The priority is both A and B.

I hestiate to heavily criticize the work of fellow artists (unless they promote evil or irriationality). Samanth Mathis did a decent job, but I have to say that I did prefer the casting of Taylor Schilling as Dagney. She fit the general description better, and really got the "directness" and high-awareness level of Dagney down quite well -- better than I ever expected any current actress to do. Both Hank Reardons were well done, I think, each has his specific plus points. Same with both Eddies, but my own personal preference was the one in Part 1 only because he looked more like an administrative type of person, both in stature and in demeanor. Definitely the better Francisco was Esai Morales!!!

BUT the most important cast concern I have is the casting of John Galt. Look, D.B. Sweeny is an excellent actor and I have enjoyed his work, but John Galt is the single most important character in the story, even though he has limited screen time. There must be a certain, unbelievably strong presence and calmness about this character, and I don't think Mr. Sweeney (or the fellow who played it in Part 1) have duplicated that type of beingness. This is the actor who is going to deliver the speech at the climax of the movie, and also the very face of the Atlas Shrugged "strike". He needs more presence. Kind of the male equivalent to the Dagney as played by Ms. Schilling.

This leads to the equally important priority of delivering the message -- and the most important element of that is the movie version of the 100+ page speech delivered by John Galt in the book. It has to be cut down dramatically, yet it must retain its key content. It also cannot come over as too "preachy", or you're going to lose a lot of audience.

Besides providing a positive experience for those of us who are already Objectivists, the move needs to get Miss Rand's message out to those who are NOT already in such agreement. And that means communicating at a level that an audience today can comprehend, and in such a way that you can keep their attention.

Like it or not, the literacy level of today's movie going audience is a LOT lower than the group of people who sat in a class with me listening to Dr. Leonard Peikoff deliver Miss Rands Objectivist philosphy class in the 1970s -- even the higher end of today's intelligent people have limited patience and limited attention span -- and they really do not like being talked down to, or being preached at.

I am a writer myself, but not a speech writer. Whoever must re-write this speech has quite a challence on his/her hands. It will be critical to the effectiveness of the movie.

I will the Atlas Shrugged Part III team all the best in their endeavors.

In my opinion this is about salvaging this project & the only way is a COMMANDING FINALE. It is a mistake to retreat into just making part3 for those who already 'get it" because Rand's true objective was to help people awaken from their social engineered illusions. Seek a wider audience, some will awaken if approached skillfully.
Having studied AR's works & having a hand in the world of film making, I think there is some merit in a 3rd cast change IF there is a compelling improvement that makes the audience care about the protagonists: My wife & I think AMANDA TAPPING would be a standout choice since in Stargate 1 she portrayed a gutsy, strong, brilliant, & beautiful, objective oriented woman as is Dagney. Introduce all at outset with caption identifying "dramatis personae" to underscore the "discontinuity as method of story continuity" - that the story is universal.

Have been thinking about what NOMARK said & as a revisit to this thread, still think those comments are among the most useful;

as well as by zigory: "As to B, I recommend to the filmmakers "Adapting Atlas Shrugged to Film" by Jeff Britting and "Galt's Speech in Five Sentences (and Forty Questions)" by Allan Gotthelf from the book "Essays on Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged" edited by Robert Mayhew. In terms of condensing Galt's Speech, Mr. Gotthelf's essay may prove invaluable."

Others have detailed this: Make screen time by EFFECTIVE use of visual overlays from similar to current events/ headlines etc to get the less than with it viewer to connect the dots: THE NANNY STATE DOES NOT WORK & WHY. & what the alternative presented is.

Make it work at a gut level, hearts & minds, folks...

Post script: For technical accuracy on ZERO POINT ENERGY which Galt was utilizing, contact Bearden, Bedini ( cheniere.org) & Steven Greer (disclosureproject.org) to bring that facet of this story HOME. This is not fantasy land, this is REAL. People need to get that. Other historical references: T Henry Moray, Tesla ( energy); Royal Raymond Rife (energy healing technology), to name a very few...get archival photos etc.

Getting the message right is the most important. Personally, I had a problem adjusting to all new actors in the second part. Since I have both in my home library it seems to loose some continuity.

er, re- read the book, you apparently forgot a great amount, sorry.

Getting this message to the public as soon as possible!

Definitely casting. I was dismayed to see the original cast changes...poor judgment, IMO. I actually preferred the first cast. I hope that yet another change is not in order for AS3.

Getting the message of Atlas Shrugged right and the casting. you keep changing them.

B. Without the message, what's the point?

Getting the Message Right - which is not done by committee! Either you have the vision OR you don't.

The most important thing you can do is to get the message of "Atlas Shrugged" right, especially for this part of the trilogy with John Galt's speech. Edit that as little as possible. Yes, it is unwieldly, but the whole book, the whole movie, the whole trilogy comes down to what he says and, to that end, casting is also direly important for the movie. Make absolutely certain that the person you cast into the role of John Galt is an orator. In fact, if I had my druthers about it, I would *love* to see Paul Johansson back in the role of John. I know if anyone could knock that speech out of the park, he could. I have my hopes for the trilogy pinned on this movie. Part 1, contrary to the reviews it received, was excellent. Part 2 needed some help, and I have to agree that Taylor Schilling was far better as Dagny than Samantha Mathis, but I loved Jason Beghe as Rearden. Too, please keep Esai Morales as Francisco. He made a lot more sense to my eye than the fellow who intially started out as Francisco. Whatever you do with the movie, though, know that there will be a pack of us here in Wisconsin waiting with bated breath for July 4, 2014 and the movie's release. Why? Because we are John Galt!

A. - Casting, but with one huge gamble: Seek Angelina Jolie as the third Dagny.

Taylor Shilling and Samantha Mathis both did great work and added their unique stamps to the role, but since there's been a different Dagny in each of the first two films, why not use a third change to (ironically) lend a sense of casting consistency to the trilogy, while scoring a huge "shoot for the moon" publicity coup that would essentially make III - and the trilogy as a whole - impossible for the blacklisting / memory-hole media to ignore?

Jolie was signed on for the abortive Lion's Gate production already so we know she's interested in the role, and maybe just maybe she'd jump at the chance. I'm thinking the additional box office her name would draw would more than compensate for her fee. So far this project has been relegated to invisibility by a near-conspiratorial "Spike" throughout the entertainment and news media. Jolie as Dagny for Part III is really the only thing that would blast through that wall of silence. And talk about a "grand finale!"

Dream big; think the unthinkable; probe the improbable; "Nothing ventured, nothing gained"; "No guts, no glory"; "You can't win if you don't play," etc. Try. The worst she (or her agent) could do is say "no."

Casting!!!!!!!!! Ayn rand would not have placed so much emphasis on Dagny's resilience and very slim, yet muscular figure to be depicted as neither, in appearance. I recognize the fact that actors with talent should be cast in order for the movie to get the message across, but there was a disgraceful lack of attention endowed to the physical characteristics of all of the roles. What's the point of making a movie if not provide a worthy visual.
Francisco also lacked the physical beauty, charm, refinement, and fit physique that Ayn Rand so intentionally burned in our minds. Hanks voice was so awful. I wish it would be redone.

I am acquaintef with several member of the actors guild worthy of consideration for a role in this film.

Casting...especially John Gault! Please do not use some hotshot Hollywood Glamour boy for this role. All readers of Atlas have imagined him to be bigger than life...make him so...

A. Casting
Bring back the original Dany Taggart and Hank
Readen
B. Getting the message of Atlas Shrugged right
The message may be interpreted differently by
differently, but I think the message should be,
that our founding fathers had things set up for a
reason, and we need to leave it that way.
Every thing is pretty much fine, but please keep in mind that those of us who have read it are always gonna knit pick because a movie and cannot replace a book, but at least get the most important scenes that will drive the message home, and everything should fall into place.

A. CASTING! I hope you can persuade Taylor Schilling to come back! She was excellent!