B. Getting the message right

Atlas Shrugged is a fantastic book. It dwarfs 'Gatsby' - which is minuscule in comparison & bored me within the first chapter. Atlas is absolutely gripping & as far as film production goes, it 'deserves' Hollywood status. It would take a dozen feature length films to do it real justice.

Clooney?!? Ewwwwww. EwwwEwwwEwww! Please no liberal progressives to play the 'good guys'. How about new unknown or little known actors? Maybe even some who might read the book and understand it? If you want some big time Hollyweird type just go see a main stream pickle your brain movie.

Rand would only allow The Fountainhead to be made if she had sole control of the screenplay, and her entire closing speech was included in full.

A shorter novel for sure, and I am not sure she could have pulled off the same control for Atlas Shrugged, given the constraints of then current film lengths....

Somehow I don't think that she would have endorsed ANY effort to bring AS to the screen.

I am struggling with your post on several levels:

Firstly, Rand's novel was a huge success for her contemporary readers, and has held unequaled attention to this day. There has to be a reason for this, since Rand was not a polished 'Hollywood' script writer by any stretch of the imagination. But her story captivated readers, just as I found it to be hard to put down. She cleverly used several literary 'hooks' that made each chapter a cliff hanger. Sadly, the most memorable devices were left out of the first two movie installments (the omnipresent clock comes to mind immediately)....

Secondly, I am not ready to assume that today's entertainment consumers are all that more jaded than those of Rand's time. While it is certainly true that today's moviegoers are expecting more 'bling' than substance (not by choice, but by design), they do react to the latter when given the opportunity. A perfect example of this is the current overproduced film The Great Gatsby...which leaves the audience totally clueless as to the morality play that Fitzgerald originally penned. Anyone that has read the novel, or has seen the rare Alan Ladd version, knows what I mean.

I am not ready to 'dumb' down the message for the sake of reaching the larger mass of media consumers, and I don't think that the end result would be any more life changing for them in the end.

The novel as written was an emotional event for me, and short of the overindulgent closing speech, totally engaging. The message has all of the drama that one could ask for, and the characters carried that message quite dramatically.

The story AS WRITTEN has passed the test of time quite well...and it is an almost impossible task to translate this into an afternoon at the movie house.

B

I have read AS abridged once. and unabridged twice, I actually love Rand's writings and have read all her books. They take the reader to another point in time and into an elevated state of mind. This is something both AS1 and AS2 where unable to achieve, maybe to much Hollywood but not even close to a really good movie.
In all fairness this has happened to many classic ie The Count of Monty Christo, but when you make a 3 part movie, I would think you could get me sucked in a bit more than a mild curiosity.
Maybe the movie industry can't feel true emotion or understand the male bonding aspect of Rands caricatures,and how a man must feel towards another man before he gives a shit. Rand seamed to write her men with more of a dykes feel to them, but her males was strong, Bogart-ish. I feel nothing for any of the caricatures in these movies and no desire to try to understand why they are doing the things that they are doing. My favorite person is Francisco D'Anconia and in the book you see his actions from the view of almost being him or from Dagny's eyes, but you respect him, and the story always explains his bad behavior through one of the other caricatures. In the movies you see him as if you where one the looter watching him. And this happens to all of the main caricatures in the book. So sorry but the movies sucked and I can't put my finger on it. The unknowing viewers will crap when Dagny falls for John and won't even understand why they are so attracted to one another...because the caricature development Sucked.
I had my wife watch it and she said “I thought this was a great story, why would I even read the book?”

That is the right direction, Clooney would look ethnic enough. Try getting a lib whackadoodle like Clooney to play the part though!

When I first read Atlas Shrugged in the '70's, I pictured Tony Franciosa as Franscisco.

why not? He tried out and got the part. His ethnicity is not crucial to the message.

part b...unless you have the story all tied in from part 1 and 2 the 3rd one wouldnt make sense..do i make sense...lol..hmm..i think if you make sure all the caracters are the same you wont have any trouble..the cast will naturally adapt to the theme of this whole thing..i could feel the ora around the cast when they did part 2..i think it was great..i cant wait till the next one..keep em coming gang..eazyrider

Yet another advocate of Kate Beckinsale!

I like the Clark Gable look for Francisco. Maybe George Clooney?

B. Getting the message of Atlas Shrugged right

People have no idea of how Obama is sending this country into a world like Atlas Shrugged. For example, thanks to Obamacare, surgeons are told what kind of equipment and supplies to use with patients, all based on lowest cost so that everyone has the same amount of care. They are limited as to how much they can expand a physician owned practice, if they accept Medicare because those kinds of practices provide expensive services like gastric bypass, spine and joint surgeries that drive up costs. So the government is limiting their growth and types of services they offer to patients. Get the message out before Obama turns this country into the Soviet Union. Is it 2016 yet?

The biggest failing of the movie so far was the short shrift that was made of the visit to metropolitan motors. Whatever happened to the whole story about the "Cut Glass" shower that the plant manager had, it was a big deal in the book but was not mentioned at all in the movie. There is an interesting corollary about that shower in modern life. Mitt Romney toured the Solyndra plant during the run up to the election, and the Solyndra executives had private bathrooms with flat screen TVs in their showers....exactly the same thing as in the book!!!

B. message is everything. Ann Colter could play Dagny

I liked all the new actors, except Dagny. The original one was fine. The new one was a good actress, maybe even better...but was not great looking enough. Dagny has to be pretty "Smoking Hot' but in a demure and classy way. I am not sure the original actress was actually hot enough. Sex is a big part of the story, although by today’s standards the story is pretty tame. I agree with the complaints about Eddie. Why in the world do we have to be so politically correct as to cast Eddie as a black guy? I really liked the new Walt Mouch. The original one was excellent but the new one has such a slime ball appearance due to his previous role on ER the television show, he was perfect. The best aspect of Part 2 was that it opened with an exciting scene and it kept you on the edge of you seat for the whole movie in a way that part one just did not. The slickest single scene in part 2 was when Dagny was filling the pickup truck with gas and the Tattooed Hispanic guy with the shotgun keeps an eye on her to make sure she pays. He looks at her, she looks at him and they give each other a nervous grin....what a priceless scene. I really liked the new DiAnconia, the original actor looked like he was a Peruvian Indian. DiAnconia was essentially pure Spanish. Based on the book being written in the 50s he should have been a pretty big guy, with a thin mustache. This is what we saw in leading men of that time. Maybe Ricky Ricardo, but with the mustache. All in all though, I did like the new one.

I'm not threatened by adopting Moocher status here in the Gulch. I've paid to see both movies in the theater, bought them on DVD, and bought a number of the T-shirts. I also write a nice check to the Ayn Rand Institute every month. The term Moocher here in the Gulch is ironic in the same vein that Ayn Rand's circle of friends was known as "The Collective".

B. Getting message right! That is an absolute requirement for anyone respecting Ayn Rand and her work. Her message was correct and doesn't need modifications. AS I and AS II did modernize the setting which was OK by me. AS III does need to continue on seemlessly. Again, the message is timeless! The casting needs to be as good as it can be. Atlas Shrugged deserves the best in all departments.

A. Taylor Schilling was great in the Lead Role as Dagny Taggart in Part I. I think she was true to the character and looked/acted the part extremely well.
She carried the story and I wish she could be brought back for Part III.

B. Getting message right! That is an absolute requirement for anyone respecting Ayn Rand and her work. Her message was correct and doesn't need modifications. AS I and AS II did modernize the setting which was OK by me. AS III does need to continue on seemlessly. Again, the message is timeless! The casting needs to be as good as it can be. Atlas Shrugged deserves the best in all departments.

I would tend towards B & E. I say B for the simple reason that the book had a big effect on my life: it helped me to value myself.

Before reading AS, I followed the morality of altruism - which as I discovered, was a very unhealthy way for me to live. The majority of society fall into two camps in my opinion. Half are tied down with altruism - denying themselves, the other are exploiting the first half, with no scruples whatsoever. These seem to be the only choices available to society & that needs to change.

If the message is the main theme of the movie then it will get noticed & have credibility for that reason. If A, C, D & possibly F are prioritised, there is a danger of part three being pretty boring - especially considering the colossal 'Galt speech'. I don't envy you guys with the challenge of pulling that off, without many people losing interest... but then, if people lose interest in Galt's speech, they'll likely lose interest in the book.

I do think E (a good director) is important. I would suggest hiring the biggest a***hole you can find - one that is going to push the actors to their limits. Find the Howard Roark of directors: one who's unknown & possibly laughed at by the majority but who you know will get the job done because he believes in it.

Regarding actors, I preferred Dagny & Rearden in part two for the simple reason that they had more balls. In part one,the Dagny & Rearden characters may have been 'sexier to look at but they (especially Dagny) seemed pretty vague.

If you do use the same actors as you did in part two, I could suggest that you do your utmost to piss Samantha Mathis off before every shoot to ensure that she stays angry. Push her hard & grill her hard over her lines. Make her mad (although that's the Director's job)! There's little more attractive than a woman with presence. Other than that, stick to the plot & the rest should take care of itself.

Casting!! Definitely. I was sorely disappointed in seeing that the cast of the ASPII was completely different from ASPI. Is it going to be more of the same for ASPIII?

I have input to offer, but first, a disclaimer in an Objectivist vein: John Aglialoro undertook the making of Atlas, so it his artistic vision that needs to be realized. Asking for input in how to complete that vision from a public forum risks the integrity of the project. But so far, I have been satisfied with how Parts I and II have stayed true to the book, while shifting the story to the present day.

In order of priority, in my opinion:
B. Getting the message of AS right is the most important. I grant that the staggering scope of the book cannot be contained in 6 hours of film, but structure the story with some "hooks" to make thinking members of the audience want to go out and buy a copy to read for themselves. Ayn Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged to warn America of the evils of statism, so I think that should remain the top priority. The other aspects of casting, cinematography, and special effects are just tools assisting in reaching that goal. Compared to the garbage stories being told in big-budget Hollywood movies today, Atlas Shrugged has much to offer in this intellectual wasteland. If the message is powerful enough, it can make up for the inevitable shortcomings in a low-budget production.

E. Hiring the right director. This is the next priority that I would set because the director has the responsibility of telling the story and emphasizing the correct artistic elements. Jonathan Mostow or Ron Howard I think are the best directors today that can harness modern film-making technologies and use them to tell the story, not gloss over the lack of substance in a script.

A. Casting. I was a little taken aback when Pt II was completely recast. But I got the impression that was the plan all along. So I'm OK if Pt III has a whole new troupe of actors. But some comments: When I saw Pt I, I didn't think Taylor Schilling was the perfect Dagny, but I like her in the part better than Samantha Mathis. (In the perfect world of my mind, I have always seen Hedy Lamarr in the role of Dagny, but that can never be for obvious reasons.) Grant Bowler I thought was perfect as Henry Rearden. I also thought the casting of Rebecca Wysocky as Lillian in Pt I was perfect. In the book, Lillian is more of a snake than the Class A Bitch portrayed by the actress in Pt II.

Since John Galt is a shadowy character in the first two parts, the casting was not so critical. I thought that DB Sweeney was wasted by being back in the shadows of Pt II, and wouldn't mind seeing him fully portray Galt in Pt III. A darkhorse that I would suggest for the role of Galt would be Rush's drummer Neal Peart. His liner note acknowledging Ayn Rand in 2112 probably did more to introduce adolescents of my generation to her works than any other thing in the culture of the day. He may be getting too old to play Galt today, but it would be great if he could be cast in a bit part.

F. I was horrified to see a Fisker Karma in Part II. This is product placement going out of control. As an engineer in the automotive industry, the Fisker Karma to me symbolizes the evil of government intrusion in the market. It's the poster child for political pull, being created by the grace of millions of dollars in government loan guarantees.