I disagree that it would "destroy the message." Mrs. Rand's message is so good no bad actor can damage it.

I was very disappointed with both. I say scrap both movies and start again. Get a new script, director, actors. The movie should tell a great story. Start the story with a cataclysmic event (perhaps in the middle of the story)to get the viewers attention, and then interface mystery. It should be suspenseful, and appealing to the general public. Let action and cinamatograpy tell the story. Use dialogue sparingly and develop the characters through action. The characters should be unique and sexual, Like John Hamm as Henry Rearden and Angelina Joli as Dagney.

Ha, ha, ha, cute comment. Although I don't have a crush on Bowler, I think he was perfect as Rearden, very macho and mature--a real man!

To ascertain where the priority should be, we need to look at the goal. What is the goal and how best to achieve it. My thoughts would be for a blend of the message portrayed by the actors and enhanced by the vision of the director to stay on task. My wife had not read the book, even after several requests by me however, when she saw ASII, there were enough tie-ins with what is going on around us that she was able to relate. She then asked to watch AS1 and even has the book now. To change the actors just because, may create continuity issues resulting in the messages being diluted or lost with the questions of why.

Ditto!

Casting, by all means! Bring back the main actors of AS part one, pleaseeeee! Everything else is absolutely perfect, we LOVE the movie and hope you make more of the kind.

This is our golden opportunity to reverse the image others have of us by emphasizing the compassion felt by Dagny for Cheryl, and by Hank Reardon for Non-Absolute! Don't blow this chance! Emphasize that there is no contradiction between the humane and self-interest; that to get one group to support another by force does both a disservice.

No, it is just directly against what AR wrote. She described how Eddie looked along with all the other characters. If she didn't specify I wouldn't care but it's like making Ron from Harry Potter black just for the sake of it, when he's described clearly in the book as a red-head. Eddie is described as a Germanic looking guy so why are they changing it? Do they have some protocol where they have to have at least one black person a movie? Why?

Showing the parallel to today's political climate

Getting the message right. if the film does not convey the message, what is it conveying? I was disappointed at the portrayal of the moment of revelation at the end of Part II when Dagny meets Galt for the first time. The novel shows this as one of those perfect moments. Maybe the start of III can improve on it.

The most important thing, I think, is showing the masses the direction that we are traveling as a country, that Rand saw when she wrote her novels. And doing this with tie-ins with current figures if possible. Then we continue to build a movement instead of just a movie

I was also thinking Kate Beckinsale would be marvelous as Dagny! Her fee would probably break the budget, though.

Agreed on the portrayal of Akston in Pt. I; I thought it was snarky. That passage in the book shows Akston to be polite, forthright, and distinguished.

B. Else what's the point. The key part of AS3 will be Galt's broadcast as the rest of the novel is mainly set-up for that. However it is quite long and to hold the audience the camera should have cuts to illustrations of Galt's points...factory workers and THEN the engineers and architects enabling them, the blacksmith's arm and THEN the steel mill, and so forth, as many as possible limited only by the writers' imaginations and the shooting budget. BTW We loved the first two and anticipate a great conclusion. Thank you.

http://www.examiner.com/review/atlas-shr...

http://www.examiner.com/review/atlas-shr...

As a (small 'o') objectivist and someone whose loved Atlas Shrugged for 35 years and studied the philosophy in depth, I was quite disappointed in Atlas Shrugged Part II. Dagny-II was anything but evocative of the novel's character and Rearden's speech at his trial dropped the main theme of the novel -- how evil triumphs through the sanction of the victim -- something he comes to understand and to liberate himself with by using. It was a faint image of the novel without philosophy or heroic characters. Like a tortured mockery of Richard Halley's 4th Concerto. Atlas Shrugged was far more than a lukewarm conservative pro-business novel. This isn't even a grade-B movie. Unlike Part-I I found this most difficult to watch.

The story! The story! The story! As Ayn Rand knew, some people would read -- and love -- her stories, but might never be genuinely interested in her philosophy. And she was okay with that. Also, the story of Atlas Shrugged is not really about the "bad guys," but rather about the "good guys," of whom there are many. Do you want people walking out of theaters, feeling hatred and contempt? I believe Ms. Rand would want them to feel inspired and empowered by her magnificent heroes. If it is your intention to use the movie drive people to the book(s), you'd better focus on telling a story that people will LOVE -- a passionate, well-told story that people will want to see/read over and over. And trust that some portion of them will be intrigued and captivated by aspects of the message -- enough so to seek more information. So far, there have been few memorable moments ASI and ASII. In ASIII I do not want to have to transfer/infuse my passion into the characters. I want them to arouse mine.

B. THE MESSAGE!

My #1 disappointment with Parts I and II were the very short "speeches". Ayn Rand spent pages and pages and pages on D'Anconia's speeches, Rearden's trial defense speech, Ragnar's speech, and John Galt's radio address. If people can make movies of Shakespeare plays that remain true to the lengthy monologues and still keep them interesting, then Part III can remain true to the lengthy and IMPORTANT speeches by Galt, D'Anconia, etc. which make these great men leave their life's work behind to join Galt's strike.

I have more comments on the films here. I would appreciate it if everyone read them:
http://zachfosterrants.blogspot.com/2012...

Both parts have been great, unfortunately you had to change characterts. Only a few things have changed from the book, but it doesn't hurt the story line. Only a persom who has read the book can follow the story line where there are a few unexplaned happenings. I await the 3rd part and hope it keeps up the same standards that 1 & 2 have done. Some of the viewers I know had to have some of the that happened to the railroad. The cutting back on cars and speede, the tearing up track to repair the decaying otherr tracks. All in all the story line stays true to form.

Casting. I was disappointed in the actress chosen to play Dagny in the second film. No personality, no strength of character, and, frankly, not too attractive as Dagny is supposed to be. The rest of the cast is OK, but In my opinion, the casting in the first film was next to perfect.

A Casting. I loved Taylor Shilling and Grant Bowler

Omit Ayn Rand's long anti-religion speech. Leaving it in will alienate much of your audience who might otherwise agree with all her other points.

While I might agree with many of her points about 'organized' religion, they didn't prove that there is no God or higher power that created man capable of being as perfect as Ms. Rand says we can be when we follow her philosophy.

Given that Ms. Rand was able to get the 'Money Speech' and the 'Love Speech' 'flat' in but a few pages... the fact that she rambled on and on against religion for scores of pages tells me that she didn't have that subject 'flat'.

The right director: Clint Eastwood. He'll maintain the integrity for the story and tell it entertainingly---a proven commodity.

That is exactly right.

B. Getting the message of Atlas Shrugged right. This is absolutely the most important aspect of making this film, and is indeed the single greatest reason to make it at all. While I agree with much of the sentiment that I see in the comments here that casting is also a very important issue (and one that has not, up to this point, been done very well), the reason that casting is important at all is to convey the story and the message correctly. For instance, it is so important to cast Dagny's character properly because the nature of that character is subtle and layered with the intent of putting forth a message about the kind of woman Dagny Taggart is. The reason that casting is so important is because the message must be properly presented to the audience, and while this is true of any casting decision in any story, it is particularly important to the making of this specific film. The entertainment afforded by watching this movie is important, but secondary to the message. Proper casting allows for a smooth presentation of the story and of the message, but it is so very important only because the correct presentation of the message itself is absolutely critical. I do hope that the filmmakers heed these comments... after all, they only have one more chance to get it right.