Exactly. The story.

It's a movie, not a lecture.

I was about to write something very similar to this post, but nomark sums it up well. An emotional reaction to this story is what grabbed all of us and never let go. Just presenting a plot on film will be hollow without an attachment to the characters. That attachment begins with casting and acting.

Atlas ! had a good cast but they seemed not to get the message out very easily, Atlas II got the message right but the actors, well just didn't seem right, no chemistry. I hate to say it but we need all of them. We need a cast the audience can connect with and believe what they are saying so we can get the message. Special effects, is okay but not essential I would put it in the background more. A good director brings it all together.

Agreed, Taylor Schilling was great! I also liked Grant Bowler as Rearden.

Casting, for sure. I was disappointed with the change in cast for Part II with Dagny and Harry. Although they did a good job, I feel consistency is key with this project. Although it may be too late as far as re-casting Taylor and Grant.

Also, I felt Part II was lacking in some areas relative to cinematography as well. It seemed to have that 'low budget' film persona.

Need a good, powerful cast to portray a powerful message. Cinematography needs to be kicked up a notch!

Priority: B, A, E, C, D

The message of Aynd Rand's book is more important than any cast change. I did preferr the 1st cast but what ever is necessary to bring about the message of Atlas Shrugged is more important. Especially in today's political turmoil.

B. Getting the message of Atlas Shrugged right. All of the others are important, but the message is really what we should be focusing on. There's enough pretty fluff in the theaters already.

I have found so many people that have never heard of Atlas Shrugged.! We need more exposure to the book and mostly the movie.!!

I agree with almost all the comments about the casting, however to go back to cast 1 would perhaps confuse some folks. Combining casts would also be problematic. Stay with part 2 cast and hire a top top director who can get performances out of these actors. The REAL priority is the story itself and telling that story in a movie format. If you tell the story THE MESSAGE will come out and people will hear it.

A. Casting
and
B. Getting the message right

B. The message is the point of the book and should be the concentration of the movie as well.

B.

A. Casting. The casting in the first film was wonderful. The casing all around, but particularly with regard to Dagny and Hank, in the second film was disappointing. Please, please, please bring back the original (i.e., film 1) cast.

cast!!!!!!
I loved the original cast from part one. you need to go back to those guys hands down. I was sort of disappointed with the cast from part 2. there was no chemistry.
I am looking forward to past 3.

I seem to bee the only one who preferred the second cast. But I did. I don't keep up with performer's names. But I especially liked the second Francisco -far more believable. But to me the most important goal is to get the message out without turning off the audience, I have read the book quite a few times, but when I get to Gault's radio address, I no longer read it. It is overkill. So how do you make it both effective and succinct? That will be a difficult job.

There HAS to be some sort of continuity with the cast. The cast of part I was absolutely perfect. The cast of Part II though disappointing is tolerable only if you can stick with them.

I agree that the cast from Part 1 one was much better, but please be sure to keep Old Biff and the dad from Family Ties from Part 2!

Vehemently disagreeing. Galt's speech is a synopsis of the message Rand intended to expose throughout AS. I didn't state that the entire speech be used, but it has to have a part in AS III and I never skipped the speech in the book.

B. is of utmost importance. Ayn Rands work speaks for itself. It is a massive undertaking attempting to bring this work to the screen, so far you have done yeoman's work and I congratulate you all.

second if needed is C. Cinematography

Bring back the original cast that was in part I

The second casting for Rearden was far superior to the first. Bring back the second Rearden. Bowler was a weak and insecure man in that role. Rearden is a no BS guy and Bowler just doesn't cut it.

You didn't read the book for context?

B. Reason, Philosophy, History, Truth and all about what makes humanity great in a story depends on Dialogue. Part I had it, Part II didn't. Get that right and the rest is but background. Cheers! I am so happy you are giving it a shot, all the best.

I "SECOND" that motion ! . . .

Absolutely PERFECT idea . . . reshooting Pt.2 would be a GREAT IDEA . . . it sure pissed off a "LOT" of people ! ( "ME", for one ! . . . )