The number one priority should be to just get it done and accept the fact that it will not (immediately) become a widely-watched film that changes millions of minds. Only a handful of Ayn Rand followers are likely to want to see it no matter how good (or bad) it is. The first installment was better than the second but there may not be enough money to bring back the part 1 performers. So just get it done as best you can under a tight budget, release it, and get ready to re-release it when the entire world economy tanks (and it will) in just a more years.

B. John Galt's radio address

I preferred the actors in Part 1 as well; however, I think it would be a mistake (and likely impractical) to recast those actors again. A third switch is going to throw off the audience even more than the second switch. Also, your remarks about Dagny and Rearden being haggard in Part II -- doesn't that actually fit the progression of the plot...?

B - the message is key, and that is most represented by the speech. Ayn Rand gave it a little more than an eighth of the pages of Part 3, so I hope it gets at least that percent of the movie. Casting is a close second, because without the right Galt, people will not listen to the speech.

A. Casting (Esai Morales best Francisco D'Anconia)
F. Passion for B. (Getting message right)

B

B. The Atlas Shrugged message is extremely important. Especially now with all the scandals that involve over-reach of a too big government. Todays news of tax those you do not like and pick supporters to win with government aid screams what Ayn Rand fought against. The message of Ayn Rand is important!

Btw. Please stop editing the script. For reasons why read the fountInhead.

A and B. of coarse the message needs to be accurate but i fell in love with hank n dagne in part one. Samatha harris is greT but i Lreadyoved that first cast. My opinion is the only mistake was the entire new cast except beckel! Lol

Getting the message correctly is first.
Do so with more of a dramatic punch with a dynamic director.
Recast Taylor Shilling as Dagny!!

B. of course. The other stuff is just icing on the cake to me although cinematography is why I go to the movies... :o)

A & B for me. You need to keep the quality up but not lose sight of the message. Love it so far. I sent a copy to my daughter (who has had a copy of the book for years) she called me frantic that that #2 wasn't the end of the story.

B. first
Then A. and I think you should do all new casting again for part 3.

I think getting the message right is the number one priority. This said,
if you don't have all of the other ingredients- cast, director, cinematography, special effects, promotion and publicity, etc.- no one is going to see it.

You're wrong. Just because one may be incapable of making what you interpret as dry and intellectual interesting and exciting, does not mean ALL are incapable of doing such. I, for one, do not view his speech as dry and intellectual, but exciting, rapid-pulse, hold-your-breath, exhilarating! I loved every word, my heart pounded, and the speech is everything. I was disappointed that Francisco's 'money" speech was left out in the earlier release.

Ayn Rand left intact Roarke's speech in The Fountainhead at the trial, and it was both edge-of-your-seat exciting and breath-taking.

I preferred the original cast from AS1, at least the main characters.
They were better!

A. Quick anecdote: three non-libertarian friends I showed both Parts I and II to thought part I was great while part II was a big disappointment largely because of casting. The cast of the first was just better in every way.

If we're going to use these films to make the point we need the actors who are ready to make an epic out of them without regard to ideology. And even if we're not going to do that, we need the actors from the first part just to make good, exciting movies!

Frankly, Rearden from Part II was played as a weirdly winey thug, not a guy contributing to society...

B. While I agree with the casting comments (bring back original actors), ultimately it's the message that is most important. While I feel the film is made for those of us who understand already, I have seen it swing two people from quasi-liberalism into reading the novel and have seen the light dawning. They would never have read the book without the movie to entice them. That's important.

I think everything is there but drama. Movie goers need more drama. The airplane crash was great!

My #1 priority is "B"... getting the message of Atlas Shrugged right, as envisioned by Ayn Rand... and hope the Republicans get up enough backbone to get this usurper out of our White House, NOW!!!

A.

I say that you guys should bring act the actors who originally played Dagny, Reardon, and Wesley Mouch. Keep Esai Morales though, because he is fantastic.

Bring back the entire cast from atlas shrugged 1, at least Dagney Hank and hank's wife. Much better than cast of Atlas Shrugged 2

A - Dagny needs to be the right age and beautiful
B - The message is EVERYTHING : When I first read the book, I would never have believed that Rand's scenario would actually happen, but it has!

B, the message, is fundamental. If that isn't right it's pointless. The goal is much more than just another entertaining movie, exploiting Ayn Rand's plot.

A and C-E are necessary parts of the means to achieve the message,with casting required to capture the characters in the novel in terms of how they projected themselves with their dialog, motives, and sense of life. Without that means, the message is lost -- a work of fiction illustrates the message in action and this isn't a modern TV series or sitcom.

F, other: don't decide by polls.