definitely "A". Please go back to the cast of movie #1. #2 cast sucked and you have made this a series- you cant have different characters in a continuation of the SAME book? I got to like Dagny #1, Francisco #1, Rearden #1. I didnt really care for the rest of them to be honest, but these three Are the movie.

B. Atlas Shrugged is a philosophical novel, and so the movie must illustrate the philosophy properly: inividual liberty, self-responsbility, small government, free enterprise, and a strong defense.

A, For the following reasons. The casting in the first part was much better than the second one. Fans of Atlas Shrugged knows the message already. Please don't make the same mistake, select the best casting. I think it was a mistake to change the casting, Terrible mistake.

B!! I have been so disappointed in the way her amazing speeches have been so diluted within the story. I couldn't wait to get people I knew to the theater to hear her message in those brilliantly written speeches and they were glossed over! I have lost my enthusiasm for the production because I don't see the message coming through. People say the movie is okay, but no comment is ever made about the message. I just have to tell them to read the book. Please change this in the final. It is too important, especially at this time in American history.

I will in time but I am on SS and that is one of the luxuries I can not afford at the moment. I actually was going to wait until I could watch all 3 parts but found part 1 on netflix.

A. Casting. I thought the Atlas Shrugged Casting of the main leads were perfect. Was disappointed when Part II the leads were all different. I bought first movie. Wont buy 2nd. Otherwise I think it is great that a movie is finally made. Need a remake of The Fountainhead

A

I am so 'on board' with your reference to the 20th Century Motor story as being a microcosm of Rand's polemic. The full story in the novel tells it all, and should have been expanded in Part II.

A sad omission, and a lost opportunity to 'spread' the gospel.

I would say casting first and getting the message right. Of course cinematography helps to get the message across as do special effects, but I would not sacrifice the message to afford those. I also preferred Taylor Schilling as Dagny taggart.

Part II is great! You've got to see it!

getting the message right is most important. I can't afford to pay to be a member and have seen only part I but I had dreamed of this being a movie for years. As far as part 3, both in terms of ads for it and the message, I would love to see a contest on youtube perhaps where those who know the message could post what they would like covered in a period of time so that all of John Galt's comments which had the most impact could be covered. even in part 1 I saw a place of two where a word or a sentence could have better expressed the intent of the story. You can never film the entire speech of John but you can film a sentence here and there, picked through a contest, to show what has been the most meaningful to those who have read the book as many times as I have and I think it would make a far better and meaningful movie.

B (message)

B; CLEAR, COMPLETE AND CONCISE.

NO REDUNDANCY AND NO BLATHER.

(B) is my number one priority, but (A) comes in a close second. I agree with a number of the posters here that the original casting for Hank and for Dagny was spot-on. Not that the replacements for Part II weren't good, but I was much more invested in the characters with Taylor and Grant in the roles.

"B" is definitely a first priority.
"A" would tie "E" for next, since both were a huge factor in making Part II much better than Part I, in my humble opinion.

Part II took me back to the spirit of Rand's novel, while Part I did not project the noble aspirations of the main characters. There were times that they came off as merely greedy and selfish, and therefore, evil in society's light.

Atlas Shrugged was the most inspirational book that I have ever read...and my degree is in English Lit!

A.) Casting- I agree with all of you about Dagney, but I also hated the choice of Richard Jones for Eddie... He is way too confident to play a guy without the confidence to tell the woman he loved how he felt and be content to work with her. Edi Gathegi did a suburb job- Honestly, just for continuity I wish you'd kept the original cast intact.

Also- I would LOVE to see Anna Silk for Lilian Rearden...

B. I think it is most important to get the message right. There are so many people out there who are ignorant of what freedom really is and means. My hope is that the movie, if done really well with great actors, etc, will help to educate some people out there. At least maybe they will begin to question their long held "progressive" beliefs.

Get the original cast from Atlas Shrugged 1 back

E - The Director's vision will define the picture. It is critical that the picture appeal to as broad a segment of the population friendly to the ideas of Ayn Rand. (To include Social Conservatives and people of Faith).............

Getting the message right. As much as I was excited to see Part I, Part II did a much better job at helping the uninitiated viewer understand the message. It (Part II) also had quantum upgrades in cinematography, dialogue, moving the story forward and casting (although Taylor Schilling was an excellent Dagny).

A. That will make B much more likely to happen.

nannybooboo, I think you'll see some differing opinions on this post. So, pray tell us, what's the "astute" answer?

First and foremost, "B" get the message right. Secondly, "A" bring back the actors from Part I. They were better than the ones in Part II and seeing new actors in Part II somehow left me feeling betrayed.

Trusting that the messaging will be framed correctly, priority is in casting: Angie Harmon for Dagny -- she's supposed to convey a strength of will, plus she's written as tall, slim, brunette; love Michael O'Keefe as Dr. Akston.