Getting the message of Atlas Shrugged right!

F. Hiring the right Screenwriter; one who will be completely unoriginal; in other words, one who will not add or change any words of dialogue but instead use only the precise words Ayn Rand wrote. Deleting some words are of course essential if the film is to be less than 12 hours long, but key, immortal sentences must not be deleted (For example, Dagny's "We never had to take any of it seriously, did we?" at the beginning of Part III and "Do you hear me, my love?" in Galt's speech). The love story should be held to be equal to the economic story in importance and have equal amounts of screen time. Any other way of approaching it is the approach of an artistic imbecile. Even Al Ruddy knew that when he approached Ayn Rand. The screenwriter should not be afraid to include key prose sentences by Ayn Rand, to be spoken by a narrator, as in Brideshead Revisited the miniseries or the opening and closing of To Kill A Mockingbird, which included narration by their respective authors.

Getting the message of Atlas Shrugged right!

A. Casting John Galt correctly will make or break ASIII
and then
F. a great representation of the original Galt's Gulch to properly show what a utopia the world would be if made up of nothing but producers.

I just wanted to add, CASTING is part of the story telling. The casting in part 1 and part 2 each had it's pluses and minuses. The issue was the change. Changing the casting disrupts the story telling. It's bad enough we had to wait a year to continue the story but then you changed everyone. Continuity of the story is a key to effective story telling. There is no going back now... so do whatever you can to minimize the disruptions to the story telling.

g. all of the above.try not to recast the LEADS a third time for one. One shouldn't produce two entire feature films only to say on part three "This time we're getting it right." Ouch.

Dialogue! Use her words, not the cheap dumbed-down tripe we had to put up with in I and II. Keep the philosophical intent, not just the politics. Get Kate Beckinsale for Dagney, Simon Baker for Galt, Steven Brand for Hank, Peter Faccinelli for Francisco, Yan Birch as Ragnar.

There are two key priorities:
1. getting the message right and
2. making it sufficiently entertaining as a movie that even people who aren't devotees of Rand find it worth seeing.

If those two things are accomplished, then the film will have done its job. However, in order to do this, it takes the right writer, the right director, the right cast, and the right technical expertise and creativity. So I don't know how one can determine one over all the others.

I think the best answer to anyone who cares anything about this series is B. "Getting the message of Atlas Shrugged right"! That being said, the Director, Casting, Cinematography, Special Effects, then everything else would be the correct order of operations. But definately the message is vital to awaken the public to our own reality here in the United States - not to mention the world of today!

I think the first two films were quite good, particularly for having been made on a shoe-string budget. And I think the message has gotten through. Like many others I would like to see Taylor Schilling back in the cast as Dagney. She was terrific. Her replacement in ASII was OK, but Taylor was much better. As much as possible shorten up the Galt speech in III. The jist of the speech can be presented in a much shorter format.

B, showing faces of listeners to Galt's Speech, from fear to panic to revelation.

A- bring back the first cast. OY.

B, by all means, get the message across. The people of this country needs to know that we are starting to lose our freedoms.

A - Casting. I feel very superficial in voting so, as I would prefer to answer 'the message' - but while casting will never meet every fans personal image, in my sphere of Atlas fans that regularly discuss the films, we found the casting of Dagny Taggart in Part II to not just be a mere matter of preferential musings, but actually found the portrayal of Dagny unflattering in the extreme; even distracting.

So many of you are wrong. Please listen. I'm one of you. Think about the movie, part 1 and part 2. What is the single biggest scene from each movie? Now think what message was attached to that scene? What they are failing to do is connect the emotion created by the scene with the message. You can't just concentrate on the message/message/message. Without the story telling the message is lost. Look at how well the progressives have been doing for 100 years. Their message SUCKS, but in the last 100 years have we been going toward RAND or MARX? You have to admit when we are wrong and we have been wrong the last 100 year. That's why our country is headed to a socialist hell.

Their message is garbage, but they are winning the race. So clearly the message is secondary to how well you tell the story. We must learn from our mistakes. Learn from their success. And in their movies, they don't just use one or two big scences. There are dozens of big emotional moments in movies with their message attached. They are masters at their craft. We cannot compete with them unless we are at least in the ball park with our skill level. Because our message is superior, it'll put us over the top, but we have to be at least in the ball park with our story telling skills.

Do E and everything else will be just fine. Part II was RUINED by the recasting for me. The first cast was just fine, the whole new cast made me want to walk out. I couldn't stand to hear Hank talk... sounded like a lifetime smoker! So do E and hopefully everything else will fall into place... but PLEASE bring back original cast!!!

B.....The message that we were left with after episode 1 was not complementing Part 2.; I enjoyed both episodes but you need to get back on track from the first episode.

Special effects. Make the economic collapse spectacular and Galt's Gultch the epitomy of entrepreneurial spirit and wealth creation highlighting the benefits of capitalism and individual liberty unfettered by government.

B

B (effective screenwriting can be the toughest nut esp. in a work of this length) then E;F -it's a little late for A; I suspect they couldn't afford to retain Taylor Schilling? just a theory- In Pt 2 they all did a creditable job but momentum suffers from such changes- Pt2 female lead seemed like an odd choice; & how in the world do you do a part3 review/ reference to previous events with different casts? (Was it internal sabotage? I have to wonder) Anyway-
One of the challenges in 3 will be how to handle Galt's 2 hour monologue in a powerful way, editing for time, focus & clarity. One of the stumbling blocks in Rand's work in my opinion is that she could have benefited from an editor. Not knocking her writing at all, but what some have attributed to ' wooden acting' which some have alluded to though that was not my experience- is due in my opinion to Rand's style of straightforward characterization. All her stories are means to illustrate a philosophy & tends to hit the 'preachy' button in some.
Others have commented on the tough choices
that Part3 has to handle in terms of length, what to emphasize, what has to be edited. Was sorry to see the PROMINENT CLOCK device that is nowhere to be seen in 1 or 2. Would include but since it wasn't there before... oh well. Summary: Tight screenplay so the story is conveyed DYNAMICALLY & EFFECTIVELY without dragging on & getting the point across without overstatement/ endless repetition. Yes, make people CARE about the characters. There is plenty on the current world stage to allude to without having to get too blatant as to the obvious parallels. Ragnar, Project X, My hope is that viewers who have or have not read her work will come away RE EXAMINING their assumptions & precast perceptions & will perhaps see for the first time, what is unfolding in the world outside the theater. & what the possibilities are... ( besides maybe discovering that Zero Point energy technology is a FACT, not just fiction) Temlakos summarized task well..

Change the cast again, please. The Dagny from II didn't get it at all.
Also while I know the speech can't be put into a film, it's too long, can we have the whole speech as a DVD extra?

A & B. The first cast was compelling and believable. That took care of the message. They were family and we cared for them. AS2 left me wondering who these people were and having to learn their mannerisms and feelings all over again. Don't rebuild it again or the message will be totally missed.

Use original cast if possible and make sure you have a good director. It has to be an OMG you need to see this movie kind of movie or people won't spend their money to go and the message will never get out.

B first
Then A and C
Having some continuity with same actors of previous films would be great. (the Atlas 1 Actors were far better than 2)

F. Other - this is an easy question - surprised you asked ( I am smiling) - obviously, the most important part is Galt's radio speech - take a risk, leave the speech intact, all 45 minutes of it, and show the surprised look on the faces as they recognize the voice...building Galt's presence and mind as it is depicted in the book is paramount to delivering a successful and satisfying movie experience. Good Luck! We are all cheering you on! We all so appreciate what you've done, what you are doing, and we are all doing our best (at least I am) in trying to build audience numbers, getting the word out, and letting people know this is the most exciting book ever made into a movie series!