Other: You must get the EMOTIONS right. The previous parts have not done a good job getting the audience to either care about the characters or more importantly to get angry. (and the last one while better produced hardly got the message across)

Casting....PLEASE keep the same actors for Dagny Taggart and Henry Reardon as in Atlas Shrugged 2

The number 1 priority is getting the message ACROSS. You could get the message right by filming Mr. Aglialoro, standing at a lectern, reading John Galt's speech... but that wouldn't be very cinematic. It wouldn't get the message across to anyone who wasn't already a "true believer." With the current production crew, I have no doubt you'll get the message right. Getting it across, reaching a larger audience, should be the number 1 priority.

B. Getting the message of Atlas Shrugged right

Getting the message of Atlas Shrugged right!

The job will be to achieve the proper cinematic drama leading to Galt's Speech, and then how to present the ideas in Galt's speech (i.e.) Objectivism in clear, brief yet mesmerizing form for the screen.

Assuming a much shorter screen version of Galt's Speech than in the novel, perhaps the full speech could be made available to interested viewers by download from the Web in text, audio, and/or AV format .... with Web address in the film credits.

Galt's message going viral on the Web -- now that would really be special !!

i apologize to all those who feel the casting is the most important issue for part 3, but as others have stated here already, what's done is done, and it's largely pointless to spend energy into bringing back cast members from part 1.

IMHO, the most important issue is getting the message of Atlas Shrugged correctly conveyed to the masses while telling a good story which captivates the audience. and if it takes longer to tell that story, then so bit it — audiences seem to be growing more used to lengthy movies, so long as they're interesting.

i submit that the contemporary masses were not as brainwashed by collectivist philosophy as they were mid-20th C. it seems that most individuals today barely even know what liberty is. many appear to believe that the source of the individual natural rights with which we are born are derived from the State, rather than from the Creator (whatever one believes "Creator" to mean) above and beyond corruptible and mortal man, thus making the State a "god" unto whom all should serve.

among the goals set forth by those among this Atlas Shrugged effort, i feel it paramount to reveal to the masses that the political notion of "left VS right" or "liberal VS conservative" is a lie, while the TRUE battle of ideals is between the philosophies of "collectivism VS individualism". not having read the book but having seen parts 1 & 2, i perceive that this is being conveyed, but i hope part 3 winds up hammering it home.

in order to continue waking up those who still slumber while our individual liberties are being usurped all the time, we among the greater liberty movement which includes various branches of the individualist philosophy need to keep striving together in order to reveal such fundamental truths — people divide over lies, but they unite over truths.

What's the point of getting the message right if nobody sees it?

We have to be above all honest with ourselves. And if we're honest with ourselves we have to admit that despite our efforts, the first two movies failed at the box office. Stings to say it but it's true. Maybe half a million people tops saw Part II in the theater. "The Great Gatsby" made twice as much money yesterday as "Part II" did in its entire theater run, and that was a Sunday. That shows that intelligent and thought-provoking literary adaptations don't automatically fail in the US if (and here's the key) they're done well and are entertaining.

The producers are basically asking this question: the first two parts preached to the choir, and did it so much that pretty much only the choir came to see it, because all it was was preaching to the choir. Should we stick with that path, they're asking, and make a lecture movie nobody sees, or should we focus on the entertainment value and try to grow the audience, hoping that this will plant the seed in their minds (rather than jamming it down their throats).

Well, the way I've put the question tells you where I'm at, and if we're honest with ourselves, there's no reason to plan on Part III doing any better than the previous two unless something significant changes.

A couple of days ago I saw, in front of the new Star Trek movie, a preview for something called "Elysium" - a science-fiction treatment of the 99%/1% narrative. You can bet that the 1% are not going to come out on top. But that will be seen by tens of millions who won't even know Part III exists. Why? Because most people go to movies to be entertained, not lectured to, and the guys making "Elysium" are doing their damnedest to make it entertaining, and only THEN slipping the message in.

If you strip yourself of wishful, magic-unicorn thinking, which one is going to have a bigger impact with its ideology, a movie tens of millions will see, or a movie that once again falls flat if you haven't already read the book - that is, if you're not already in the choir.

The priority is both A and B.

I hestiate to heavily criticize the work of fellow artists (unless they promote evil or irriationality). Samanth Mathis did a decent job, but I have to say that I did prefer the casting of Taylor Schilling as Dagney. She fit the general description better, and really got the "directness" and high-awareness level of Dagney down quite well -- better than I ever expected any current actress to do. Both Hank Reardons were well done, I think, each has his specific plus points. Same with both Eddies, but my own personal preference was the one in Part 1 only because he looked more like an administrative type of person, both in stature and in demeanor. Definitely the better Francisco was Esai Morales!!!

BUT the most important cast concern I have is the casting of John Galt. Look, D.B. Sweeny is an excellent actor and I have enjoyed his work, but John Galt is the single most important character in the story, even though he has limited screen time. There must be a certain, unbelievably strong presence and calmness about this character, and I don't think Mr. Sweeney (or the fellow who played it in Part 1) have duplicated that type of beingness. This is the actor who is going to deliver the speech at the climax of the movie, and also the very face of the Atlas Shrugged "strike". He needs more presence. Kind of the male equivalent to the Dagney as played by Ms. Schilling.

This leads to the equally important priority of delivering the message -- and the most important element of that is the movie version of the 100+ page speech delivered by John Galt in the book. It has to be cut down dramatically, yet it must retain its key content. It also cannot come over as too "preachy", or you're going to lose a lot of audience.

Besides providing a positive experience for those of us who are already Objectivists, the move needs to get Miss Rand's message out to those who are NOT already in such agreement. And that means communicating at a level that an audience today can comprehend, and in such a way that you can keep their attention.

Like it or not, the literacy level of today's movie going audience is a LOT lower than the group of people who sat in a class with me listening to Dr. Leonard Peikoff deliver Miss Rands Objectivist philosphy class in the 1970s -- even the higher end of today's intelligent people have limited patience and limited attention span -- and they really do not like being talked down to, or being preached at.

I am a writer myself, but not a speech writer. Whoever must re-write this speech has quite a challence on his/her hands. It will be critical to the effectiveness of the movie.

I will the Atlas Shrugged Part III team all the best in their endeavors.

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.

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.

A....Casting ll was a messs. Have the director read the book

DIALOGUE AND EXPOSITION: The number one failing so far has been that the movie(s) don't explain enough for this unusual and culturally against the grain a film. The "old-fashioned filmaking" of the 30's and 40's used dialogue and sometimes even voice-overs - lots of snappy, fast-paced, scintillating. So use **Rand's own words**. And do it throughout - from the very first scene until the end. (None of this shlocky -- and way too short and cryptic -- "hey Hank, what's with all the altruism?" nonsense written by someone else.) Rand never talked down in writing the book. Count on the intelligence of the moviegoers and their ability to follow fast-paced, complex explanation and dialogue. Or count on the fact that they will be impressed enough to watch it a second time to 'get what we missed'.

In addition to what has been talked about, F: ADVERTIZING & DISTRIBUTION are make or break. These productions have been too unseen/ unknown even to many ardent AS readers. After the 'professional critic elite" got done hammering 1 & 2, I was concerned that 3 would be reduced to doing it in anime or sock puppets!

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.

You're doing OK on B, and unless C and D are really awful, they won't be a problem. Go back to the cast from 1, especially Taylor Schilling as Dagny!

B. and E. (I guess.) What is most important to me is to retain the most powerful and moving scenes from the book, and don't mess around with them! In Part I, the Dagny/Lillian/bracelet scene was extremely powerful - in the book. In the movie, it was about 1/10 as good. And there was no reason to mess with it; it should have been filmed directly from the book's dialogue. Likewise, in Part III, PLEASE don't mess around with the Wet Nurse death scene. It is perfect in the book; just use it.

The direction in Part I was not nearly as good as in Part II. But it still needs improvement. I think about the final scene in particular; it didn't make much sense having the Gulch residents slowly amble over like zombies towards the plane wreckage. That was just strange.

In thinking about this some more.. While getting the message right is really important. It seems like that is fairly low hanging fruit considering the source material. So, that leaves something else.. It seems like the writing in I and II was not too bad. But, the acting was kind of wooden in both of them. On a set there is only one guy who can get a good performance out of the actors. So, I would say that the thing that is probably most important in III would be really, really good directing.

F) Continuity. Revisit the decision -making process that went into the first two films and try to keep the same “flow.” I haven’t read the book, so I don’t have any preconceived ideas of characterizations. I was a first-time viewer of a story unfolding. I was completely okay with the fact that the cast had new faces because the characters represented “ideals” and the story itself had not been compromised. Just keep doing what you are doing. :)

Casting; the message is important, but it the actors do not deliver it, it will be lost. Casting in the first 2 was good. Casting in the 3rd will be most important in the John Galt character...he should be a believer in the message (no small task in Hollywood)

B The message IS the real reason for the movie I hope.
My vote to be John Galt goes to very conservative, and supporter of our nations military veterans, Gary Sinise (Lt Dan).

A, Definitely A, then E.. Just remember - A is A. Bad casting = boxoffice failure.

You need the RIGHT actors - like going back to AS1 and hiring them back, then do a remake of 2 with that same cast. You almost killed the story by changing actors between 1 and 2; changing them *again* for 3 would be like deliberately torpeoding the movie. The cast of 1 worked... Add to this you NEED to pick the right actor for Danneskjold. And all 4 of the protagonists (Dagny, John, Ragnar, and Francisco) should be the same age... in the book, they're all in their mid-late 30's. And well capable of carrying off the "raid" sequence later on.

And then E - Directing. The Director NEEDS to undestand the book as well as the actors, if not better... and take EXCELLENT actors and bring them together like Halley did in his 5th concerto...
Finally - DON'T FORGET THE MINOR PLAYERS... everyone from Richard Halley to Ken Danagger to Cuffy Miegs and Kip's Ma... Even Fred Kinnan... that one is tough because you have to have that "looter" greed , pull-mongering, and corruption, yet his character has something underlying that makes you think had he not been a rotter he may have been an OK guy... Oh heck, Weasally Mr, Thompson to boot...

A. Casting - The actors who are selected, if they convey each character's dominant traits in an effective manner, will get the messages of Atlas Shrugged across.

There seemed to be a better chemistry between the original Dagny and Hank. I agree with previous comments about the confidence/determination Taylor Shilling projected in part 1.

Casting. Get Galt and Dagny correct this time. Stay true to the book, don't worry about CGI.

Nathan Fillion definitely.

Definitely.

His past roles, especially as Captain Mal in Firefly and Serenity just fit the role of John Galt perfectly. The whole "me vs the rest of the world", seeing through the blinding fog brought about by the "everybody else says so, so it must be ok"... Just a perfect choice.

Plus he has that perfect stone face that I always pictured John Galt having. The "I know you think that way, but thinking doesn't make it true"