I don't think improving any of these would make any difference. The die on this trilogy has already been cast. It's an embarrassment, and will keep anyone from trying again for the next fifty years.

But still -

A - casting hardly matters anymore; when you did the recast with Part II, the continuity was broken. Plus the odds are you don't have anyone from Part II on contract, just as you didn't for Part I, so it's going to be another recast.

B. Since two terrible movies have driven off everyone but the truest True Believers, and since Parts I and II seemed uninterested in any cinematic value except for hammering home the hamhanded message, I think this is pretty much the only area where you might still be able to convince a fraction of your very tiny audience that your movies are in any way even adequate.

C. I wouldn't worry too much about cinematography, given that nobody sees these in the theater. The few who do watch these do so on their TVs at home.

D. Same as C - since nobody's going to watch in on the big screen, don't waste your money on big-screen effects. (Of course, to follow that thread to the end, since nobody's going to watch your movie at all, don't waste your money making it.)

E. So far, you've had a guy you hired less than two weeks before shooting, who spent his nights desperately rewriting the next day's scripts so that it wasn't more inane than a toothpaste commercial, and you've had some guy who didn't get any work as a director for twenty years but slapped together a Rand doco. Really, at this rate, you should just flip open the LA phonebook and pick anybody at random. You can't do worse than you've done.

F. The best thing you could do is get John Aglialoro's ego in line with reality. He makes crappy movies. Does he honestly not know that?

In this order:

1) Remove David Kelley from the production team. It doesn't need a Cadre Officer in Charge of Philosophy Compliance. The screenwriter, producer, and director, need to make their own creative choices and contributions to the project without worrying whether they "comply" with Objectivism.

2) Hiring the right screenwriter who can create a screenplay that works dramatically qua movie: he doesn't need to include (nor should he include) every character or event that's in the novel. The writer needs to find the dramatic "through-line" and stick to it: from the standoint of structure — STRUCTURE, not the philosphy of Objectivism — E.g., why does he need the Wet Nurse (especially since he wasn't brought in until Part 2 and didn't influence any of the dramatic action, or choices, of the characters)? E.g., Why does he need Richard Halley at this late date (especially since the producers missed an opportunity to integrate Halley's music with the movie themes themselves, such as a "Galt's Theme", a "Dagny's Theme," etc. As in Doctor Zhivago (music by Maurice Jarre), it could have been both memorable and effective by supporting the dramatic action rather than merely being TV-style episodic "accompaniment".

3) Hire a director who understands the medium of film; i.e., scenes where people stand around, sit around, drive around, etc., and dialogue with one another create dead spots. In real life, e.g., people rarely simply talk to one another while doing absolutely nothing else. In real life, they tie their shoelaces, they smoke a cigarette, they text or check email, they eat, they sip coffee, etc. This is acting-class 101.

4. Casting. I thought Part 2 was a bit of an improvement over Part 1, despite the audience jolt of having to experience all new faces and approaches to characters. I wouldn't have another cast change at this point. Work with what you've got.

As Jack Warner famously said: "If you want to send a message, go to Western Union."

I fail to understand why the producers don't trust the basic dramatic action / plot to "get the message across." The message is NOT in dialogue with people speaking "messages" to the audience. The message (in all movies, not just AS) comes across on its own via the plot events. In a well-written screenplay, the theme emerges from the plot events of its own accord. You don't need to emphasize it with long speeches or "on the nose" dialogue. JUST TELL THE STORY.

You don't have to worry about the cinematography or f/x. This is basically a character-driven story (Dagny is the protagonist; it's her story), and the writer has to decide WHAT, precisely, is the plot, since there are many to choose from in the novel.

My own vote is that AS should have been a story about Dagny overcoming obstacles to building her own railroad line, The John Galt Line. Instead, this was made into a subplot in Part I that didn't really go anywhere as far as advancing the story in Part 2.