Getting the message of Atlas Shugged RIGHT

B - get the message right.
A - casting. Dagny - Samantha Mathis destroyed the whole concept of Dagny as a strong, independet woman in charge. Taylor Shilling did great job.

A. Casting

I hate the actors who played in Atlas Shrugged Part II, they just don't fit the part, especially Lillian Rearden!

The only one who fit the part in ASII was James Tagert. In the book it describes him as being on the older side, whomever played him in part II was perfect.

Lillian Rearden in part one was perfect because she was truly gave the appeal of classy, soft spoken but back stabbing, like "The real House wives of LA" You could truly picture her and Hank together living an upscale life. The new Lillian looked like a prostitute, nothing classy about her.

Hank in pt.2 didn't hit the mark! His voice is horrible, he sounds like a thug. Again with the upscale thing from early with Lillian, to get a sense of that wholesome, all American business man, you need to bring back the old Hank.

The new Dagny, I don't even know where to start. She is not a great actress for one and for two she just does't have that natural chemistry, drive, ambition, bubblyness about her that the original Dagny did. The character itself is obviously stressed throughout the book and the gal who played her in pt.2 seemed as if that was the case for her actual life. The actress doesn't do a great job of showing emotions. She is going through "acting" the emotions but its not believable.


**Also, think about this, anyone who knows Ayn Rand's work is going to watch this movie. The people who don't, won't unless you get it out there. Although the casing thing needs worked on for sure, you need to advertise more for this movie. Any A list movie is drilled into your head from commercials at least 100 times before it is even out in theaters, you should be doing that too. I realize this costs money but you have a network of people who truly believe in Ayn Rand's work and would volunteer to help spread the word in their city or town! You would be amazed at what one person with $20 worth of flyers can do!!!

Feel free to contact me if you really want to talk about this!!

You MUST bring back the original cast. They portrayed the characters a thousand times better. The second film was a dramatic let down and very disappointing. I watch the first film periodically but once was enough for the second.

Get the story and it's essential nature right, first and foremost. Atlas Shrugged is an apocalyptic story, and the first two parts have not conveyed it. There's still time to get it right, as the third part of the novel is where it all goes down. It'll probably take three hours and a lot more money than you have to spend, but that's what you need. The message will take care of itself if you do it right.

Getting the message Right,Casting also

B
but A is a close second for Taylor Shilling although Samantha did a decent job.

Same cast as Atlas Shrugged II and get the message right.

B. Getting the message right.

Let me add some clarity to this answer. I think the most important part of the movie is the Theme (central idea) and the Plot-theme (central action or central conflict. For those wishing for more emotional content; I would say a well directed movie involves conflict (people going against odds to achieve a goal). Most movies and shows that are addicting have plenty of conflict for the heroes to go through; which pulls at the rational emotions. The court case with Rearden in part 2 was a good example. Galt's message should have the same feeling. The other challenge is that we need to condense the book into essentials. Though I do not agree with the central themes M. Night Shyamalan conveys in his movies; I think that he is very masterful at condensing the ideas of books (Avatar) and weaving the plot and theme together(Signs). We equally need to do the same things for Atlas Shrugged. These goals should help us choose the right writer, director, and actors.

I would say A and B. A, bring back Taylor Schilling and Grant Bowler. B, obviously, it's impossible to include Galt's full speech, but the important parts better be there.

The casting change from 1 to 2 destroyed continuity, confused the storyline as all familiarity with characters was lost. The characters (A) convey the message (B) and both are necessary to communicate so as to impact the culture. Because I read the book, I bought 1 which did an admirable job of communicating the story and selling the concept. I regret buying 2 as it was a disappointment. I hope 3 lives up to Ayn Rand standards.

I think most important would be to get the Atlas Shrugged message right. This would need to be supported with a solid cast and good writing to keep the audience engaged. Sadly, most people are sheeple and this will be lost on them but if you can energize a productive minority that's all you need. The American revolution was done by a minority.

I've Seen Both.....The Cast Of AS1 Was Superior

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

"Tantamount?" You mean "paramount". I agree that the story is primary in a visual medium like a movie.

A. Casting and C. Cinematography

I was terribly disappointed that the entire cast was replaced. The new cast was not as good and did not have the magic & closeness of those in Part I. There was great chemistry between Dagny Taggart (Taylor Schilling) and Henry Rearden (Grant Bowler) when they were together, and strong characters when acting apart. At first, I thought Ms. Schilling would be too attractive to be believable as a head of a major company. But her sometimes cold, business persona dispelled that fear; truly excellent! Mr. Bowler’s performance was rock solid and totally believable as a CEO of a steel firm. He was also not just another handsome face, but a no-nonsense, man’s man who was a force to be reckoned with. Then there was Graham Beckel’s Ellis Wyatt: unique and charming when professionally impressed, and ruthless when agitated. Jsu Garcia’s Francisco d'Anconia had so many facets to his personality, I don’t know how he kept them all straight and believable, sometimes in the same scene. The cast of Part II, with few isolated exceptions, paled in comparison.

Regarding Cinematography: Part I had an earth-tone color scheme and richness about it which said ‘quality’. By contrast, Part II came across as brightly lit, sterile, and somehow artificial. The feel/tone/visuals of Part II made me feel more like I was watching a prime time TV show; it didn’t ‘feel’ right, not like Part I.

I'm glad to see others feel similarly and that I'm not the only one with these perceptions.

F. Though casting and the message may be very important it's the marketing of the film that's most crucial to its overall success. Perhaps the marketing individuals who planned and succeeded in introducing Mel Gibson's "The Passion" into an incredible number of theaters should be hired.

F. MARKETING FAIL. The campaign had no design consistency, and it had the look and feel of something dated from the late 80's. You had several websites, none of which were professionally wireframed and finished. The only decent piece of marketing was your "Destroyer" trailer but everything else looked homemade and cheap. You spent so much time and energy on T-shirts and collectible crap that you didn't get a full trailer out until right before the film. You preached to the choir, you didn't try to reach anyone except your Facebook friends and gultch groupies. You tried to extract free promo videos and logos from your fans instead of paying a real graphic designer to make something. Next time around, give us fewer fluffy videos with sappy music and hire real movie marketing professionals to create ONE consistent brand for this.

B.

F) Oh, I forgot. I should get a small walk-on role. That would make AS3 the cat’s meow for me. :)

A. Casting. The first cast was much better and more engaging than the second cast. I didn't realize they had changed it, and it was very disconcerting, especially since I re-visited the first movie directly before watching the second.

B. The message is the whole point of the movie. A blockbuster makes itself if the story does its job. I loved the book it opened my eyes to see the world for what it is. The movie needs to do the same.

A. Casting. Bring back Taylor Shilling. She nailed Dagny. The 2nd actress was just wrong for the part. I liked the original Hank Rearden actor better also.
E. Director: I'd love to see Darren Aronofsky direct Part III if you have the budget. If not, check out a new young director from here in Colorado named Jamin Winans. His feature, "Ink", blew me away.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamin_Winan...

Casting. Although the actors in both films did a great job, Taylor Shilling did a great job a Dagny in Part I.

Casting!!