B. I thought the actors playing Dagny and Rearden were MUCH better in Part I than Part II. The acting has to be good or it will destroy the message. In Part II Dagny looked haggard and strained, and Readen's gravelly voice just sounded like he had smoked too many cigarettes or something. Dagny in Part I was gorgeous and upbeat and optimistic - that is appealing to an audience.

I believe that getting the message correct is the most important, however, if you want more people to see the movie, casting is also a top priority

A. Part 1 cast was great minus Francisco. You nailed Dagny's character. Part 2 did not.

B. This is a given. In the last part I'd really like to see the scene where Rearden grabs his gun in his pocket to protect Ragnar from the police. You have to nail the Ragnar character and that whole scene.

A. Casting!!!

Please, please, please bring back Taylor Shilling to play Dagny and Grant Bowler to play Henry Rearden. Taylor seems to have a confidence and maturity about her that Samantha Mathis lacks. Grant Bowler was also great in the role of Henry Rearden. Would like to see them both return.

B. the speech is definitely the most important thing to get right.

It's hard when you change the cast to maintain continuity - but the message is the main thing for me.

E - I have to go with E because I feel like you missed all of these points with part 2 and I feel like a good competent director may be able to take all of the other points listed here 'in hand' and apply them in the right way to make a good movie.

Without a 'good movie' the message only reaches people who have already heard it and loved it. The 2nd movie did not appeal to people who were not already fans of the book. You scored much better with them on the first movie.

E. for sure. That way he/she can make sure A communicates B.
Also, as a visual person I think C is incredibly important. This is a MOVIE and not a radio broadcast or play, after all.
D. should be minimal. Whatever cool effects can be generated now will look outdated in 10 years anyway. Save money on D to spend on A, C, and E.

E is critical to getting the rest of the alphabet in line.

B

Return to the cast, set style, and cinematography of the first film. The sequel was good, but while it seemed to have a larger budget, the cash didn't help improve on the original.

Getting the message right, and--almost as important--getting it across.

To get it across, you need to make sure you tell a good story. Your best plot boils down to this: conflict, romantic and otherwise, between John Galt, originator and de facto Mayor of Atlantis, and Dagny Taggart, who sees Atlantis as an indefensible stronghold and believes in carrying the war to the looters. Except that her war is only philosophical--a repeated litany of I-told-you-so's--and not physical, which is the war that Ragnar Danneskjöld wages. (Are you going to introduce Ragnar Danneskjöld? Seems to me that you have to include him, because he, more than John Galt, knows how the men of the mind must win the war in the end.)

You also have a lot of epic scenes in Part III, and you might simply have to discard some of them. Your choices:

The spectacular exit of Francisco d'Anconia from the world stage. ("Brother, you asked for it!")

The riot at Rearden Steel, followed by Hank Rearden's final defection

The demonstration, and then the detonation, of Project X.

John Galt's speech, and reaction to it.

John Galt's captivity and rescue.

A lot of choices.

Oh, and one more thing: find the actor who played the Devil in Roma Downey's "Bible" mini-series. Cast that man as Mr. Thompson. I'm sure you know why.

Casting. The "Dagny" of Part 1 was exactly the woman I saw in AS. The actress in Part 2 always looked as if she was about to cry or mourning or desperate. She simply did not conduct herself facially or figure the why Part 1 Dagny did. Bring her back with either Reardon and you have it made.

Casting & Moves a little slow.

The speeches are kind of flat (money speech) but the scene with Danagger explaining his leaving to Dagny were both moving AND illuminating. Hate to kill the 3 hour Galt radio speech in part 3, but bring out the philosophy in the commiseration of friends discussing their plans and futures, etc.

My biggest disappointment in Atlas Shrugged II was using different actors/actresses for Dagney, Henry, etc. Use the original cast for Part III.

A. Bring back the orginal cast;
and
F.Have the original cast refilm part II, then release part III as one long film.

b plus getting it out to a much bigger audience

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.

Galt's speech and more Ragnar

B: This is what the whole thing is about, stick to the book, you have done it so far and it has been grest.

Make us fall in love with the characters. The story tells itself, the message is self evident.
Get the Acting and Directing right. If you have pregnant pauses, poor character development, the movie will flop.

I'll try this again. Message is important but the plot is important and it is a great plot, especially the end. I would love to see John Galt naked being tortured and electrocuted by some government agents and then rescued.

Definitely B, but really would like to see Dagney and Hank from Atlas Shrugged Part I

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)