Casting. Whatever possessed you?

Its about just ONE THING . . . "CASTING". If the ORIGINAL cast isn't brought back, all the rest DOESN'T matter . . . an it will FAIL. I was so ANGERED by this in the second film, I couldn't even watch it.

I have a man-crush on Grant Bowler. That guy is a boss and played Hank Rearden perfectly.

what he said up there.

B is for me. Hopefully some high school students are still reading Ayn and teachers need easy days sometimes. When the 3 parts get shown in a classroom the message has to be clear. Make sure they know what they can gain and how they can benefit. It might be the only place they are hearing about it. .

Taylor Schilling or Kate Beckinsale as Dagny. Or if you can't get either of them, I know an "unknown" actress who might be great for the role.
Esai Morales as Francisco.
Bruce Willis as Galt.
Elia Cmiral for music.
Ayn Rand as screenwriter. Don't try to improve or change her work. Just condense it as necessary to fit time and budget.

Condense Galt's speech and voice over images of actual historic events such as 1776 signing of the Declaration of Independence, Civil War, Industrial Revolution, Russian Revolution, WWI, WWII, Holocaust, Korean War, Vietnam, Watergate, Reagan and Thatcher, fall of Berlin Wall, 9/11, financial crisis, examples of Republican socialists and Democrat socialists, harassment by IRS, and immenent censorship of the press.

BTW, I am an Objectivist and an architect -- and I would love to design Galt's cabin for the film. My fee would be what Galt paid Midas Mulligan for the rent of his car.

Frank Lloyd Wright's 'Fallingwater' would be a great location for Mulligan's house. " Stout granite walls and broad open terraces."

Get a distinguished actor for Hugh Akston. The smirky actor who played Akston in Part 1 was appalling.

After the Part 3 film, consider going back to the beginning and doing a TV series of the entire book -- with no condensation. Every scene and every word exactly as the book was written.

And a heart-felt thank you and congratulations to everyone involved in the films for all that you have accomplished so far!

Getting the message right - continuity in the actors helps, but the message brought 1 and 2 together. Be sure to share the message, especially with those who want to know "Who is John Galt?"

You want them to TRY to get people to think LESS critically? Am I on the right website?

If people who join our cause don't do so based on reason, they aren't ready to join our cause.

E. Since Rand's message in this book is conveyed through Galt, I would suggest finding a director who has a strong opinion/understanding of Galt's character.

People have to make the effort to discern who are thieves and who the creators.

That's what most critics of Rand don't understand and try to bash her for. She didn't agree with corrupt businesses cheating their customers and employees. Being for something doesn't mean you agree with everything they do, right or wrong.

Great presentations of shakespeare have been presented through millenia with different castes. It isn't neccessary to have the same people, but the cast must authentically present the story. Rand could be taken to sermons, but she was at her best when her characters told their story without the need for clarification. Since the story is being told in installments, get the message down tight and the cast true to personality, and the rest will take care of itself.

D. Special Effects

I thought the special effects in Part I, particularly the portrayal of the John Galt Line and bridge, were excellent. Part II was weak. I know Clint Eastwood was portrayed piloting a high performance aircraft through ridiculous terrain in Foxfire, but anyone who has flown such craft knows that the g-forces preclude the kind of flying at the end of Part II. The destruction of the d'Anconia mines were also unconvincing.

I don't know if the problem with this series CAN be corrected. In many ways I wish, when you knew you did not have sufficient funding, you had shelved the project. When one purchases a 3-part video series one expects to be able to watch the entire 3 parts without being thrown into a time warp. When you replace a 30-year-old actress with a 50-year-old actress six inches shorter, frankly it causes laughter. When you replace an actor who looks and sounds like an Ivy League graduate with one who looks and sounds like a character from Good Fellas it is incomprehensible. You were unable to retain a single actor from the original cast? How did you think this was going to work with your audience? Add to it that the story you're trying to tell is how competence is the most important factor in the world. I'm going to re-read the book and pretend you never made these films. Part 1 was spectacular, Part 2 was frankly embarrassing. I no longer want to see Part 3. I honestly wish you'd never done this.

well put!

A: Casting continuity is very important, though I have read "Shrugged" the change of characters threw me off. This was one of the reasons that Potter was so successful, the author demanded continuity, as you will see in Catching Fire in the Fall. B: Needs some attention, in my opinion Rand was more interested in Ideas than Visual Effects, though they are important, but that is largely E: the Director.

The casting for part III doesn't matter, because the continuity has already been interrupted. For what it's worth, of the eight common characters in parts I and II (excluding Galt), I preferred Schilling, Bowler, Gathegi and Garcia from part I, Fabian, Rhodes and Picardo from part II, and Lerner/McCrane was a wash. Regarding Wisocky, I love her as an actress, but she's just not bitchy enough to play Lillian Rearden.

Scrap Part 2. Forget it. It is easily forgettable. Reshoot Part 2 with the original cast from Part 1. Whoever decided to scrap the members of the original production company really made a bad mistake. Destroyed the continuity completely. I know this advice may be impractical, but be bold, own the mistake, make Part 2 right. If it is done right with the original cast, it will satisfy the continuity I am still waiting for. If this cannot be done, then at least do the same thing: hire an entirely new cast for Part 3. At least this will put the discontinuity to work by shifting the effect of the film to be more conceptual than fictional narrative.

I think you got Robin Hood wrong, He stole from the Government and gave back to the people much like the pirate Ragnar Danneskjöld

I'm amazed that it seems obvious to almost everyone but the producers that changing all the cast members in Part II made no sense at all and negated the continuity required in a sequel.
At least you didn't replace Graham Beckel's (Ellis Wyatt) picture with someone else's.
I agree with the comments of the other responders and will add that what made it even more difficult to accept Jason Beghe as Rearden was his voice. I thought I was listening to someone in an old gangster movie.
The only actor who fit and improved the role was Esai Morales.

b

A. With regret I say the number one priority is to change the actor who plays Dagney.
B. The film is a work of art. It appeals to the viewer's emotions. It can only convey a message to a soul that is already receptive to that message. The best one can hope for is that a viewer may read the book after watching the movie. Only then can they make explicit what is implicit in their positive emotional response to the movie. How best to do that? Do the best you can to accurately portray the characters created by the novel.
C-E No comment.
F. I would love you to use Rachmaninov's Piano Concerto No 2 in C minor - third movement - toward the end - about 10min onward. I always imagined it would be used when Dagney flew into Galt's Gulch or in relationship with Galt. Please use it somewhere. I admire your courage in what you have done and are trying to do. I must say that from a purely emotional point of view, the second movie was a disapointment. My best wishes

Bring back Taylor and get John Galt's message across concisely and effectively.

F. Lots of great input here already on the comment log - I am not a movie critic or expert but ... clearly advertising needs to improve, a great trailer with some exciting action to hook viewers, the speech can not be too long (attention spans are short these days), modern day events should refer to AR's 'predictions', good/better acting, more 'action', more 'emotional-grabbing' and better pre-release promotion. If you need funding try crowdsourcing to libertarians/objectivists/gulch members, should be better than selling bottles and bracelets, use Virtue of Selfishness explanations if needed to clarify why people love and are driven to succeed.

B. The whole point of making AS is to promote Ayn Rand's message. That is what she was doing through her books to be begin with. She loved fiction and stated that she could have just written non-fiction to explain her philosophy and vision of Objectivism. Everyone needs to get past their egos and do whatever they can to put AR's miessage out there. The same kind of forces that have fought against Howard Roarke and Dagny Taggart are what we are battling today - especially with Obama's Reign of Terror. Obama is Ellsworth Toohey in disguise. Dark forces are at work in the world to destroy all of us, and AR's message is of the upmost importance! Thanks for reading my ideas.