Checked out men mentioned in this post and Aaron Eckhart, Clive Own and Eric Dane should definitely be considered. Don't know what their politics are, but having Eric pull me from that wreckage would certainly make recovery much quicker!

A is of course essential for a movie, actors are just doing their thing : acting. What the actor opinions are outside of his role in the movie is of no importance.

Jon Voight is way too old and a major radicle!

Gerard Butler. He was amazing as the Phantom, rocked the role of King Leonidas, and holds his own in romantic comedy, thriller, and even sic-fi. And those eyes. . . don't know much about his personal beliefs, but willing to tutor him in the Objectivist philosophy ; )

good choices

Mark Harmon would be kind of an ironic choice for me: He's a distant family relation.

good choices

I think there is only one man who can play the role of John Galt... Capitalist, entrepreneur and great American... DONALD TRUMP.

Christian Bale could be good.

I agree!

I would cast Brad Pitt. When I visualize Galt, Brad's face appears. Wholesome, honest, and strong

Going with B first but not forgetting A...

Or Dennis Miller

Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Russell Crowe, Jon Hamm,

It Should Have Been Me....Not Good Looking,A Veteran, I'm An Objectivist And A Conservative....And Y'all Have Met Me In Dallas

WHY can't you bring back ALL of the original cast members - Dagney, Reardon, Galt, Frisco, Eddie, the clueless brother - even the hateful Mrs. Reardon. PLEASE. They were SOOOOOO much better than the second casting. The chemistry between Dagney and Reardon was better and they were much more believable in the roles. They seemed to be IN the roles - not just acting them out like in Part II. I probably would not have gone to see Part II if the cast had been in Part I. (Be wonderful if you could remake Part II with the original cast and then run it right before the release of Part III. In a perfect world!).

Tommy Lee Jones? College roommate of Bill Clinton? That Tommy Lee Jones? You must be kidding. He can't play anything but a smartass.

Jon Voight, Gary Sinese, Bruce Willis, or Tom Cruise

99% of actors are unemployed. You have a very deep pool to fish in. More over I didn't suggest all are hedonistic douches, don't put words in my mouth. As I said before, this film communicates on more levels than just on screen. its more than just pretty pictures with dialogue and effects. Its the communication of ideas, the sum of concretes. And yes, the individuals cast DO communicate the practical implementation of those ideas. This isn't just story telling. This book and film deal with a philosophy of life. If you cannot utilize the philosophy productively to create an artwork that communicates the philosophy, you have a contradiction. Do not do a disservice to Ayn Rand by creating a contradiction on screen in the visual representation of her work.

This role deserves and most importantly needs to have an Objectivist be cast in it. He may be unknown, hell that's probably better. After all, "who is John Galt?" I don't care how good an actor you are, if you don't believe and try to live by that speech it will be ruined, at least on some levels, by an actor who doesn't believe it.

Bravo! Another vote for Hugh Jackman.

He doesn't have the "look"

I don't see Danel Craig as John Galt. Too ugly.

Benedict Cumberbatch
Tom Cruise

Except that he's physically the wrong type for the part and he already played Ellis Wyatt in AS Pt1.

Everyone has their own mental image, but to me he the least 'colorful' of the heroes that were men. He's not flamboyant like Francisco. He's not a big husky burly man of action like Ragnar. He's not a suited captain of industry who lives in two social worlds like Hank.

I think of him as a good old fashioned somewhat mild-mannered American engineer; the kind that get to work early, keep a neat desk, do what they say they'll do, wear a short-sleeved button down shirt, and so on. He is more of what we would call an 'individual contributor' - albeit of the most brilliant sort. IIRC he comes from a poor family. Those "you do what you say and stick to your principles" remind me of what a properly-raised kid would be ingrained with, and those convictions carry him through his torture even. Remember, he blended in with the working class. Could Hank have done that?

I know some will bristle at this and want someone with enormous presence, but to me that was part of the brilliance - greatness doesn't have to come from the flashy. In a sense Ayn Rand's world enables and the celebrates the achievements of people the world find boring - people Lillian, "Tinky" and Betram would scoff at.

So I'd pick someone more 'understated'. LIke Toby MacQuire - earnest and slight of build - but who can transform into a courageous hero (and someone we could believe Dagny would be attracted to).