He could work!

I don't see a heavy liberal playing the role of a heavy conservative...

What about my hubby, LOL!

It would have to be someone that is REALLY convincing, and the reason why they want someone that is already familiar with Ayn Rand and the Atlas Shrugged book is because they want to keep the "Hollywood" out of this movie. The movie is not about Hollywood, its about the message. If the actor does not portray the person right, then the message will not be delivered with conviction.

The shock of a familiar voice from the past of the hopes of New world USA: the familiar voice of James T Kirk, William Shatner, the looks of John Galt...Too late for the looks( make up)? the voice?

I agree with the Neal Boortz recommendation. He should play *some* character in this movie, even if a liberal or government representative, despite that being the opposite of him. He would probably do it for free!

Noooo! Sorry, I have never liked the way he played his characters. It's hard to describe, but he always seems like he overplays the confidence of his character to the point of seeming truly arrogant and not deserving of the confidence he's trying to convey.

George C Scott was an alcoholic. He was once interviewed and said his passion for acting let him come out of himself and live the character he was portraying until the project ended. He was a genius for adapting to roles as any great actor should be, regardless of philisophical differences. Most of Hollywood is publicity fodder anyway.

Too bad Marlon Brando isn't still around..(he could adapt to any character, even though he was socialist) as in Apocalypse now. Someone also mentioned George C Scott, too bad these guys are gone. Whoever is chosen, it should be imperative that the movie not be a "b" type, thrown together and sparodic, piece mealed out of budgeting conflict, the viewer must be impacted enough to realize the coinciding message of Washington today and how Galt foresaw it heading in this direction....keep to Ayn's philosophy. A good actor is that, good but a good actor is not great. A great actor wears many masks.

With that being said, I didn't like the second Dagny too much either because she didn't fit the physical description. Better actress, though. Once again, in my opinion.

You make a good point about the timeline.

Maybe this will put to 'rest' the Brad Pitt lobbyists!

I concur with Sweeny.

The debate between the cast changes has become non-productive, since this is 'water under the Gulch bridge'.

What might be helpful would to keep the Part 2 cast for Part 3, and try to make some sort of continuity amends. I had no real issues with the Part 2 actors, and actually preferred Hank over Part1.

I agree that Gary Cooper was a super star, and his unpretentious confidence in his demeanor lent well to his role in 'The fountainhead'.

Overall I agree with many of the comments as to quality of actors in the two previous movies. What I think is being overlooked here is the time frame that main characters disappeared, not just overnight, and why they were "abducted". Therefore, it is realistic that Galt has chosen to use these constructive, rugged individual, determined and brilliant minds for a purpose. Their accomplishments happened over a period of years so Galt could very likely be an older visonary with specific goal that was planted early on as he observed the bureaucratic destruction of individulism and unfolded his plan over the years.

A great professional actor can play any part. And if he isn't a "true believer," he may become one by playing the part.

For casting continuity you could stay with D.B. Sweeny. Otherwise Hollywood high profile conservatives previously mentioned would do very well. The cast of Part I should have continued in Part II. No confusing the actor for their character. Gary Cooper was a superstar actor and his political savvy was not.

If he weren't 60, he'd be ideal. Intelligent, well-spoken and good looking, but not in a head-turning way. Remove about 20/25 years, and he'd be the ideal John Galt!

He's 74!!

It has to be the actor MICHAEL MUHNEY who plays Adam Newman on The Young And The Restless https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BqS3ozR...

I'm leaning towards A now after reading most of the comments. Talent does matter, and any actor worth his salt can make people believe he's John Galt. No one older - please. Gary Sinise? Tom Selleck? AARP members. They are from an age standpoint, NOT John Galt material.

A good actor - no matter his politics - can do a great job. Tom Hanks won Best Actor two years in a row - one playing a gay man dying of AIDS (Philadelphia) and the next year playing a man with mental challenges (Forrest Gump). That is true excellence in the craft.

Every actor is required to do a lot of homework before tackling a part. So they should read the book. There are young, hungry actors much more in keeping with the John Galt persona who would do an outstanding job. Politics do not a good actor make. Not necessarily, that is.

So what's wrong with Sweeney continuing as John Galt? Is there even a reason for this poll?

Maybe I'm the only one, but I did *not* like Taylor Schilling as the first Dagny. Her acting IMO was wooden until the Wyatt Fire scene, and then it was a little overdone, especially in comparison to her performance in the rest of the movie. I didn't see life in her eyes and didn't know if she got it. Besides, she was about the same height as the Hank Reardon actor and that made me think of him as a pipsqueak, although I thought he was otherwise quite good. Their first love scene just didn't strike me as real. Liked the masculinity of the second Reardon much, much better, and think that he would have done an outstanding job in Part I.

Reardon's wife was a much better choice in the first - she really came across as a frigid, demeaning woman. In the second, Reardon's wife was very forgettable. Although he has a heavy accent, the Mexican actor Eduardo Verastagui would have made an outstanding Francisco, as he fit the physical part to a "T." I didn't like either Francisco much.

John Galt has to be in his late 30s, early 40s tops. This is a must. Gary Sinise does not fit the picture as he is pushing 60. And yes, I'm a fan. John Galt has be confident, fluent, intelligent, and fit. He must have great hair (I know, I know, wigs, extensions, hair dye, blah blah blah) as that was a focus in the book. Short, squat actors (no matter how good) need not apply.

I could go on...

As the used to say in Kung Fu "Young Grasshopper chose wisely:" As someone who has cast people for parts I can only offer this advice. They must be convincing. They only have to play the part for 8 weeks and very possibly , they will never play that part again. I also would shy away from "big name" it will only break the bank and possibly become "their Burdon". The last thing you need is an actor with another shaky soap box. John Galt is a fabulas character, so selling it will all the easier.

Jim Caviezal is the perfect physical type. He can play strong silent. He has a gigantic following from the Passion of the Christ movie...

I don't know his politics...

Fred Dalton Thompson

i agree. a perfect choice

....ummmmm..

She just turned 43.

My recommendation is Jim Caviezel