I'll have to go with option A. It will be difficult to find B regardless.

Speaking of Band of Brothers, how about Ron Livingston? He's an actor with presence, and when he says something, you believe he means it.

I believe the actor needs to possess a deep understanding of, and passion for, Ayn Rand's ideas first and foremost. Normally this would not matter. However, I believe the message the Atlas Shrugged movies is communicating is so important, the actor playing John Galt is vital.

Just send me the hat jack.

C. The people's presception must be a trusting leader they can follow, in their time.

What about Hugh Jackman?

I would prefer option A. A well trained actor would study the parts and do their best to bring realism to the role.Earlier responses have been good, especially the suggestion of Gary Sinese or maybe Liam Neilsen. I do not believe that it is critical to possess a deep understanding of Ayn Rand. It is more important to understand the depth of the character being portrayed.

I think Timothy Olyphant would make a great Galt... And if he hasn't been introduced to Atlas Shrugged yet, by asking him to do this role he could be irrevocably changed.

If you remember, Eddie Willers was left pounding on the locomotive yelling "...why!..." at the end of the book. No he was not "shallow", but he still didn't get it. A "pretty face" as you call it, never hurts, and Harrison Ford is one of the few actors that can play the President and look the part.

Mel Gibson would bring the passion of John Galt to the screen like no other.

I think the only actor who could really come remotely close to doing that role justice, would be Michael Fassbender!

Daryl from Walking Dead

Olyphant doesn't reveal much about his personal views, from what I have read, but you are correct. He has the looks and the range. An excellent choice to play Galt.

Michael Fassbender

I am with you here: John Galt doesn't 'win' Dagny by sheer sexuality, or even sheer revolutionism.

I believe that he 'wins' all of his followers no differently than Christ built his following. The parallels are there, and while Rand may not have been religious, I submit that she understood, and admired, this type of magnetism, and borrows freely upon it.

Where is John Galt any different than the 'fisherman of men'...and his disciples any different from those of old?

They listened...and believed...and gave their devotion and love.

Option A in the choices above for sure. The actor needs to be able to deliver the role in a compelling and authentic way, not be able to discuss the philosophical underpinnings after the event. Taylor Schilling as Dagny was perfect - I found her deeply compelling and inspiring, and as a result she carried the movie. Unfortunately, the John Galt from the first film was forced, melodramatic, inauthentic - probably the weakest part of the film. Rand called her aesthetics Romantic Realism. Realism doesn't mean Naturalism - stylisation and exaggeration is good but not to the point that the authenticity (the feeling that the artistic statement is a plausible reflection of reality) is lost.

Must be strong and very intelligent.

Ever been shark fishing?

You put 'chum' into the water to get the shark's attention.

I have zero doubts that the producers haven't already cast Part 3.

They are doing what they should be doing...getting this shark school geared up for the event.

Based upon the reactions, they are doing just fine!

None that I can see.

If the closing speech gets it's proper attention, then the 'voice' has to convey everything that we expect from Galt.

D.B. carried this off well in part 2.

One of the deleted scenes in Part 2 has this happening...Eddie gives Galt an update on Dagny's current state of mind. They are seated on separate park benches, and the main shot is Eddie.

I believe that there need be at least an understanding and acceptance of Rand's system of believes,or the role will suffer, but the strong physique she often idolized should also be included. So, I go with C. A blend would work, but if the look and character feel can be achieved with a true Randian, then it will only be better.

Thank you for asking.

Would Ayn Rand want you to reject a mans work because of his beliefs? I don't think so. The only disqualification should be if someone is so anti-Objectivism that they tank the part.

(Also, these questions leave me worried that there's a conflict in production, and that the fans are being asked to play jury without hearing both sides out. If there's genuine disagreement, I'd like the parties to make their own cases.)

Appearance: Rugged, handsome, conveys work ethic.

Voice: Firm, purposeful, confident.

Background: Intelligent (i.e., understands "Atlas Shrugged" and sees dangerous parallels with today) and dedicated to self-reliance. Proven actor.

Oh Lord, no! Fillion didn't have the gravitas to play Mal Reynolds ("Firefly" and "Serenity"), much less John Galt. Rick Castle, charming but immature, is the role Fillion was born to play.

P.S. Doesn't this site let us use HTML tags? Firefly and Serenity should be in italics, but I couldn't make that happen.

Who is Galt? He's someone we don't already know. Please don't make him soft. He doesn't need to be eye-candy. Viggo Mortensen as Argorn in LOTR was a dreadful disappointment to we women who love real men.
It would be great if we outside the USA don't have to wait so looooong for the DVD next time.