I agree 100% with you on this. Part I was pretty good -- thoroughly enjoyed it. Part II not so much - too long, Dagny looked trashy, kind of hokey special effects.

The concepts are not that difficult to convey if you ask me - might need to deviate slightly from the Ayn Ranting in the book to get a decent movie. Just watched The Fountainhead - again. Now that was done pretty well. Maybe we could get a Ouija Board and summon Ayn to write the screenplay for Part III.

B. Tom Seleck from his PI Magnum days would have been perfect! But, alas, those days are long gone. I'm hard pressed to pick anyone from today's batch of actors, however I would prefer an unknown believer than a "known" Hollywood actor who doesn't believe in our philosophy.

Christoph Waltz!

OK, You guys are going to jump me because of his age, but who said he has to be young? Just needs to be Passionate: William De Vane

B. The actor must possess a love and understanding for Ayn Rand's message, however he must also be an actor of skill above all else. An actor of the same talent as Kevin Costner.

I've always thought that Scott Glenn would make a good John Galt. He has the kind of rough good looks that make him stand out, and yet be believable as a common worker in the rail yards of Taggart Transcontinental.

Timothy Ollaphant comes to mind not sure what his political beliefs are.

Only younger. John Galt has to exude perfection. Must be well spoken. Calm and serene in his demeanor. Must make a denim shirt and jeans look like a designer suit on a body of perfection. He must be aloof yet warm in his intent. He is so self-assured there is no question that the words out of his mouth are the total truth and cannot be denied. Non-emotional yet full of warm goodness. John Galt is perfection. He must be.

That's a good thought!

Cillian Murphy- New guy and very capable as well as Irish lol

1st pick would be James Caviezel, 2nd pick would be Matt Mulhern and maybe Dean Cain. Stay away from the wack liberals who in real life laugh or smirk at the Rand culture. You back big government then you are banned from this type of role. Play and Live the part!

The actor's physical appearance will be most important. A strong jawed, rugged, upright and obviously athletic man's man. Not some typical Hollywood fag. Voice tonality, crisp and baritone, should match physical appearance.

Good idea! He'd be perfect.

My choices, in order of personal priority: Tom Selleck, Jim Caviezel, Gary Sinise. Each apparently has the first characteristic necessary to the role, believability. Experience is abundant in each, more so in Selleck. I don't think the age difference is particularly important, but I do believe all are fully competent and capable actors.

first of all, I did not put words in your mouth. I made a statement which I believe utilizing a phrase you used in your comment to make a point. Second, the most important thing are are the words, dialog, events that shape the story. You need someone who very much knows how that camera is going to work up close and personal. Ultimately, it will be the director who needs to fully understand the importance of Atlas Shrugged the Novel and translate it to the big screen. Rand's art has already been created. Have you seen the Fountainhead? Neither Cooper or O'Neil were Objectivists. I would not be against a relatively unknown actor. I am most concerned with the director. Good director will most likely lead to good casting

Good question. This is still Hollywood, is it not? I vote for A but try to get A & B if you can! Antonia Banderras? SEan Connery? Harrison Ford?

Please go back to the Dagny in Part I!

A. The best professional actors can become the person they are portraying regardless of their beliefs. However, I'm not sure the budget will allow for truly top actors. Therefore, B. could come into play. Nevertheless, the real answer is that he has to be a good ACTOR, AND BE WILLING TO STUDY GALT and RAND enough to portray the role well.

A. because that is what actors are paid to do. Steve Buscemi comes to mind.

Burt Lancaster was a dedicated liberal and probably would not have wanted the role.

I generally agree, but it is ridiculous to think the same actor would be available for three low budget films, especially if they are good. How any James Bond's, Batman's, etc. have we learned to love?

I like the choices that others have listed and I feel it is important that whoever it is, needs to understand it with some passion. When launching a new movie today, the actors get interviewed to promote it. It would be much better if they were SELLING the ideas and not just the film.

Aaron Eckhart would make a great John Galt.

Although Jim Caviezel would otherwise be a good choice, his prior acting experience would make it easy for critics to belittle AS3 as the "The Passion of John Galt."

The others would make great cast members but can't see playing John Galt.

The actor just needs to have some respect for Ayn Rand's ideas and for capitalism, and even moreso a love of her storytelling and characters, her overall heroic vision. He needs to actually read the novel (not just the screenplay). And he has to have a relaxed yet focused, efficient style, a twinkle in his eye, naturally exuding an inner glow of energy and love of life. I would cast an unknown with the qualities of the young Clint Eastwood, Paul Newman, Sean Connery, Christopher Reeve, Ronald Reagan. Of today's actors, Daniel Craig and Daniel Day Lewis are good choices but obviously too expensive.

B - The character is in a book and outside being blond, nothing is really known about appearance that 100's of actors couldn't meet. Deep understanding of Objectivisim and Atlas Shrugged will be critical to being believable in the role.

GARY SINISE? Talented, but he is 58 years old. DANIEL CRAIG? He's 45; that's more like it! In real life, he's the same age as Grant Bowler (Hank Rearden in AS-1).

Interestingly, someone mentioned Gary Cooper. It's true that he certainly fit Ayn's written description of John Galt. After all, he was tall, blonde, slender, and earnestly considered -as was the love of her life, her husband, Frank O'connor. Cooper starred in Any Rand's "The Fountainhead" (1949), Years later, Cooper freely admitted that upon reflection, while playing the part of the main character who defended himself in the all-important court scene, in what was meant to be a passionate defense of justice, he'd not at the time, really understood what he was saying. Otherwise, he'd not have delivered it (his words; not mine) "so woodenly". I do not disagree with his assessment. Thing is... Because Cooper was born in 1901, he'd be 112 years old if he were still alive which he isn't because he died in 1961 -some 42 years ago. So he's out.

Actually, the fellow who played Hank Rearden in AS-1 could've played an excellent John Galt, as well. I'd rather imagined a darker-haired, more physically intense sort of fellow for Hank (a younger version of Jeff Chandler, Clark Gable or even Tom Selleck).

When in comes to GALT? The face, body and demeanor of the younger Kevin Costner when he did "Dances with wolves" 23 years ago was sensitive enough to've passed the test quite handily.

I see that people've said there's no way A list actors could be in the budget. But remember, there was a time, not so long ago that Pitt-Jolie owned the movie rights to Atlas Shrugged. That being the case, it's remotely possible that Brad might, just might, be willing to do it for considerably less than his usual fee on account of his apparent regard for the story. He's certainly familiar with the philosophy; otherwise, they'd never have forked over a cool million for the rights. There's a pretty good possibility he'd even consider it a feather in his cap. You could ask; the worst thing he could do is say, "No!" And even if he couldn't or wouldn't? I daresay he'd most likely have a few suggestions of others well worth considering.