I think the full Atlas Shrugged should be presented as a mini-series for Cable TV or Netflix. Why chop away and risk losing a nugget of wisdom?

I don't understand what happened to the idea of the miniseries. The book and ideas are too big for a movie that can't run much more than 2 hours. And multi-part movies without huge special effects are not likely to bring in large audiences; especially when they are asking the viewers to do a lot of thinking.

Since the book is divided into 30 chapters , it could be filmed in 3 seasons of 10 chapters each.

In my opinion, the setting should be kept as late 40s/early 50s. Trying to translate the metaphor of the railroad to a contemporary or future setting wouldn't have the impact. Filmed as a "period piece" gives enough psychological distance for the viewer to think about the ideas. It also provides a certain "romantic" atmosphere that draws people into the story (Think Casablanca or more recently, The Man in the High Castle).

There is obviously a big job in translating the novel with its long monologues into something more suited for the screen ("show don't tell), but I am guessing that there are any number of writers up to the task. And I am certain that there are good writers who are students of Rand so that the script could be written to be less didactic while still maintaining the essence of the philosophy.

This is the golden age of long-form TV and I have waited for this day since the late 70s when there was a rumor that Ted Turner was going to back a miniseries during the first flowering of multi-night television. (Think Roots and Shogun).

I am hoping that I won't have to wait 40 more years to see another attempt at bringing a high-quality version of Atlas Shrugged to life.

An unorthodox approach, but I would do a “reverse onion peel” on the storyboard. Instead of taking the whole book and stripping out subplots until the time constraints disappear, start with what you would leave in if you had to tell the whole story in 20 minutes. Then restore what you consider the most useful subplot that was left out. Repeat as needed until the movie (or miniseries) is the appropriate length for your purposes.

The New Movie: A combination of course. Try to use the "original" cast members. It was a bit confusing when the main characters changed on the 3 Movies. Must make the point that Freedom is not Free and we must all be alert to the socialist agenda.

I would keep it as close to the original as possible, I found the previous movies disconcerting as the lead characters kept changing, and whole sections were cut. especially the epilogue. Will definitely be looking forward to the Movie/s release.

I think the whole area around the torture, secret projects, etc, can be cut. I know why Rand had them in the book, but I think most people see them as just unrealistic. The best message to focus on in a single movie is the economic one. Make people see the consequences of what they recognize as their own government's policies. When an audience sees torture, it looks too extreme. The audience thinks, "ok, this is fiction, but this is nothing like MY government", then the economic argument is categorized in their mind as fiction also.

I vote mini series.

What vital organ would you leave out of a body? That's the question you are asking. As one of the lucky "voices of John Galt" in III, I feel close to this issue. No one part could be left out without endangering the message. The only way to slim it down would be to spend less time on each major point without touching the meat of each point. As a one time Thespian, I know this would put a lot more on each actor to express more with less time and words. To say nothing about needing VERY good directing. I still hope for a mini-series, but if not possible, I would still help promote it(I still have some John Galt stickers) and spend my money on a kickstarter campaign again. Questions?

Francisco's character must be stronger than it was in the 3rd part of the last series. cast consistency...

Things I loved about the trilogy:

The first ride on the John Galt Line.

Dagny's entry into the coffee shop after her conversation with Akston. "I won't stop looking…" and the man she's looking for is sitting right there. I love dramatic irony. My eyes well up every time I watch this scene.

Rearden's first meeting with Leonard Small

Francisco's interaction with the party goers at James Taggart's wedding.

Dagny's conversation with Jeff Allen. I can feel her mind working, putting all the pieces together. Another case of damp eyes for me.

"What are your demands? Nothing,…."

Galt's meeting with Thompson.

.

PS. I also feel that Francisco, as the early childhood friend, who was the first to "leave" and go to the Gulch, should have more of a role. His involvement could be woven into the mystery, and use his presence (instead of Galt's) early on. He would have the most influence on Dagny as they had been so close. It should be his departure that lends strongly to her leaving and going to the Gulch. His character received very little development...same with Eddie Willers. Pump up both of their roles.

I also love the idea of a mini series....or a Netflix release, like House of Cards, but over at least three years.....or three "seasons"

You could allude to the horrible marriage that Hank is in, and leave out most of their scenes with the greedy mother and brother as the bloodsuckers that they are. JUst leave the bracelet transaction with Dagny in place. HAnks ultimate breakup with his wife can be seen as a foregone conclusion. I realize you wanted to show his integrity by staying in a loveless marriage, but it really is not needed. His integrity shows later when he refuses to let them expose Dagny as his mistress.

I would have liked to have seen more of the transition of Dagny,s brother, and point out his level of corruption with the politicians and what it leads to. His marriage and subsequent decline of same, to me, is more important than the disintegration of Hanks marriage.

I would not identify John Galt as early in a new movie.

I think the early development of the problems were given short shrift in the trilogies. To reach the uninformed, they have to be shown more definitively what it is exactly that they are losing. They are losing their freedom to the government, and that is the most important concept to get across.

Lala land at the end is all fine and dandy for those that get there, but I don't think the trilogies identified strongly enough why they were compelled to leave after Galt comes and has his little chat with each of them. Maybe it can be shown in flashbacks. Their cumulative frustration and disgust with the government needs to be built up better before they finally say "screw this" and leave.

Keep up the good work!

Mini series that closely follows the book is a good idea. Ayn Rand was a screen play writer and her books are written as a screen play, ready to be produced.

Leave nothing out, even if marathon running time and/or a 24-part series. Think along the lines of NBI or ARI lecture series. Don't screw it up again or don't make it at all. "Roots" was successful and other epics show it can be done right.

I feel compelled to add my two cents, even if I agree with MikeG and others that normal movie (circa 120 min.) is inadequate format to convey Atlas Shrugged.
Ayn Rand worked as an artist for many years to compose her masterpiece. Its sales are due not only to the "message", but also to the great novel-writing art that she displayed. Readers get emotionally involved in the story and that keeps them all the way through 1200 pages. It is the story of Dagny Taggart (and many other things, as you know).
"Updating" that story by reproducing it in the new medium of a 2 hr. movie is nonsensical pursuit. You should have already learned that in the three-part attempt. Would you try to "update" the Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel to a cellphone snapshot?
Learn from the great success of Downton Abbey. Find a top notch writer. Perhaps the same guy. Assemble a first class team of director, cinematographer, scenes and costumes designers. Then select a uniformly very good (not top Hollywood star! - they are too spoiled and already lefty indoctrinated) team of actors that are enthusiastic about the project and hungry to show what they can do. Then produce a similar series, maybe even over two seasons. Get the best experts to help you translate a great novel into a great moviesque show.
Is it risky? Of course. Is it expensive? Enormously. Is worth it? It is vitally important. We are talking about a best seller for more than a half a century.
That is all I can say. I wish I were a creative genius and accumulated billions. I would fund it gladly.

I look at Atlas Shrugged as more of a mini series than a movie. Like was stated there is too much information for a movie. Pass the torch on to a Netflix and let them crete the story which is a fabulous story. I believe that it would be a classic on film like it was in print if given the time to unroll the story.

Must have same actors!!! Like Ayn's quotes in 3rd part last movie.
More on reasons by people who joined movement. Good luck! I like the mini-series idea!

Get rid of the “love” scenes are not critical to the story and they are more like rapes than love. By not including them one item of controversy is removed and more time is available for the more important central theme.

I have always thought the movie could only be done properly as a mini-series. No less than 10 hours. This is a teachable moment for the uninformed to watch and learn. you can't leave much out.

One thing I think would help a new telling of the story would be to give the adversaries more realistic dimensions. In the book (which I loved) Dagne and company's opponents seemed so one-sided and almost caricaturish that I could never really believe anyone would support their programs. Most of us have that spirit of capitalism in us to some degree or another and would not so willingly give up on our ability to rise above others less creative or less determined. A more nuanced battle between realistic extremes might appeal to a wider audience and stimulate those at the extremes to consider what happens if their favored approach prevails without balance. best of luck with the new interpretation.

I cannot express how pleased I am to hear that the team is taking another go at the Atlas Shrugged movie. Sadly, the urgency of expiring rights forced an expediency to the trilogy that necessitated many 'compromises' and we all know Ms. Rand's opinion of compromise. It would be nice to see a consistency in the cast, as well as more of the struggle, and less of the 'party.' There are numerous scenes that could have been much shorter in the first version, allowing room to underscore the importance of the work, more than the celebration. Much of the science institute dealings could be reduced, and it would be refreshing to return the timeline to the original 'steel baron' era, rather than the futuristic mix that was such a compromise. Thank you for asking... I wish you both time and success with this next venture.

Are you really taking a survey about what should be included in the movie?

All three parts of the movie ought to have had the same cast. Can you imagine how unsatisfying watching the Godfather I, II, and III would be if the casts were all different in all three parts?

Things I disliked with the characterization of Dagny in the trilogy:

Rudeness in disconnecting James during his phone calls. Yeah, he's a looter, but she could still treat him civilly. Acting in an uncivil way reduces the attractiveness of her character.

Throwing the porch furniture carelessly onto the lawn. There's never any excuse for trashing perfectly good stuff. If she doesn't want it any more, give it to someone who might appreciate it.

Scenes I hated to see cut from the trilogy:

Dagny's calling for volunteers to take the first run on the John Galt Line.

Dagny's radio "confession" to her affair with Rearden.

Lillian discovering that Hank has divorced her with zero assets.

As Maritimus said:
"Think Downton Abbey" !
This should be a series with the best possible writers and actors.
There will be an initial following...and eventually a growing and loyal audience.

Please: No 2-hour-length movie.