B of course, That's why Rand wrote the book! Those that insist on casting as #1 miss the point entirely. The book was intended to PREVENT what is happening in the U.S. right now. Eddie Willers is the most important character in the book because he represents the average hard-working-but-for-someone-else American, who, today, still doesn't get it. The movie must appeal to him.

B, For sure!

B. Getting the message of Atlas Shrugged right.
Casting, cinematography, special effects, and hiring the right director all become meaningless when the message is warped. Personally, I could not care less about who plays whom or what they look like. Pt III needs better characterization and more drama. Also, although Pt II skipped over this, perhaps a flashback to the former Twentieth Century Motor company employee whom Dagny met on the Comet should be included. This man was essential to the story, and what he had to say played an indispensable role in discovering the mystery of John Galt. If the focus is less on effects and faces and more on themes and character development, all the others will follow.

CASTING. I liked some changes, but our heroine was MUCH better played by Taylor Schilling than Samantha Mathis. Mathis was awful, and overacted every minute. And not only is Taylor the better actor, she is much more attractive also. I also liked Lillian Reardon's first actress much better than the second. She played Hank's wife better than the second. The changes to Hank & Francisco were fine. Oh, the first Phillip was better - the second was more of a clown than he should have been.

I would choose B of course, but to that end, the successful delivery of the 'Atlas message" as a whole involves many of the other choices presented. I would like to see Taylor Schilling get another shot at Dagny. She gave a beautiful performance in part 1. I would also like to see some suitably grotesque imagery when the Project X weapon is fired.
That being said, I would like to add that I have loved your efforts thus far, and I am sure that whatever you do, the result will be great.
Sincerely, Jesse White

F. Film the movie (and re-film the first 2) as a period piece taking place sometime in the 40s/50s. Don't try and superimpose the look and feel and sensibilities of today on top of the old story. In my view this is the primary turn off that has held the movie from being more successful beyond the die-hard AS fans.

Ironically, so far I think the movies' modern world setting has made it harder for a modern audience to connect to than would a portrayal of mid-20th century America. It seems forced and when it seems forced what is left feels preachy. And after all, people *like* the escapism and almost fantasy-like experience of seeing 1950s life - sleek cars, trains, trolleys, factories, art deco decor. That's a big part of the appeal of movies like 'The Great Gatsby' or 'Mad Men'. People pay money to see that spectacle alone.

Put another way, it is much harder to create a counterfeit 'today' and it is a counterfeit 'long time ago'. You can cook up a fake news broadcast from the 50s all day long and I'll never give it a second thought. When I hear a fake CNN-like modern news broadcast the suspension of disbelief has to work overtime because it just plain doesn't seem right. Same with railroads-in-2010 idea. I get and salute the clever rationale but in the end I am always fighting to buy into a world that wants me to believe it's the world I live in but doesn't seem like it ever could be.

On a metaphysical level too, I think the movie fits better in the 50s. At least for me there is this sense that in the 50s by and large the world hadn't yet fully embraced the cheap plastic banana-fana / relativism / whatever feels good / collectivism decline - at least in the USA. A 2010 Atlas Shrugged almost forces me to imagine I transport the more 'wholesome' population of 1955 to 2010 en masse so that they can now embrace jealous state-sponsored thievery. In 2010 it's too late - differences between the USA and Europe are very few.

Getting the message right, and telling it with images as well as talk.

Getting the message right is very important but I have to agree with most that casting is too. I was very disappointed they changed the cast in the 2nd movie.

Casting gets my vote.

A. Casting

The message will present itself if the cast does a good job. The casting in Part II was really bad. So bad in fact, I am not enthusiastic about Part III. Hope this is a better job.

Casting: Taylor fit the part better physically but was stiff; missed the frustrated passion that book describes. Disappointed by Dagny 2; felt she was more convincing in facial expression but lacked the overall appearance of "beauty" as the guys described. Not sure who to suggest. If Taylor came back, perhaps she could be shown how to express intense but controlled passion better. (?) Could be director's misunderstanding?

B. My choice is the message because that is what makes this book so incredible, it's what is important, not the people who play the characters. The characters, of course, are of utmost importance and a good actor is a definite plus but the message is what makes this book so great.

A Casting; In order to keep continuity, the third cast will also need to be new.

B Getting the message right; minimize the revisions between the book and the script. Keep the small details there so the essence of the moments are not lost.

C Cinematography; The difference between 1 & 2 could not be more different. Part 1 was professional and clean. Part 2 looked like they were trying too hard with HD format and it ruined everything. Made it look like a "B" movie.

D Special Effects; Once again the difference between 1 & 2 were incredible. Part 1 was professional and part 2 was "B" movie caliber.

E The right director; Part 1 director was very good. Part 2 probably didn't have as much to work with. So keeping with the changes of cast, a new director should also be chosen.

F; Other; I do not envy you your task. All I can say is do not compromise and stay true to your hart while following the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

B.Has to be the MESSAGE.

Fifty six (56) years ago, a book was written. At the time, the book was not at all popular. Fast forward to today and we see many of the events that occurred in Atlas Shrugged creeping into the thought process and opinions of our fellow citizens. These poor blind individuals never decided one day that taking from their fellow man’s production and property were wonderful ideas, they were gradually lead to this conclusion.

If you concentrate on making a good movie with right actors, the right settings, and the right special effects then you have just made another movie. I understand the importance of these factors in capturing the attention of viewers, but attempt to attain what Rand did in her writings. Tell the story of what will be. It may not be popular now, but it is a guide to what will be if we don’t realize what we’re doing! You’re not just making a movie to reach people now….your movie may not reach people for years or decades (just ask the original author)! Tell the story while you entertain; don’t get caught trying to only entertain.

Getting the message accurate. Casting is part of that equation

B. By far the most important thing is to get the message right. That said, I really think the cast and direction of Part 1 was much more palatable to the uninitiated than the cast and direction of Part 2. For those of us that admire Ayn Rand, AS, objectivism, etc., we can watch Part 2 and get the message because we are already there, but for those that are unfamiliar with AS, Part 2 was pretty unwatchable. Just mny $0.02.

A nd B are the most important! I agree, bring backTaylor Shilling to play Dagny and Grant Bowler to play Henry Rearden.

B=== the story is so relivant today

B. Getting the message right is most important. Otherwise there is no point in making the movie at all. That having been said, casting is probably the next most important, as this will bring the characters to life. I hope that most of the actors from Part 2 will be able to return for Part 3, especially Samantha Mathis as Dagny and Jason Beghe as Reardon. Taylor Schilling wasn't bad as Dagny, but she just looked too young to be taken seriously as a railroad executive. In the book Dagny is 37 years old; there's no way Taylor Schilling looks 37. And Grant Bowler was too much of a pretty boy to be a convincing Reardon.

A, B, C, D and E. Unfortunatley, the first two movies felt like "Cliff Notes". My wife has never read the book and needed me to fill in many of the missing gaps. A movie shouldnt have missing gaps of that magnitude. Spend a little money, get decent actors (Anne Hathway is an Ayn Rand fan -- Dagny perhaps????), and get Clint Eastwood to direct.

I think the message is hard to miss for people who respect and try to abide by the principles of the book, but it would be helpful to always make sure the main message is reiterated in many different ways with a lot of back up & support so that people who are not familiar with the message or have other ideals will easily be able to see the Galt point of view.
C,D,E: In terms of special effects, the second movie was so much more engaging than the first. Americans still love our visually stunning movies, even the Libertarians & Capitalists. THat's a good way to get the attention on people who have different beliefs, as well. A good way to generate interest. The movie does not need to look like a dull, foreboding documentary.
That requires not only special effects, but the right script and direction.
A: Taylor Shilling was easier on the eyes and kind of the romanticized caracter that I imagined when I read the book...Yet the new actress' acting was much more convincing and serious, like I would like to think of the character. She also has a few more stern lines on her face, but those are great to develop Dagny more.

E

b

I forgot to put down that I feel B is the most important.

PLEASE, don't use the whole 100-page Galt radio soliloquy in the movie. Just distill it to the basics. It's going to be difficult enough, having three (four?) parts of a movie, spread out over years, with different casts and directors...
The message is more important than the homage.