B. Getting the message of Atlas Shrugged right. This is absolutely the most important aspect of making this film, and is indeed the single greatest reason to make it at all. While I agree with much of the sentiment that I see in the comments here that casting is also a very important issue (and one that has not, up to this point, been done very well), the reason that casting is important at all is to convey the story and the message correctly. For instance, it is so important to cast Dagny's character properly because the nature of that character is subtle and layered with the intent of putting forth a message about the kind of woman Dagny Taggart is. The reason that casting is so important is because the message must be properly presented to the audience, and while this is true of any casting decision in any story, it is particularly important to the making of this specific film. The entertainment afforded by watching this movie is important, but secondary to the message. Proper casting allows for a smooth presentation of the story and of the message, but it is so very important only because the correct presentation of the message itself is absolutely critical. I do hope that the filmmakers heed these comments... after all, they only have one more chance to get it right.

A. Please, Please Please! Bring back the cast of AS I. I was sorely disappointed when I went to see AS II and saw a completely different cast, who IMO were miscast in their roles, not at all what Ayn Rand would have wanted. Where is the strong woman character that typified the Ayn Rand model? Taylor Schilling filled the shoes of Dagny Taggart with flawless perfection! Please bring her back and I have to agree with Nomark that no matter what the message is, if you fail to fill the theater seats with nothing more than Conservatives, you have failed to get your message across and will forever be "preaching to the choir"! Emotion is what stirs Liberals; even Jesus knew that best because he was the greatest storyteller! Go straight to the heart; it is what will get to Liberals every time and remember they have a short attention span for the most part so playing John Galt's speech in its entirety (even thought this was Ayn Rand wanted originally and why the movie was never made while she was alive) will lose most of your audience, including Conservatives! A longer movie is fine as long as it moves right along. Learn from the long, action movie trilogies like LOTR and Star Trek that people can't wait to go see! I am sure you want that with AS III as well. I am one to tell you that I won't waste my money on seeing AS III if the cast from AS II return for III.

B.
Take some literary license and make it relevant to the present.

B

A. Casting.

The Hank Rearden in Part Two is so shallow it took away my respect for this role. Very disappointing! Bring back the Hank Rearden player of Part One!

Dagny and others in Part Two are OK. Make sure the John Gault player in Part III is an extremely charismatic/effecting person otherwise it's hard to explain the change of heart of Dagny from Rearden to Gault.

Message:
The book has many messages. If there is one overall message, *the* message, it is the whole of Rand’s philosophy. But in telling a story in the book, the film will convey *a* message from it and get that message right. (If it’s not conveyed correctly, *that* story isn’t in the book.) So, first in planning Part III, the producers need to be very clear as to *exactly* the message they want to convey by the end of it, presumably drawing together all three parts.

Casting:
If Galt is going to talk philosophy, the actor who plays him *must* be able to speak philosophy conversationally, unlike the wooden delivery of Galt’s lines in the first two parts. Stiff delivery makes the lines sound laughable. Hire a voice-over actor if necessary.
I agree that Miss Schilling and Mr. Bowler were more attractive leads, although they are both too young. At the height of the story, the main characters are 35 (Dagny Taggert) to 45 (Rearden), experienced in the world and no longer wunderkinds, a significant detail.

Other:
Galt needs to make a speech but the burden of it can be conveyed painlessly in the scene where Dagny Taggert meets the people in the valley. Each can say something out of the speech in explaining why he quit. This would also show the ideas at work in different lives, different circumstances and from different perspectives (as could have been done with the story of the 20th Century Motor Company). And if the scene comes early enough in the movie, it might be used to recapitulate key parts of Parts I and II, which I think the viewer *must* have if he is going to string together all three films released over such a long period. (Part II would have benefited from explicit recapitulation of Part I.)

B. - This is the most difficult but critical part but if you lose the meaning then it is just another senseless movie.

B. Getting the message of Atlas Shrugged right.

B. For me it is drawing the parallels in AS and what is happening in the world today, Ayn defined and predicted the course of events and it is all coming true. Given next year is the mid term elections my hope is that some of the "useful idiots" will get the message. I agree that Galt's monolog is the cerebral part of the book and Twentieth Century Motors is the practical part of the book. My fear is that the entire monolog will put the audience to sleep. Bullet points might be the way to go. Twentieth Century Motors can be made real and something with which people can identify.

I think A is important so you don't have to work to remember who is who for each movie, but B is the most important because why produce something that is ultimately meaningless if it's done wrong?

Bring back the original Cagney and Hank. I'm sure the two cast members in part three are nice folks...but I believe the originals were the right folks for the fit. The actress in part two did not seem as confident as Schilling. It has been a downer watching the movie for the second time...they just don't fit the parts. I'd love to know why you switched!

Atlas ! had a good cast but they seemed not to get the message out very easily, Atlas II got the message right but the actors, well just didn't seem right, no chemistry. I hate to say it but we need all of them. We need a cast the audience can connect with and believe what they are saying so we can get the message. Special effects, is okay but not essential I would put it in the background more. A good director brings it all together.

Priority: B, A, E, C, D

The message of Aynd Rand's book is more important than any cast change. I did preferr the 1st cast but what ever is necessary to bring about the message of Atlas Shrugged is more important. Especially in today's political turmoil.

B. Getting the message of Atlas Shrugged right. All of the others are important, but the message is really what we should be focusing on. There's enough pretty fluff in the theaters already.

I have found so many people that have never heard of Atlas Shrugged.! We need more exposure to the book and mostly the movie.!!

I agree with almost all the comments about the casting, however to go back to cast 1 would perhaps confuse some folks. Combining casts would also be problematic. Stay with part 2 cast and hire a top top director who can get performances out of these actors. The REAL priority is the story itself and telling that story in a movie format. If you tell the story THE MESSAGE will come out and people will hear it.

A. Casting
and
B. Getting the message right

B.

A. Casting. The casting in the first film was wonderful. The casing all around, but particularly with regard to Dagny and Hank, in the second film was disappointing. Please, please, please bring back the original (i.e., film 1) cast.

cast!!!!!!
I loved the original cast from part one. you need to go back to those guys hands down. I was sort of disappointed with the cast from part 2. there was no chemistry.
I am looking forward to past 3.

There HAS to be some sort of continuity with the cast. The cast of part I was absolutely perfect. The cast of Part II though disappointing is tolerable only if you can stick with them.

I agree that the cast from Part 1 one was much better, but please be sure to keep Old Biff and the dad from Family Ties from Part 2!

Bring back the original cast that was in part I

The second casting for Rearden was far superior to the first. Bring back the second Rearden. Bowler was a weak and insecure man in that role. Rearden is a no BS guy and Bowler just doesn't cut it.