I think Daniel Crag would be a great John Gault. This must be a film that follows the book and message of Atlas Shrugged! The film will out live us and need to be of interest so as to inform folks of the pitfall of government intervention. It always comes as a cost in the form of taxes and a price of civil liberties.

I can't pick a single priority to emphasize, but want to make a general comment that AS3 in its entirety needs to be produced in a well-rounded, tasteful way, demonstrating a clear, singular vision, and not an amalgamation of decisions made by committee. I will never be ungrateful to the financiers and producers of AS1 and AS2, because what Rand fan be unappreciative that it was finally brought to film?

That being said, I liked the films because they were telling the story of AS, nothing more. Simply put, the films were very harsh. I'm not a professional film critic, but when I think of excellent films, I think Michael Mann, Christopher Nolan, Francis Ford Coppola, Paul Thomas Anderson, etc. Their style and taste is impeccable. I'm sure someone could be found along these lines that are dedicated to high production values.

I would much prefer a simpler, tasteful film that's devoid of tacky special effects, and in particular a movie soundtrack that was electronically composed (not sure if AS2 had this, but definitely in AS1). The soundtrack should be from a real orchestra, or there should be no soundtrack at all. Also, no more soundbites of real news people in the film who in reality are just demagogues that only pay lip service to Rand.

I read that Steve Jobs saw AS in the theater before he died. You know what kind of taste and standards he had. But I'm confident that if someone asked him what he thought of it, his comments would be similar to mine, even worse, probably.

With the right person that can beautifully integrate all the components of a film, AS3 can be amazing, without breaking the bank.

Hope you guys do the right thing. Good luck!

Act III Very important; a lot happens in Act III. First I agree you need to bring back Taylor Shilling and Grant Bowler. Those two are great. Second really show society breaking down. Show people what happens when a majority of people i.e.. moochers figure out that they can vote themselves a paycheck. The producers stop and everything stops. But that's not what's happening to our country right now. Or is it???

Getting this message to the public as soon as possible!

A. - Casting, but with one huge gamble: Seek Angelina Jolie as the third Dagny.

Taylor Shilling and Samantha Mathis both did great work and added their unique stamps to the role, but since there's been a different Dagny in each of the first two films, why not use a third change to (ironically) lend a sense of casting consistency to the trilogy, while scoring a huge "shoot for the moon" publicity coup that would essentially make III - and the trilogy as a whole - impossible for the blacklisting / memory-hole media to ignore?

Jolie was signed on for the abortive Lion's Gate production already so we know she's interested in the role, and maybe just maybe she'd jump at the chance. I'm thinking the additional box office her name would draw would more than compensate for her fee. So far this project has been relegated to invisibility by a near-conspiratorial "Spike" throughout the entertainment and news media. Jolie as Dagny for Part III is really the only thing that would blast through that wall of silence. And talk about a "grand finale!"

Dream big; think the unthinkable; probe the improbable; "Nothing ventured, nothing gained"; "No guts, no glory"; "You can't win if you don't play," etc. Try. The worst she (or her agent) could do is say "no."

Esai Morales's portrayal of Francisco was perfection in casting. He epitomized the free will and idealism of Ayn Rand's philosophy.

Don't care about the casting - tell the story right. You could tell it with stick-figures for all I care. Just make sure that Ayn Rand's message about the value of merit, the value of competence, the importance of unpoliticized science, the evil of the moochers and the looters - make sure all of that comes out right. Be sure not to butcher "I Am John Galt." Probably can't do the unabridged form, but you can surely get the real gist of what that message is right. The story is everything. And the morality is the weave of the story. Water down the morality and you have a tawdry story - no matter who you cast.

B. Getting the message of Atlas Shrugged right

People have no idea of how Obama is sending this country into a world like Atlas Shrugged. For example, thanks to Obamacare, surgeons are told what kind of equipment and supplies to use with patients, all based on lowest cost so that everyone has the same amount of care. They are limited as to how much they can expand a physician owned practice, if they accept Medicare because those kinds of practices provide expensive services like gastric bypass, spine and joint surgeries that drive up costs. So the government is limiting their growth and types of services they offer to patients. Get the message out before Obama turns this country into the Soviet Union. Is it 2016 yet?

The biggest failing of the movie so far was the short shrift that was made of the visit to metropolitan motors. Whatever happened to the whole story about the "Cut Glass" shower that the plant manager had, it was a big deal in the book but was not mentioned at all in the movie. There is an interesting corollary about that shower in modern life. Mitt Romney toured the Solyndra plant during the run up to the election, and the Solyndra executives had private bathrooms with flat screen TVs in their showers....exactly the same thing as in the book!!!

A. Taylor Schilling was great in the Lead Role as Dagny Taggart in Part I. I think she was true to the character and looked/acted the part extremely well.
She carried the story and I wish she could be brought back for Part III.

I have input to offer, but first, a disclaimer in an Objectivist vein: John Aglialoro undertook the making of Atlas, so it his artistic vision that needs to be realized. Asking for input in how to complete that vision from a public forum risks the integrity of the project. But so far, I have been satisfied with how Parts I and II have stayed true to the book, while shifting the story to the present day.

In order of priority, in my opinion:
B. Getting the message of AS right is the most important. I grant that the staggering scope of the book cannot be contained in 6 hours of film, but structure the story with some "hooks" to make thinking members of the audience want to go out and buy a copy to read for themselves. Ayn Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged to warn America of the evils of statism, so I think that should remain the top priority. The other aspects of casting, cinematography, and special effects are just tools assisting in reaching that goal. Compared to the garbage stories being told in big-budget Hollywood movies today, Atlas Shrugged has much to offer in this intellectual wasteland. If the message is powerful enough, it can make up for the inevitable shortcomings in a low-budget production.

E. Hiring the right director. This is the next priority that I would set because the director has the responsibility of telling the story and emphasizing the correct artistic elements. Jonathan Mostow or Ron Howard I think are the best directors today that can harness modern film-making technologies and use them to tell the story, not gloss over the lack of substance in a script.

A. Casting. I was a little taken aback when Pt II was completely recast. But I got the impression that was the plan all along. So I'm OK if Pt III has a whole new troupe of actors. But some comments: When I saw Pt I, I didn't think Taylor Schilling was the perfect Dagny, but I like her in the part better than Samantha Mathis. (In the perfect world of my mind, I have always seen Hedy Lamarr in the role of Dagny, but that can never be for obvious reasons.) Grant Bowler I thought was perfect as Henry Rearden. I also thought the casting of Rebecca Wysocky as Lillian in Pt I was perfect. In the book, Lillian is more of a snake than the Class A Bitch portrayed by the actress in Pt II.

Since John Galt is a shadowy character in the first two parts, the casting was not so critical. I thought that DB Sweeney was wasted by being back in the shadows of Pt II, and wouldn't mind seeing him fully portray Galt in Pt III. A darkhorse that I would suggest for the role of Galt would be Rush's drummer Neal Peart. His liner note acknowledging Ayn Rand in 2112 probably did more to introduce adolescents of my generation to her works than any other thing in the culture of the day. He may be getting too old to play Galt today, but it would be great if he could be cast in a bit part.

F. I was horrified to see a Fisker Karma in Part II. This is product placement going out of control. As an engineer in the automotive industry, the Fisker Karma to me symbolizes the evil of government intrusion in the market. It's the poster child for political pull, being created by the grace of millions of dollars in government loan guarantees.

The most important thing, I think, is showing the masses the direction that we are traveling as a country, that Rand saw when she wrote her novels. And doing this with tie-ins with current figures if possible. Then we continue to build a movement instead of just a movie

B. Else what's the point. The key part of AS3 will be Galt's broadcast as the rest of the novel is mainly set-up for that. However it is quite long and to hold the audience the camera should have cuts to illustrations of Galt's points...factory workers and THEN the engineers and architects enabling them, the blacksmith's arm and THEN the steel mill, and so forth, as many as possible limited only by the writers' imaginations and the shooting budget. BTW We loved the first two and anticipate a great conclusion. Thank you.

Omit Ayn Rand's long anti-religion speech. Leaving it in will alienate much of your audience who might otherwise agree with all her other points.

While I might agree with many of her points about 'organized' religion, they didn't prove that there is no God or higher power that created man capable of being as perfect as Ms. Rand says we can be when we follow her philosophy.

Given that Ms. Rand was able to get the 'Money Speech' and the 'Love Speech' 'flat' in but a few pages... the fact that she rambled on and on against religion for scores of pages tells me that she didn't have that subject 'flat'.

The right director: Clint Eastwood. He'll maintain the integrity for the story and tell it entertainingly---a proven commodity.

I think B is the most important, and all the others must be excellent to accomplish B in the best possible manner.

B. Getting the message right. A,C,D & E are a waste of resources if B fails. BTW, I liked the cast in AS1 better.

B. Get the message right! It would be nice if you could have the same cast, but get the message right.

Capitalism the unknown ideal--to get the point across that-capitalism is freemen exchanging in a free society--not stepping on or carrying one another-unless by choice as parents to child

It seems imperative that Atlas III link the kind of starvation and suffering that happened in Russia to us and our American moocher benefactiors - people need to know in their gut where we are headed and who is taking us there. It is a difficult link to make without the novel and passion for freedom that only comes from being informed. Remember we are speaking to people who are too busy surviving to get informed. People with little education who start a family in their teens don't have the luxury to spend the time. Worse, many who have the time are brainwashed before they get started. The link has to be dramatic and leave the audience horrified. (It would be better if Galt was not saved. Ayn Rand was too optimistic. Part IV may needed.)
Read more at http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/4d...

F & E: Story and Momentum/Flow. A solid script can make or break a film. I feel the director wasn't all bad, though someone with more "clarity" (for lack of a better word, even though it still doesn't sound right its the best I could think of on short notice) behind the scenes would not hurt.

I am surprised at all the comments and how the vast majority have apparently missed the fact the story itself is more of a love story than anything. Rand herself said the very thing. The ideology and political stance she wrote into the story is not lost but the shear focal point is the love story aspect.

I understand the Producers of the project have made this into more of a political laced film and less of a love story and I don't hold it against them in anyway, however a political film comes with a certain cloud that many will have varying opinions on.

My recommendation to the Producers is to focus on the overall structure and flow of the story for film 3. I realize the difficult nature as a writer myself what deadlines can do in rushing a story to completion.

As an aspiring filmmaker myself, my team and I have often discovered a well flowing story can help to sell it when a low budget prevents big time actors, locations, and FX whether old school or computer animated.

That is my 2 cents for what it'd be worth.

In I and II you presented the movie goer with the characters without identifying them, leaving him to guess. If one hasn't read Atlas Shrugged this is a hard task.

I suggest that in addition to a "Cast of Characters" that each character, as he comes on the screen, have his name printed under his figure for several seconds.

Also, for that same movie goer, there would be a brief statement if what the movie was all about, and a brief summary of what happened in Parts. I and II.

Even I, who has read the book several times, found it difficult to know just who is who.

JimWright

Getting the message right! None of the rest matters if the message isn't accurate.

getting the story right is about 95% for me How that gets done is secondary