A - Casting. I feel very superficial in voting so, as I would prefer to answer 'the message' - but while casting will never meet every fans personal image, in my sphere of Atlas fans that regularly discuss the films, we found the casting of Dagny Taggart in Part II to not just be a mere matter of preferential musings, but actually found the portrayal of Dagny unflattering in the extreme; even distracting.

Do E and everything else will be just fine. Part II was RUINED by the recasting for me. The first cast was just fine, the whole new cast made me want to walk out. I couldn't stand to hear Hank talk... sounded like a lifetime smoker! So do E and hopefully everything else will fall into place... but PLEASE bring back original cast!!!

B (effective screenwriting can be the toughest nut esp. in a work of this length) then E;F -it's a little late for A; I suspect they couldn't afford to retain Taylor Schilling? just a theory- In Pt 2 they all did a creditable job but momentum suffers from such changes- Pt2 female lead seemed like an odd choice; & how in the world do you do a part3 review/ reference to previous events with different casts? (Was it internal sabotage? I have to wonder) Anyway-
One of the challenges in 3 will be how to handle Galt's 2 hour monologue in a powerful way, editing for time, focus & clarity. One of the stumbling blocks in Rand's work in my opinion is that she could have benefited from an editor. Not knocking her writing at all, but what some have attributed to ' wooden acting' which some have alluded to though that was not my experience- is due in my opinion to Rand's style of straightforward characterization. All her stories are means to illustrate a philosophy & tends to hit the 'preachy' button in some.
Others have commented on the tough choices
that Part3 has to handle in terms of length, what to emphasize, what has to be edited. Was sorry to see the PROMINENT CLOCK device that is nowhere to be seen in 1 or 2. Would include but since it wasn't there before... oh well. Summary: Tight screenplay so the story is conveyed DYNAMICALLY & EFFECTIVELY without dragging on & getting the point across without overstatement/ endless repetition. Yes, make people CARE about the characters. There is plenty on the current world stage to allude to without having to get too blatant as to the obvious parallels. Ragnar, Project X, My hope is that viewers who have or have not read her work will come away RE EXAMINING their assumptions & precast perceptions & will perhaps see for the first time, what is unfolding in the world outside the theater. & what the possibilities are... ( besides maybe discovering that Zero Point energy technology is a FACT, not just fiction) Temlakos summarized task well..

F. Other - this is an easy question - surprised you asked ( I am smiling) - obviously, the most important part is Galt's radio speech - take a risk, leave the speech intact, all 45 minutes of it, and show the surprised look on the faces as they recognize the voice...building Galt's presence and mind as it is depicted in the book is paramount to delivering a successful and satisfying movie experience. Good Luck! We are all cheering you on! We all so appreciate what you've done, what you are doing, and we are all doing our best (at least I am) in trying to build audience numbers, getting the word out, and letting people know this is the most exciting book ever made into a movie series!

B is essential, but A is extremely important or the message is not communicated as well as it should be. The cast must be right. The cast of I was nearly perfect. The cast of II was not. Hopefully III will be right on.

Was disappointed in ASII--I think changing the cast was a big mistake--and caused the message, which is the important part, to be less impressive. Hope if you don't go back to ASI cast--you will find stronger actors for the ASIII than you had for ASII.

Casting...Go back to the original, or change the actors, playing Hank, Dagney and Frisco. The last were terrible.

Just finished the book. Many of the previous comments were good. Just want to add that Part 3 starts with Dagny in Galts Gulch. Went on a long time with every person there giving a speech. Don't spend TOO much time in the Gulch ... get on with the rest of the book.

B. It's all about Ayn Rand's message. AND connecting Ayn with today's sad state. Special Effects in part II surprised me in how finely they were done. Special Effects should support the movie's plot NOT take over everything as is common today. The message is first and foremost. How are you going to handle Galt's Radio broadcast. That address is going to be your biggest challenge. I wouldn't know how to handle it, but 100 pages long is too much for a movie. Perhaps flashing clips of daily sorry living conditions in our country as Galt in the sound over explains what's wrong as if by coincidence.

I think the message is already pretty close, but I am going to differ with some previous commenters in that I *greatly* preferred the Dagny from part 1.

I agree with kathywiso.

B

And Gault's speech!

B. Getting the message of Atlas Shrugged right: The people "of the mind" hope to demonstrate that a world in which the individual is not free to create is doomed, that civilization cannot exist where every person is a slave to society and government, and that the destruction of the profit motive leads to the collapse of society=A mirror image of the Barack Obama administration and his promise to "fundamentally change America."

F.Emphasizing the parallels to the EXTREME between the story and current events. Borrow some obama lines! Don't be shy - he steals a lot... I liked the cast of part I a little more. The message ought to get stronger. C,D,E were good in both.

A and B. There needs to be chemistry between Tagny and John G. That was missing between Tangy and Rearden in second movie.

Return to the cast, set style, and cinematography of the first film. The sequel was good, but while it seemed to have a larger budget, the cash didn't help improve on the original.

As an actor and occasional producer myself, to get any film right takes A, B, C, D, E... and a healthy dose of "F." F includes score, editing, adaptation and 1000 other things that have to come together to make any film work. I enjoyed the first two films very much and would love to see the last chapter go above and beyond.

F. Crafting a script that engages regular viewers and that presents the characters as intriguing, believable characters while still showing (more so than telling) the ideas that are essential to why I care about Atlas Shrugged.

B, of course, but A is a very close second...

B. 100% B. Everything else accentuates the message. You can have A, C, and D and still end up with "Water World".

Casting - we far preferred Taylor Schilling..

A, B. The rest are also important, if only for adding credibility to the production in the eyes of the public.

In the end getting the message right is probably number one. While I appreciate the effort of the movie makers. It seems like movies are not very well suited to delivering a message this big. It seems like the message could be better portrayed over 101 television length episodes. With internet delivery now being a thing of the present, the trick would be to cast it well, and pace it out so that season 4 would end with Hank leaving, and season 5 more or less starting with the speech.

B. The message transcends all. When my 12 week old grandson gets to the age of philosophical inquiry, the only thing that will count is how accurately you conveyed the message.

B. Definitely B. E & A will help with achieving B.

F. Having Galt's Gulch on a computer screen in the background as characters converse. Okay, seriously it is E. I recommend David Mamet. Yes, he's expensive, but he might do it for less given that he shares many of our ideas.