Do a sequel showing the escape of conservatives from liberals by creating a new society on a distant planet. The conflict would entail the liberals trying to stop the producers from leaving as no one would be left to keep the liberal society working. It would appeal to the science fiction crowd, the government crowd and with the right plot, general audiences of all philosophies.

I would like to see some warning about the future. Something like what is going on now and what the future holds for conservatives. What is the next step? Where does it all end?

F. Other: Because I want it! (shameless capitalist)

Sorry, but while casting is VERY importaant, getting the MESSAGE of Atlas Shrugged out is paramount! Especially with recent D.C events (all the scandals - who knew???) people have to be made aware of the dangers from large government!

B:
Get the message correct about the War wagged against the Constitution. Most people are too ignorant about Philosophy to understand the fine points of this Book!.

B Getting the message right.

B. Anything less than capturing the philosophy is a compromise, and we all understand that evil.

B., Then A.
I was very fond of pt.1 and its embrace of rail transport in an oil depleted world. The cast was very good, IMHO.
Pt. 2's cast changes were jarring, and diminished the movie.
B. Message
I appreciate the anti-collectivism and anti-totalitarianism of the heroes of the story.

B

Everybody from the original cast were far, far superior. Dont know who decided to change the cast but it was a monumental mistake. They should come back.

B......quite a task

In my humble opinion, if the message isn't communicated to the audience - which would include a "layman" audience, then none of the other priorities matter. If I were to have one single issue with parts one and two, it is that they were too short. If you don't take the risk, then expect mediocre results. Remember what made "Dances with Wolves" so amazing? It was criticized, initially, for being much too long - yet it was a stunning success, in part because it was, as we said when I was in the Army, completed to Standard - not to Time. ASIII should not be too concerned with keeping it down to 90 minutes, or even 120 minutes, but rather to a Standard equivalent with Ayn Rand's. AS, the book, was a HUGE read - both literally and figuratively. Trying to compress it into two or three 90-minute movies requires too much watering-down. Part of the genius of Ayn Rand was her ability to build the characters and draw the reader into the lives, and suspenseful mystery of the characters. Maybe ASIII needs to be a 2-part series; if not, then don't be concerned if that means a 3-hour epic!

A. Casting

RETURN to the ORIGINAL Atlas Shrugged I cast! The second movie was RUINED by the new cast, no investment, no payoff. I won't even buy the Blu-ray. Won't see Part III in theater with new cast either!

Part 3 needs to be an R, a hard R. I would love to see an NC-17, but that I know is asking too much. The book is graphic and the movies have lost that part of the story by going for the PG rating.
The showings are limited to one theater in my area, where they have over a dozen multiplexes, and they all show movies like The Hangover at every one, but for Atlas they only show at one.
Make a hard R. No kids were in the many showings I attended. Make the passion come to life.

ALL of these are important, but if I had to choose ONE, then clearly, B is the one!

Obvious answer is B, but based on how extraordinarily well Paul Johansson and John Putch did with parts 1 and 2, respectively, I think getting the right director is the most important priority.

The casting is critical. None of the cast in part 2 cut it at all. Taylor Shilling and Grant Bowler should be the measure of the the top two characters. Taylor personified the tough aggressive Dagny and Grant was exactly what I was expecting Henry Reardon to be. The entire cast of Part 1 did far better than Part 2. The benchmark for the characters was set in Part 1 and should be kept in Part 3

stress the importance of the 10th amendment; repeal of the 16th amendment

Casting. The first movie was low budget and came across that way, but the second movie was just flat. At least in the first, I enjoyed the interactions of Dagny, Francisco and Hank. The second movie had no real chemistry between them.

I thought the first cast near perfect. The casting for Part II was terrible. Glamor to mundane. I was greatly disappointed. And the airplanes were poorly done. Other than these two points, I enjoyed the movie because I am an ardent fan of Atlas Shrugged.

F. Other
Of the choices, I suppose getting the message of the book right is the most important priority. However, it's more than that. The actors need to be able to display the passion and the character that makes one feel the same way reading the book as watching the movie. Those things did not come across in the first two movies. I think that's largely because in the book, one is able to read the person's thoughts in the narration and understand so many things that are not necessarily verbalized. That doesn't translate in a movie unless you show explicit emotions on a person's face or have them voice what they are thinking in a natural way that's not awkward. This is the piece I feel is missing and should be the number one priority.

B - which will be a result of the rest being done ...to summarize, correctly.

These 3 of most important..............
1a=E 1b=A 1c=B

Right Director + Right Cast = Getting the
message of AS right..........which is "the individual exists, the collective does not" thus "individualism is pro-life; collectivism is pro-death".

1-B
2-A
3-E
4-C
5-D
6-F the original Dagny Taggart and Henry Rearden

Getting the message of Atlas Shrugged right