This is such a low bar it's almost insulting. To heal my wounded ego, I shall write a 65 page monologue to describe how deeply my feelings were hurt. I will call it "Atlas Twitched Slightly, But, Like, Just Barely, So It Wasn't That Big A Deal"
Fountainhead is, in Rand's own words "a description of the perfect man". It follows a rather assholish architect whose architecture is disliked by the general public, despite it being in his mind "objectively better", and mostly details his "woe is me, society and the media are out to get me" ramblings. It's a pretty trash book, Rand wrote exclusively political essays and political essays pretending to be fiction, but well demonstrates objectivism, the belief that it's your moral imperative to be a selfish asshole, art is objective, and that communism is bad, m'kay.
I disagree. While his scripting and editing needs a ton of work the actual visuals in his films are incredible. Especially in how he handles Superman fighting people on his natural level. Until Man of Steel came out I don't think any film had really managed to capture visually the sheer power of Superheroes fighting. Marvel still barely even tries with their limp and empty fight scenes. There's real weight to how he shoots these incredible beings beating the shit out of each other.
While I do agree that Snyder's fights are great at that, I think Hancock might be up there as well.
So I misread that as "The Justice League Bombing" and thought that likening that movie to a terror attack was maybe going a bit far but fortunately I realised my error.
The book has demeaning depictions of women, at least one exploding building, and a bunch of other things Michael Bay loves doing in his movies. I mean it's not like he could make it worse, right? Even then it might be more fun to watch.
Counterpoint: Michael Bay almost always makes bank. Do you really want the movie adaptation of "The Fountainhead" to be commercially successful? Because with Michael Bay directing it, there's a higher chance it won't bomb.
I can't see how that would happen.
It doesn't help that Batman VS Superman is rediculously biased toward Superman. Batman is portrayed as a traumatized neoconservative billionaire. Kryptonian 9/11 broke him.
And now Batman's convinced they need to have preemptive strikes to defend American from the Kryptonian menace. Just compare his quote about Superman against Dick Cheney's 1% Doctrine.
Meanwhile, the Kryptonian immigrant is a shown to be an investigative journalists concerned with police brutality, vigilante justice, journalistic integrity, and the urban lower classes.
And is willing to save the guy who kidnapped his mother and devoted the last year to ruining him in the media from Doomsday's fists.
And in the final battle, his Lady of the Lake goes to retrieve Rhongomyniad the Kryptonite spear so he can impale Doomsday, the last alchemical creation of Krypton, upon it. Doomsday manages to survive long enough to kill Superman with his bone sword, just like how Mordred killed Arthur with his sword after being impaled upon a lance.
Not only that, after Superman dies, Snyder puts three crosses behind him to represent his sacrifice.
So according to Zack Snyder, Batman VS Superman is about neoconservative billionaire fighting an Kryptonian immigrant who is the merger of King Arthur and Jesus. Talk about biased.
EDIT: So Warner Brothers told Zack Snyder to make a superhero movie. But Snyder made a hyper-political myth about how traumatized conservatives (Batman) and nihilistic tech giants (ZuckerbergLex Luthor) will bring Doomsdayto America. And the only way to stop Doomsdayis for immigrant Jesus (Superman) to change the hearts of traumatized conservatives (Batman) to feel more empathy. Only then can they team up with serious investigative journalism (Lois Lane) and feminism (Wonder Women) to stop America's Doomsday.And he had the audacity to release the movie in 2016, six months before the election.
