It's funny that Jack mentioned the Fountainhead, when I read Snyder wanted to adapt that everything just made so much sense. It might even be a wrong assumption and maybe even unfair to Zack Snyder but it fits too well to ignore.
Thinking back on MoS it does make a lot more sense as an Objectivist superhero movie, even if you assume that Snyder isn't necessarily a bad storyteller but just completely out of touch with how non-Randians think.
What bothered me most about the movie at first wasn't Superman's characterization, but Zod's. Traditionally Zod was the dictator, he had a certain level of nobility and intelligence, but what put him into conflict with Superman was his authoritarianism. In MoS he was just a brute who yelled at people and punched things and had a shitty villain plan only because it's what he's genetically programmed to do. But it makes sense from an Objectivist point of view because the conflict between Superman and Zod isn't altruism vs authoritarianism, but the value of self-worth and self-interest. Zod only cares about himself as an instrument of the Kryptonian state, and his only self-worth is in the legacy of his people, but Superman is special because his conception was natural, and he cares about himself and the people he loves (not people in general, obviously). The neck snapping scene at the end wasn't about Superman dealing with whether or not it's okay to kill (because obviously he doesn't give a fuck) but it was essentially Zod, who has nothing left to lose, making it clear to Superman what the price of his individuality is.
Basically, Superman only saves people because it's the burden of his individuality and his expression of his self-worth and power. It seems like he's bummed about it because he sort of is.
They're saying Superman destroyed Metropolis of MoS? Wasn't 99% of the damage done by the World Engine?
But I definitely agree with their thoughts on Lex's and Supes's motivations (or lack of)
Isn't the world engine only there because Superman's there?
