From Jim Geraghty’s Morning Jolt blastmail:
Let’s get one thing out of the way: Naming the villain “President Business” and later “Lord Business” does not, ipso facto, make the movie anti-business. “President Business” also runs the cops and everything else in the city. He erects walls keeping regions divided (border control). He broadcasts to everyone in every region whenever he wants (national addresses). He monitors everything through an Orwellian system of cameras (NSA-style domestic surveillance). He runs “Taco Tuesdays”, in which every “rule-following citizen” is promised a free taco (insert your preferred welfare metaphor here). He could just as easily be called “President Government.”
Sorry, but I don’t see the logic. Let’s name the villain “President Fascist.” And then let’s have “President Fascist” run the cops and everything else, keep everybody divided, monitor everything through an Orwellian ubiquitous surveillance system, overcharge for coffee, etc.
And we are supposed to assume, in a sane world, that this is not an anit-fascist movie?
The optional assumption, I suppose, would be that it is a pro-fascist movie. But if that were the case, wouldn’t President Fascist be depicted as carrying out a considerably more popular and likeable agenda?
What am I missing here?