One of the most interesting aspects of this movie to me is actually the negative media coverage of it. This article, for example, titled "Warner Bros. drastically revamped its movie schedule after 'Batman v Superman' backlash": http://finance.yahoo.com/news/warner-bros-drastically-revamped-movie-200929376.html;_ylt=A0LEVvxg1QlXYhQAmysPxQt.;_ylu=X3oDMTByMjB0aG5zBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw-- tells us that Warner is actually adding two additional DC movies to their slate, going from 2 DC movies per year through 2020 to 3 per year in 2018 and 2019, this in response to "backlash" to BvS; they are apparently so dismayed with its reception that they are doubling down with even more DC movies in the film universe it is ushering in. Such baldfaced obfuscation brings this essay on "Spectre" to mind: mileswmathis.com/bond.pdf in which the writer argues that there are two factions (at least) at work running the show behind the curtain and they communicate their agendas to the people through the symbols of movies, among other media. In the case of BvS Warner is communicating a certain agenda, and a lot of the news media is in turn blackwashing the movie.

This doesn't mean these movies are actually good, just that there are certain agendas being presented by media power brokers, ways of thinking, that are antithetical to ideas of other elites; perhaps we are seeing a philosophical squabble between some of the elite trillionaire families. In the case of "Spectre", it is James Bond's national, British secret service (the good guys, representing MI6, CIA, etc) against a private international organization (representing the UN perhaps, Agenda 21). And recall "John Carter", a pricey Disney movie which the studio seemed to purposely bury with their ridiculous marketing, something noted even in the MSM: they changed the name from "John Carter of Mars" to simply "John Carter", ignored the romance element of the movie, and downplayed the sci-fi/fantasy elements, leaving the idiocratic masses to think, so, it's like Tarzan in the desert? The problem with this movie was it showed faked events/faked deaths, and powerful people manipulating events behind the scenes; dangerous ways of thinking. Possibly the studio heads didn't realize what was conveyed by the movie until too late and sabotaged the movie at the last minute, or more likely there was a changing of the guard amongst the execs sometime after the movie was produced but before release.

Back to BvS, I think there are a few principal ideas that set off the flame war against it, and they are about control. First, who really calls the shots? In this movie it is big business pulling the strings behind the scenes, as LexCorp is behind two false flags designed to set up Superman, behind advanced weapons research, manipulating the US Congress, and so on. And it is Lex, this world's junior Rockefeller or Rothschild, manipulating the film's two protagonists throughout the movie as well. So through this symbol we have big business, the true power-brokers, really calling the shots, really in control, working puppets, creating violence and mayhem for their own ends, not a lone gunman or psychopath outsider, which is the favored bad guy of Hollywood with their rogue super-villains and cartoon Nazis.

The second main issue, and this one specifically addressed in the movie, is unilateralism. Unlike most previous big-screen representations of Batman and Superman, both of these characters act unilaterally, outside of the control of the establishment, according exclusively to what they think is right (of course, they are also being manipulated by a puppet master, but still, they are acting exclusively on what they think is the right thing independent of what others may think). Compare this idea to Nolan's Batman for example, who at times seems to represent an embattled NSA warrior fighting for the greater good with his mass surveillance technology in "The Dark Knight". And that Batman didn't really seem to have much of a rebuttal to Ra's Al Ghul's detestation of modern society in "Batman Begins" except to say the right thing to do was to preserve it regardless. The BvS Batman is perfectly willing to go against the grain of society to destroy who is a (mostly) beloved savior figure because he thinks it is the right thing to do.

The violence in the movie is purposefully provocative I think, calling out our glee for death and destruction, showing us the consequences of these battles for the fate of civilization. It is the lunatic Joker in "The Dark Knight" who mentions society's indifference to a truck-load of soldiers getting blown up over there, in effect reinforcing society's preference to pretend it doesn't exist since he's a psychopath, but here it is the heroes bringing our attention to it. Superman tore apart Smallville and Metropolis while battling Kryptonians in "Man of Steel" and here Batman (often in graphic fashion) blows up, shoots and knifes thugs, violence which elicited cries of distress from some media. The good guys can't do that, they should fight with no consequences. To me this highlights the fact that when facing enemies hell-bent on murder and mayhem lots of people get hurt and even super-heroes can't save or spare everyone. The stakes couldn't be higher. Compare this portrayal of violence to the last "Star Wars" movie, where Finn, raised to be a Storm Trooper, is freaked out by a massacre of some villagers, but then, upon escaping, celebrates blowing up his former comrades ("Did you see that?!" woo-hoo!), where the bad guy is turned into a cardboard cartoon other, humanity stripped, fully deserving to die with no consequences to the heroes. They are now only Storm Troopers, terrorists, Nazis, communists, Jews, etc...

And just how bad is the enemy, really? In this movie, not only is the bad guy portrayed as one of the elite, but even he is being played by someone, something else. To me I have always struggled to fathom how or why the elite could do what they do to the world and its people. The old standby "ah, money and power of course!" seems to me a hopelessly puerile explanation for elite child-trafficking ( [link to www.franklinscandal.com] elephantine state surveillance machines, mass pollution of the planet and the people with chemicals and poisons, and so on and on. How can they do this to the planet? It is their planet too. We seem to have a few dozen trillionaire families that control the world and have for some time with certain agendas, but it seems to do what is being done they must be acting for a higher power, or at least a belief in one. It could just be that they are united in some kind of Masonic Luciferian creed that justifies all they do as means to an end, or it could be they are actually being directed by something beyond our world, such as the Gnostic idea of the Archons ( [link to www.youtube.com (secure)] Either way, I believe the power-brokers are guided by something greater than simply their own self-interest, and in BvS this is the case with Lex. Hinted at in the movie and used to set up the next one, Lex (and possibly Batman and Superman as well) is being manipulated by a god-like Archontic being (Darkseid), with his main job apparently to kill "God" (Superman) to pave the way for the coming of Darkseid.

One more thing that struck me in the movie was what I think of as "strong female" characters. Now this needs to be defined due to popular current (mis)usage of the term, which generally seems to mean turning girls into boys, that is, into fighters, warriors, etc, preferably in spandex in order to turn on brain-dead fanboys while concurrently claiming a win for feminism. See Rey in "Star Wars", a warrior (with no training) and no character development, but who was generally celebrated as a "strong female character", even though she was just Luke without the character arc or growth, albeit less annoying. There was the same thing with this movie's Wonder Woman, who was generally praised ("Who wins in Batman V Superman? Wonder Woman!"), always in association to her gender, but she was essentially just an extended cameo who we really know nothing about. The emphasis on praise for these types of female characters seems to be a deliberate reflection of our culture's hatred of the feminine, a culture that can call Caitlyn Jenner "Woman of the Year" with a straight face. In BvS the real strong female characters are Martha Kent as a mother and Lois Lane as a lover, muse, and ground to Clark Kent.