THE MARVEL CINEMATIC UNIVERSE (MCU): THE EVOLUTION OF

The Pennsylvania State University

The Graduate School

College of Communications

THE MARVEL CINEMATIC UNIVERSE (MCU): THE

EVOLUTION OF TRANSMEDIAL TO SPHERICAL MODES OF

PRODUCTION

A Thesis in

Media Studies

Joseph P. Davies

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements

for the Degree of

Master of Arts

August 2016

The thesis of Joseph P. Davies was reviewed and approved* by the following:

Kevin J. Hagopian

Senior Lecturer of Media Studies

Thesis Adviser

Matthew F. Jordan

Associate Professor of Media Studies

Matthew P. McAllister

Professor of Media Studies

Chair of Graduate Programs of Media Studies

*Signatures are on file in the Graduate School.

iii

ABSTRACT

As a brand, Marvel has undergone large changes in the past thirty years. They have gone from a

popular comic book brand, to bankruptcy, to a licenser of products, to an independent film

studio, and finally ended up as the latest branch in the super conglomerate Disney. The brand

has been a popular topic of study, as the past few years have seen Marvel grow to be the most

lucrative franchise in film history. Past studies have either focused on Marvel's trade story and

the economic backdrop that led to such success, or the cultural elements of the films such as plot

and theme. In this paper, I want to construct a fusion of these two narratives while taking a close

at Marvels past and present. While fusing the cultural and economic elements of the Marvel

brand, I have discovered a distinct new paradigm of production and storytelling that will change

the relationship consumers have to franchises. What makes Marvel different is that their

franchises utilize a spherical model of production. What I mean to suggest by this spherical

model is that many franchises are being linked together through character cross overs between

films in different franchises. The metaphorical visualization of such a process could be thought

of as a sphere, since the many connections can be rotated and perceived from different angles

and origins. Why has this strategy not been used in the past, and where did Marvel get the idea

for such a bold paradigm shift? I argue that these two questions can only be answered together,

and to do so requires a sharp examination of the economic and cultural landscapes surrounding

Marvel in the past thirty years. Marvel will fade as time moves forward, but the paradigm they

will leave behind is why this study is so important. Already, companies are making an attempt to

emulate this model (as will be explained in greater detail). As consumers, we may be witnessing

a shift in the way we view franchises. Understanding where this shift came from and what it

means for the world of entertainment are questions worth answering as we move into this new

era.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures…………………………………………………………….…………....v

Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION AND CRITICAL CONCEPTS…………..………..…..1

Chapter 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: SPHERICAL MODEL OF

PRODUCTION…………………………………………………………...…………...23

Chapter 3. MARVEL TRADE NARRATIVES AND NETFLIX…………………….41

Chapter 4. THE DEVIL OF HELL’S KITCHEN……………………………………..54

Chapter 5. THE FEMINIST SIDE OF MARVEL …………………………………....64

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………..80

References………………………………………………………….………………….83

LIST OF FIGURES

Batman Production Model (Figure 1)………………………………………………………27

Matrix Production Model (Figure 2)………………………………………………………..32

Marvel Spherical Model of Production (Figure 3)………………………………………...40

Chapter 1: Introduction and Critical Concepts

Looking back into history, storytelling has always been something human kind has

engaged in. From cave paintings to the incredibly lucrative entertainment industry of today,

people love to tell and listen to stories. They began as spoken word, being passed down from

generation to generation through memory alone. The ways stories are produced have gone

through major shifts over the years. Because stories are so powerful, who gets exposed to them

and how is extremely important.

When thinking about storytelling, film has been a major media platform for the practice.

The stories told through film that were most successful were disseminated broadly, and this

allowed perspective storytellers to emulate the aspects that made these stories great. As film

history progressed, the blockbuster was introduced by way of Jaws in 1975. Jaws is a film about

a giant man eating shark that is terrorizing tourists. A group of brave men go on a boating

voyage to put a stop to the beast. This type of larger than life plot has been the calling card of

the blockbuster ever since. Blockbuster films were game changers, and they brought audiences

in droves due to star power and high budget.

However, it was not until 1989 and Tim Burton’s Batman that the type of blockbuster we

are more familiar with today emerged. Batman was not just a big film, it created a mania with

merchandising and advertisements that will be discussed thoroughly in this thesis. Batman

brings the iconic character of the caped crusader from comic to film in the dark and whimsical

way only Tim Burton could manage. The story follows the bat as he duels with his arch-nemesis

Joker for control of Gotham. This was the first of three major paradigm shifts in story and

media production that will explored.

A second paradigm shift occurred when the Wachowski siblings broke the stagnation in

1999 with The Matrix. The Matrix is a cerebral thriller about a computer hacker named Neo who

discovers the world he knows is nothing but a simulation created by the hyper intelligent

machines who have taken over the real world. He must attain skills via computer programs to do

battle with the evil agents in the simulated world. Using multiple media platforms, the

Wachowskis found a way to tell a story which was free to grow and change with each new

iteration of the universe (or at least they did a convincing job making their audiences feel that

way). The whole story was not presented in the trilogy of films, so fans were tasked with

seeking out the story on other media platforms such as video games, animated series, bonus

DVD features, and the internet. The story was now being produced in a myriad of media, each

adding its own unique set of properties to the story as a whole. Once the Wachowskis set this

style in motion, other media franchises began to follow suit, as I will outline in my literature

review.

I propose that a third paradigm shift in storytelling and production is taking place in the

cultural present. Where the Wachowskis required their audiences to fill in the gaps in their major

blockbuster films with ancillary products which provided story continuity, Marvel has

accomplished the same kind of story flow by linking together many different franchises. They

have also utilized the mania introduced by Batman to bolster each individual franchise. With

that many franchises, each generating mania, linked together with direct character cross-overs, a

universe has been built which transcends franchise fatigue in a way that the previous two

paradigms could not.

I intend to prove throughout this thesis that these paradigms of production exist, and that

Marvel is currently responsible for the evolution of the Matrix paradigm into one that is much

more complicated. This is important because it will (and already is) changing the way

consumers interact with media products. Concepts such as character and brand autonomy, the

power of stories, and the economics of entertainment will be brought to bear as the timeline of

storytelling paradigms is carefully scrutinized in this thesis. Furthermore, it is not just the

political economy perspective that is bolstering the success of this paradigm. Marvel’s

partnership with broadcast television and Netflix has opened the door for risk taking in the form

of progressive concepts which have allowed Marvel to reach for audiences outside of those in the

lowest common denominator targeted by huge blockbuster spectacles.

With the use of a new paradigm and a partnership with Netflix, it becomes clear that

Marvel seeks to attain a foothold in every possible market. Big PG-13 blockbuster films appeal

to many people, but there are still markets that remain out of reach. Additionally, the interest of

the demographic sought by blockbuster films will logically decline over time if the same formula

is repeated at length.

In order to make my argument about the existence of this third story production

paradigm, I will be using three visual models to indicate the evolution of story production. This

theory will be fully fleshed out in my second chapter, but first, I want to explore what has been

written about the previous method, one that is known as transmedia storytelling. Transmedia

storytelling, at least in the realm of film, was arguably pioneered by the Wachowskis, and it

remains an integral part in Marvels new paradigm. Many of the sources throughout the literature

review are dated, but each article which takes transmedia and intertextuality as its subject matter

helps to build the story production theory I would like to expand on.

In order to grasp the way Marvel first became wedded to transmedia storytelling and

evolved into the front runner in a new system of production, we must first understand the

complex relationship between comic books and their new age adaptations.

Though the shift from the comic book format to film and television has been a lucrative

one for publishers (especially Marvel), the transition was far from smooth. McAllister et al.

(2006) identify a trend among big blockbuster sequels where the opening weekend starts strong,

but revenue immediately drops off in the second weekend. They attribute this to the habit of

blockbuster films to rely on big action rather than characters. The authors contrast large tent-

pole (productions that support the financial performance of networks or studios) films like the

1978 Superman, where Christopher Reeve dons the cape as the orphan of krypton who matures

into the world’s greatest super hero with smaller, more character-driven films such as Sin City.

Sin City depicts a grimy reality filled with sex and violence from the perspective of multiple

characters who end up being connected in various ways. The irony is that audiences are put off

by these smaller films for different reasons, such as dark themes. This is evidence that dark

themes and brooding characters have a marginalized place in blockbuster Hollywood. These

large films are meant to appeal to a diverse demographic, and films like Sin City, (a stylized and

hyper-violent noir based on the graphic novel of the same name), though more true to its roots,

alienate large audience portions. McAllister et al. (2006) describe this as “the seemingly yin-

yang nature of the relationship between comic art and motion pictures” (p. 109).

Lefevre (2007) points out that comic book success and film success is not one to one.

The fan base for comic books is much smaller, so the films must bring in audiences that do not

align as comic fans. He notes that many comic artists and comic fans are skeptical about film

adaptations, because they are not considered terribly relatable. Lefevre (2007) argues that

despite these concerns, the film and comic mediums are very similar. He makes the observation

that both are based on the image, while written mediums are not (Lefevre, 2007).

The comic is a print medium, but it is also a visual medium. This situates comics in a

very unique niche. Comics have been used to reach audiences from children to adults, and they

have managed to do so with the same stable of characters. This is accomplished because comic

story worlds are threaded together in a way that allows for any type of cross-over or re-

imagining. As time passes and artists and writers come and go, the super hero universe shifts in

terms of aesthetic and theme, but the narrative chronology remains the same unless otherwise

stated (i.e. alternate timelines). However, the skepticism harbored by comic book fans of film

adaptations is about more than just chronology.

The skepticism is also an issue of primacy. People resonate most strongly with the first

version they consume. This issue also occurs when novels are adapted to the screen. However,

as Lefevre (2007) points out, with a novel you compare the film to your imagined vision of what

you should see. On the other hand, when a comic is adapted, the visual version of events is

indisputable. Thus, when characters or events differ on screen than they appeared on the page, a

feeling of perceived betrayal may occur with certain audience members (Lefevre, 2007).

Marvel has often taken liberties with its characters and events, often drastically altering

the events in the comics. Non-comic readers remain oblivious to this, but do comic readers

understand that many of these changes are necessary to ease the transition? If they do not

understand, does it greatly matter? Marvel/Disney is not dependent on comic fan patronage for

filmic success, as Lefevre (2007) points out early in his article. However, if the community at

large decided to boycott the films, would this information get out and turn casual viewers away

from the tent-pole films? A big part of Marvel’s brand is its trade stories. A large part of those

trade stories revolve around “nerd cred”, or credibility given by individuals steeped in geek

culture. Now that Disney has bought Marvel, and the brand appears all but immortal, is that nerd

cred falling by the wayside? As my spherical model of production will show, nerd cred can now

manifest itself in many ways, all relating to the Marvel brand.

Comic book films have always been innovators, both in the formation of huge

blockbusters and in shifting the paradigm of accepted visual styles. Comic book-based media

fills an interesting cultural space, as it attracts young crowds by way of targeting the

demographic but also holds a default older audience by association to a nostalgic past in comic

books. Comic book film makers have taken the methods and stories used by comic book

creators and adapted them to the screen. Blockbusters often struggle to balance a target audience

and draw as many people to the theater as possible. Because comic books have such a special

position in the market, the advent of comic films has made huge strides in bolstering

blockbusters as a staple of the Hollywood film industry (McAllister et al., 2006).

Superman, which was one of the first hugely successful comic based blockbusters,

utilized big name actors and was one of the forerunners of transmedia practice. Cashing in on

the appeal of Superman as a character in and of himself, licensing and merchandising deals were

made to spread the brand beyond the theater. On top of that, Superman grossed more globally

than it did domestically, foreshadowing another huge media trend in terms of Hollywood

(McAllister et al., 2006).

However, as pointed out by Walt of “Comics Talk Blog”, Superman had a Hollywood

agenda, and any connections to the comics were simply utilized to make more money on screen.

Walt mentions, “Of course the movie was not made to increase sales of comics but to make

money on the big screen for Warner Bros. Pictures” (Comics Talk Blog, 2013). McAllister et al

(2006) agree with this assessment, leading to their argument of comics being pushed out while

adaptations gain traction.

Superman utilized an aggressive vertical scheme by filming much of the sequel

concurrently with the original. This method has been duplicated by film franchises ever since,

along with a reliance on product placement and sponsorship deals to bolster revenue and cash

flow for subsequent films. In a sense, Superman was the progenitor of the mania that was to

come in 1989 with Batman. Comic book films, since their advent, have been pioneers in the

way film is marketed and produced. They did not simply set up a precedent for blockbuster

films to this day, they continue to shift the way we consume films, with Marvel leading the

charge as the powerhouse of comic-based films (McAllister et al., 2006).

Despite the optimism presented by McAllister et al (2006), Lefevre’s article written the

following year focused more on the impact for the fan base and the specific logistical issues.

Lefevre (2007) states that there are four main problems adaptations must face: “(1) the

deletion/addition process that occurs with rewriting; (2) unique characteristics of page layout and

film screens; (3) the dilemmas of translating drawings to photography; (4) the importance of

sound in film compared to the silence of comics” (p. 4). With these things in mind, Lefevre’s

(2007) main question is how film can diverge from comics the least?

The creators of adaptations understand that a healthy amount of changes and rewrites are

required to make a transition less clunky. Some elements of comic books would simply not play

well on screen. However, Lefevre (2007) notes that diehard fans do not approach these changes

as necessary or welcome.

Kevin Wilson of “Screen Rant” provides distinct examples of this type of unwelcome

change in his article titled, “12 Worst Movie & TV Adaptations of Beloved Comic Book

Characters”. One such adaptation was X-Men Origins: Wolverine in 2009. Origins, as can be

gleaned from the title, depicts the roots of the most iconic X-man Logan and the trials he faces as

he becomes the Wolverine. When discussing the adaptation of Deadpool, Wilson states,

“Why…did they make the character, famous for his wisecracking mouth, mouthless?” (Screen

Rant, 2016). These changes are viewed as betrayals. Lefevre (2007) states this betrayal is in

part attached to the desire by these fans to impress others with their deep knowledge of the

original content, and the adaptations often rob them of that opportunity. As Wilson’s example

shows, however, it is clear that very obvious character dimensions may be twisted beyond

recognition, and not always for any sound reason.

If diehard comic book fans are left unsatisfied by these adaptations, why keep making

the changes? Lefevre (2007) points out that these fans do not possess much cultural capital.

Simultaneously, faithful films that would pacify these fans would not make for a successful film

beyond that niche. He argues that this is not primarily a case of Marvel championing their

bottom line over their most faithful fans. Quite simply, these films are a different medium, and it

would be impossible to remain true to the original without sacrificing core movie making

elements. He supplements this argument by adding that very poor decisions are still made, and

some changes are made for no apparent reason (Lefevre, 2007). Though comic book adaptations

face many narrative and stylistic problems and inconsistencies, they are still proving very

successful in the market, so much so that comic book fans may become unnecessary to the

success of the films.

As comic book films set the tone for the film industry in a myriad of different ways,

comic book publishers are coming to the realization that their success in the film medium may be

hurting their success in the print medium. Instead of an attempt to recuperate their initial

revenue stream, “comic book publishers are, ironically, de-emphasizing the medium of comics”

(McAllister et al., 2006, p. 111).

McAllister et al. (2006) discuss Marvel, and the way they borrowed money from Merrill

Lynch to gamble their property as independents. Marvel’s plan was to make “central characters

as commercial as possible” (p. 111). An interesting case study is the Hulk. The original 2003

Hulk suffered from the complaints made about the lower budget character driven comic book

films as discussed earlier. Hulk serves as the origin story of the hero as genetics researcher

Bruce Banner is involved in an accident which turns him into a rage filled green force of

destruction. The film had dark and complex themes, and the audience wanted something light

and fluffy. As a result, Marvel created a “diet Hulk” (McAllister et al., 2006, p. 112). In order

for these character to be marketable, they needed to be malleable and easily transferred in the

mediascape. The same strategy was applied to Logan’s character as X-Men was adapted to the

big screen.

This watering down process did not escape notice from fans and critics. Another example

from Wilson’s “Screen Rant” article is Bane’s character from the 1997 Batman and Robin. In

this installment of the Batman saga, Batman is joined by his famous sidekick Robin as the pair

battle Mr. Freeze and Poison Ivy. The popular villain known for his sinister mix of brawn and

brains was reduced to the former, as Wilson labels him “little more than a musclebound stooge in

a mask” (Screen Rant, 2016). Luckily, this painful error in character canon was amended when

Tom Hardy reprised the role in 2012’s The Dark Knight Rises. Rises is the third film in the

Batman trilogy directed by Chrisopher Nolan. The film follows Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne

as he fights the insidious terrorist Bane while simultaneously struggling with his age and

efficacy. Hardy’s Bane fit more in line with what fans were used to regarding Bane’s character

in the rest of the canon. With the creation of flat characters, Marvel attempted to ease the

transition from comic to film by removing complicating factors, opting to ignore the critical

backlash. This trend, though initially lucrative, was not sustainable.

Some outspoken talents in the industry took the practice to task. Alejandro Gonzalez

Inarritu, director of the 2014 dark comedy Birdman, a film about an aging star who was known

for his huge blockbuster role as Birdman trying to make it in the world of theater, was quoted in

a Deadline Hollywood interview. In regard to superhero films, “I always see them as killing

people because they do not believe in what you believe…hate that…They have been poison, this

cultural genocide, because the audience is so overexposed to plot and explosions and shit that

doesn’t mean nothing about the experience of being human” (Deadline Hollywood, 2014).

Without fully developed characters, motives become flat constructs, and actions serve nothing

more than to add entertainment value through violence.

In Marvel’s new paradigm, characters primarily reside in the same medium, allowing

them to develop much more pronounced characteristics. Not only would Marvel pioneer a new

system of production, they would use it to break free from these flat and toxic characters. How

did Marvel films go from standalone texts to the spherical model of production? It all began

with intertextuality.

As a concept of scholarly debate, commercial intertextuality predates the rise of Marvel

screen cultures by a significant period. However, a brief summary of its evolution helps to

distinguish the manner in which Marvel studios was able to push the idea much farther.

The 1989 Batman film is the origin point of the first paradigm shift in media production.

Meehan (1991) notes the immense popularity of Batman as a text in the general sense, and the

appeal he garners from all ages, genders, and races. (This article ages well because of the

ubiquitous status of Batman). She argues that it is very tempting for cultural critics to strip down

the text in order to find what resonates with wide audiences in such a visceral way. However,

Meehan (1991) wants to argue that this assumption about a text gaining its popularity because

audiences identify with it is flawed. She does not believe that consciousness, culture, and media

are directly affected by each other (Meehan, 1991).

After setting up the error often made by cultural critics, Meehan (1991) maintains that

economics must be factored in for a more thorough analysis of texts and intertexts, in this case,

specifically Batman. Meehan (1991) makes the argument: “American capitalism organizes the

creation of cultural artifacts as a process of mass production carried out by profit-oriented

businesses operating in an industrial context. Profit, not culture, drives show business: no

business means no show” (p. 48).

Meehan (1991) makes it clear that she does not mean to imply some sort of social

coercion by the big bad corporations. She clarifies the concept by drawing attention to the fact

that large cultural texts are a business and profit drives business. In other words, film is only one

aspect of a larger force that includes all manner of paraphernalia. As a result, one cannot simply

study text and intertext, but must incorporate an economic analysis (Meehan, 1991).

In line with the concepts explored by Meehan (1991), Hardy (2011) conducted an

analysis of contemporary cross-media/cross-platform intertextuality through a case study of True

Blood. True Blood is an HBO series about the hidden community of vampires living in Lousiana

and their interactions with each other and the humans they live amongst. Hardy (2011) begins by

defining commercial intertextuality as “the production and interlinking of texts like blockbuster

films or TV series with allied paratexts and products, such as spin-offs, reversionings, promos,

online media, books, games and merchandise” (p. 7) This quote refers to all the elements that

make up the first paradigm of media production. Note that these elements do not relate to

narrative, but simply reference the main text by way of political economy.

Hardy (2011) mentions Meehan (1991) and the way she describes intertextuality as a way

to cultivate and exploit audiences. He says this is the political economist’s way of looking at it.

He then evokes Proffit et al. (2007) (who will come up further on in this Lit review) and the way

they discuss ‘narratively necessary purchases’. Hardy (2007) also mentions the culturalist

approach, looking at intertextuality as a creative and expressive way to promote participation and

collaboration amongst consumers. This is the opinion presented by Jenkins (2006). Hardy

(2011) wants to get beyond critical and cultural approaches and delve into an analysis of a single

intertextual brand: True Blood.

An important aspect of Hardy’s (2011) article is how True Blood was promoted. Instead

of the usual advertising done for network television, HBO utilized online and social media

platforms to create an intertextual cult following. Popular music and celebrities were used to

promote the show. Guerilla marketing schemes were also used which utilized paid individuals to

hold fake rallies or appear in bars. Fake vampire themed websites and TV spots were subtly

disseminated by HBO, all creating a climate where fan sites could find and spread these “Easter

eggs”. Essentially, HBO manufactured a social media revolution to get the ball rolling, and fans

of the show online picked it up and ran with it. All of the promotional work was spread across a

myriad of texts from the internet to Entertainment Weekly to Playboy (Hardy, 2011).

Hardy (2011) argues that HBO was innovative in its promotional strategy. Instead of

trying to do all the work themselves, they pushed for cult status so the fans would spread the

word. Not only does this diminish the effort of HBO, but it makes the buzz feel much more

authentic. However, problems arose when people started to see through the veil. Complaints

were raised that corporate agendas were being disguised as the autonomous production of fans.

(Hardy, 2011). Here, Hardy justifies the position taken by Meehan (1991) regarding corporate

practice and the drive of profit.

Hardy (2011) holds that it is important to examine the way corporations attempt to order

intertextual space. He wants to note that autonomy can and does exist in textual space, but that

commerce and corporate interest will always act upon that space. He argues that political

economists and cultural scholarship is necessary to parse out these dynamics as they become

more complicated (Hardy, 2011).

For True Blood, blogs were created by HBO in order to gauge audience engagement in

the text. That strategy built off one that was used back in 1991. Meehan (1991) discussed a

specific economic strategy employed by Time-Warner where The Dark Knight Returns comic

was used to test audience reception to a darker Batman. In other words, the comic market was

clearly less valuable to Warner, reinforcing points made by McAllister et al. (2006). For Meehan

(1991), promotion, advertising, and licensing were required to make Batman a must-see film.

Similarly, Hardy (2011) argues that True Blood became must see television on the back of its

promotional scheme.

HBO attempted to shift the paradigm of production with True Blood. However, the

model did not come to fruition because of what was mentioned about the audience picking up on

the ruse. Audiences will pay money to consume media products even if those products are

obviously driven by a corporate agenda. However, when HBO tried to disguise that agenda, the

savvy consumer public called their bluff. Marvel’s new paradigm is very open about the

corporate agenda (as the trade stories attest in a following chapter), and has met with much more

success.

Thematically, Meehan (1991) argues that Batman presents a “rich and often contradictory

set of understandings and visions, about justice and corruption in America” (p. 59). According to

her article, these themes do not come up because the producers felt they were important to think

about in the current political climate, but because they were what the manufacturers felt would

target audiences in the most effective way and create profit (Meehan, 1991). Does this suggest

that creators of large cultural texts try to estimate the current anxiety of their target audience?

This would indirectly suggest that texts and cultures do in fact reflect off one another. Large

cultural texts are more to do with economics and profit margins than cultural fatalism, but the

result remains the same.

Meehan’s (1991) last segment focuses specifically on film. She begins by arguing that

film depends on advertising to stimulate consumption, discussing the way the market for films is

not driven by demand. She talks about how people needed to be convinced that they wanted a

Batman film. She says consumers must be enticed to buy a ticket. She then goes on to talk

about the way films are always in competition with one another, even multiple Warner films.

Thus, releases are split between summer and winter in order to force consumer decisions

(Meehan, 1991).

When discussing all these factors, Meehan (1991) concludes that films require “high

production costs, limited seasons, limited number of releases, and extensive advertising to cope

with the vagaries of the market” (p. 60). By vagaries, she means the unpredictability of the film

market. She feels that big studios need to be very careful about the way they release their films

and when they do so. She also mentions that word-of-mouth can kill a film before it even gets

started (Meehan, 1991).

Marvel has been able to cash in on this release flow by creating films from their universe

at a fast enough clip to be released at both of these crucial times every year. Sometimes, they are

even able to release films in between those times as well. The Marvel universe, because of its

connected nature, has evolved past the time Meehan (1991) describes. They do not need to be

careful, because they have woven the type of ‘mania’ created around Batman into each of the

releases in the MCU. The audience is already on the hook for each of these films, regardless of

franchise. Thus, the rapid fire method of release is warranted and effective.

Meehan (1991) talks about the way all this economic posturing is hidden behind the

experience of the text and the ideology it pushes. She points to the emotional response elicited

from film and how it allows us as an audience to look past the obvious calculations that went into

its production. She says we are “sold” ideology. Meehan’s (1991) argues: “to understand our

mass media, we must be able to understand them as always and simultaneously text and

commodity, intertext and product line” (p. 62).

This hiding that Meehan (1991) discusses is different than the hiding done by HBO with

True Blood. Instead of selling the audience ideology, HBO attempted to sell the audience

autonomy, and they were not convinced.

In regard to the concept of intertext, Meehan (1991) understands it as a vehicle for

“mania”. In her opinion, audiences need to be convinced of their desire for something like

Batman through pervasive merchandising and media buzz. Her perspective leaves the audience

with very little autonomy.

It is for these reasons that Batman is often looked at with a mixture of reverence and

foreboding. These concepts are vocalized in an article written by Scott Mendelson of Forbes in

2014. The article is titled “Tim Burton’s ‘Batman’ at 25, And Its Wonderful, Terrible Legacy”.

Mendelson, like many, fondly remembers Batman as one of his all-time favorite films. However,

he also takes note of the way the film and the mania that came with it changed Hollywood

forever, and in his opinion much for the worse.

Mendleson observes that Batman shifted the importance of big stars in blockbusters to an

emphasis on concept. Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson helped bring in audiences, but the

concept bolstered by the bat-mania is really where the film found success. In his words, “after

the success of Batman, Hollywood raided their property pantries and have been doing so ever

since” (Mendleson, 2014). Because of the popularity of his character, Batman was a non-sequel

that behaved as a sequel in the marketplace. Today, as pointed out by Mendelson, we see mass

quantities of adaptations, and it has taken its toll on Hollywood originality. (Mendleson, 2014).

In this section, corporate agendas and commodity fetishism as explained by political

economy have held sway. These concepts are related to the first paradigm introduced in Chapter

2. This next section will be about the narrative elements used as media production techniques

continued to evolve.

Transmedia storytelling was first discussed academically by Henry Jenkins.

According to Jenkins (2006),

A transmedia story unfolds across multiple media platforms, with each new text making a

distinctive and valuable contribution to the whole. In the ideal form of transmedia

storytelling, each medium does what it does best—so that a story might be introduced in

a film, expanded through television, novels, and comics; its world might be explored

through game play or experienced as an amusement park attraction (p. 95-96).

If Jenkins is the tool, the Wachowski siblings would undoubtedly be the creative progenitors of

the concept Jenkins helps us understand.

In his book, Convergence Culture, Jenkins argued that The Matrix trilogy was cut from a

different cloth from boilerplate franchises. Because of the esoteric nature of the first film,

audiences were either left reeling or pushing for more. According to Jenkins (2006), “No film

franchise has ever made such demands on its consumers........To truly appreciate what we are

watching, we have to do our homework” (p. 94). That homework is precisely where transmedia

storytelling comes in.

In 2012, Den of Geek published an article by Luke Holland called “Looking back at The

Matrix”. The article discusses the elements that made the late 90’s cerebral action film so

successful. High among those reasons was the marketing campaign. In discussing the

campaign, Holland recalls, “The film was an instant smash hit, and yet the tantalizing ads only

accounted for part of its success because, more than any film of recent memory, it was a film

sold on excitable word of mouth” (Holland, 2012). In other words, the autonomy which HBO

attempted to manufacture seemed to manifest itself organically in the case of The Matrix.

Interestingly, trade stories about the revolutionary paradigm of production used by the

Matrix trilogy are conspicuously missing in the years that surrounded the films. Almost all of

these articles occur years later, with the full perspective of the campaign firmly in place. This

suggests the complexity of what the Wachowskis accomplished, and how consumers had to

spend too much time deciphering what they were seeing to analyze the method.

The story is deliberately made too large to consume within the confines of the theater.

Instead, other media must be consulted to get all the answers (or at least most of them). (Jenkins,

2006, p. 95). Jenkins believes this strategy is in response to the way redundancy kills franchises

by boring its fans. Because The Matrix played itself out across multiple media platforms, the last

two installments seemed to be filled with plot holes and inconsistencies from the perspective of

critics. As a result, the films were met with some hostility from those who tried to analyze them.

A perfect example of this hostility comes from a 1999 Rolling Stone review by Peter Travers.

His synopsis reads as follows,

“A futuristic kung-fu fantasy with terrific stunts and a stunted script. Keanu Reeves plays

Neo, a computer hacker who thinks he’s living in the twentieth century but is really a

pawn in a giant virtual-reality game controlled by twenty-second-century programmers.

Dude! Damned if I can explain more about this muddled mind bender” (Rolling Stone).

Jenkins (2006) views this as resulting from a lack of “aesthetic criteria for evaluating works that

play themselves out across multiple media” (p. 97).

In sum, Jenkins agrees that The Matrix may be viewed as a failed experiment, but he

stresses the importance of what was set in motion, a new paradigm of franchising. What Jenkins

cannot see from his 2006 perspective is that reviews got better and better as years passed since

the initial release of The Matrix. Once critics began to recognize what was being done in the

paradigm, their frustration shifted to praise. Thus, the transmedia paradigm of production was

technically successful, but not when it really counted.

A year later, Proffitt et al. (2007) make an argument for the way The Matrix trilogy set up

a distinct transmedia model for global Hollywood. This was accomplished through linked

commodity narratives, which they label “commodified intertextual flow” (p. 239). The authors

claim this very fact served to undermine the anti-consumer culture theme the films were pushing

(Proffitt et al., 2007).

The authors begin by pointing out the way corporate controlled media shifted from

separate and discrete to integrated systems in the late 20

century. Factors contributing to this

shift included new media outlets such as television and VCR and encouragement from global

markets. To serve as an example, the authors point to Meehan (1991) and her Batman analysis.

They argue that the way the property was synergistically spread across film, music, video games

etc. contributed to a change in the way the word “text” is understood. Batman is considered a

“commercial intertext” because of the way multiple corporate owners come together to

contribute success to a singular brand (Proffitt et al., 2007).

However, Proffitt et al. (2007) argue that Meehan (1991) only looks at the way the brand

is repeated in multiple areas through brand identification. These authors, on the other hand, are

also interested in a continuous narrative arc across media platforms. To move in that direction,

Proffitt et al. (2007) discuss Couldry’s (2000) use of a concept called “textual environments”.

Textual environments include (a) “the material structures of textual production,” (b) “the material

structures of distributing texts,” and (c) “the process which tend to order how we read, what

connections we make between texts, what texts we screen out, and so on” (p. 81). This concept

adds a crucial element to Meehan’s (1991) model, a focus on the order a text is read and the

connections made between texts. Instead of a passive duplication, this idea implies a text which

requires the audience to study it (Proffitt et al., 2007).

Proffitt et al. (2007) discuss the internet as a specific vehicle for the way this concept

operates. Brooker (2001), while discussing Dawson’s Creek (a drama that began in the 90’s

which follows the lives of four friends as they grow up in California) and its website is quoted as

saying, “the internet permits the illusion that the characters have ongoing lives between episodes,

and pulls it off convincingly” (p. 461). For Marvel in their new paradigm, the internet is not

necessary to create an illusion about the ongoing lives of characters. These Marvel heroes are

shown to have ongoing lives through their appearances in other franchises as well as references

to their whereabouts during films in which they do not appear.

Jenkins (2006) makes the distinction between an old Hollywood and the new Hollywood.

He states that the old Hollywood relied on redundancy. They wanted to make sure that an

audience member could follow the narrative even if they missed a few chunks of it. However,

“The new Hollywood demands that we keep our eyes on the road at all times, that we do our

research before we arrive at the theater” (Jenkins, 2006, 104). According to Jenkins (2006), this

homework, while initially embraced, began to leave a bad taste in the mouths of consumers as

they felt their wallets were now a requirement of a cult following.

However, Jenkins (2006) projected that these initial reservations would soon even out

when consumers realized their franchises were opening up new narrative possibilities through

their ancillary materials. Soon, a two-hour film will simply not be enough for audiences; they

will expect more from the world they just experienced. In order to achieve this depth, Jenkins

(2006) speculated that a single creator or creative unit would be necessary. He noted that in

2006, collaboration was not being executed smoothly. This is precisely the reason The Matrix

continues to emerge as one of the first successful transmedia franchises. The Wachowskis

personally wrote and directed much of the content for the ancillary products, or at least were in

very tight communication with the outsourced creators.

Toward the end of his article, Jenkins (2006) provides an emblematic quote about the way

franchises are changing from Tobias Van Veen, a blogger and self-proclaimed renegade theorist

and pirate,

When I first started, you would pitch a story because without a good story, you didn’t

really have a film. Later, once sequels started to take off, you pitched a character because

a good character could support multiple stories. And now, you pitch a world because a

world can support multiple characters and multiple stories across multiple media (Van

Veen, 2003).

A story is powerful in and of itself, but that story must end within the confines of a single film or

a group of sequels. With a world, that story can be picked up in any medium that is a part of that

world. The concepts of world building and transmedia storytelling are symbiotic. One cannot

exist without the other.

A shift occurred in story production. Instead of transmediality representing the broad

production of story (plot), transmediality ushered in the process of world building. This shift is

where the third paradigm of production emerges.

Fast and Ornebring (2015) were interested in the attempt by transmedia franchises to

present a coordinated and organized world. However, the attempt to move a franchise from one

platform to another often resulted in contradictions and inconsistencies. They wanted to ask the

question, “how exactly, are transmedial worlds built up (or torn down) over time, and how do

they change when worlds move across media platforms” (Fast and Ornebring, 2015, p. 4)?

According to Wolf (2012), a world can become transmedial in two ways: adaptation and

“world growth”. World growth refers to the other medium adding to the canon of the original,

presenting new knowledge. Much of what the authors discuss is the way a world is initially

built, such as Tolkien’s Middle Earth, and over time it is added to by other professional creators

and fans. Worlds are massive, and as such they contain a multitude of gaps and spaces ripe for

improvisation. Transmedia storytelling acts as the thread that loosely connects all the elements of

the world. But the strings can never be pulled tight, because that would lead to a strict and

structured world with nowhere left to build.

Throughout this literature review, it has been established that comic books have faced

many challenges in their move from the page to the screen. Not only did the characters in the

comic books follow their own set of rules in terms of stylized action and camp, they were

emblematic of a unique and expansive system of production. Comics by nature are inter-related,

so a single film based on a comic character without transmedia tie-ins often did poorly.

Catwoman (the story of a woman who is given catlike powers and uses them to simultaneously

fight crime and steal jewelry) and Daredevil (a film about Matt Murdock, a man living in Hell’s

Kitchen who loses his sight but gains exaggerated versions of his other senses, which he uses to

fight crime) are both strong indicators of that trend. Both films stood alone and both films were

slammed both critically and at the box office. Luckily for comic publishers who were looking to

expand, intertextuality and transmedia storytelling were beginning to fuse in a way that

accommodated the structure of comics.

In the past, transmedial worlds have consisted of media platforms that all relate to each

other, but only through the loose threads of narrative. This allowed new platforms, as well as

offshoots of the original platforms, to pop up and thread themselves into the overall world. The

problem was that these threads ran in every direction, crossing and tangling with one another.

Each attempt to organize was thwarted by inconsistencies caused by the constraints of the new

platform or the differences in creative vision by the parties producing the texts.

The new paradigm I outline in this thesis reflects that fact that much of the transmedia

narrative thread manifests between texts in the same medium. However, multiple media

platforms are utilized in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. As a result, transmedia is an integral

part of this paradigm, but it only accounts for a portion of the production model.

While I seek to outline this new paradigm as I write about the present status of Marvel,

other scholars are also writing about the MCU, but still in terms of transmedia. Publishing their

book in 2016, Flanagan et. al. agree that the MCU represents “a key moment of recent film

history” (Flanagan et al., 2016).

Their work represents a very thorough examination of the MCU as a transmedia universe.

While I agree with them that this phenomenon has transmedia at the core, scholars need a larger

scope to work with in order to fully flesh out what is currently occurring.

Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework: Spherical Model of Production

In the next few chapters I explore an in-depth analysis of Marvel’s rise from bankruptcy

to massive success story from a political economic perspective, as well as an examination of the

way this new production paradigm has manifested in the content of Marvel texts. Before that,

however, I would like to introduce the theoretical framework I will be using for the rest of this

Thesis as I discuss Marvel, its properties, and its partnership with Netflix. The theory is called

the spherical model of production and it visually displays the way Marvel not only utilizes

intertextuality and transmediality, but maintains consistent temporality without the need for

seriality.

The best way to introduce this concept is through a comparison to the old method used by

franchises to maintain continuity between texts and ancillary products. As discussed by Meehan

(1991), film franchises are primarily based around their major tent-pole films, such as the 1989

Batman. Branching off from the film, a plethora of ancillary products added to the mania

surrounding the film. However, I do not wish to think of these relationships in the metaphor of a

trunk and its branches, because this is not the way Marvel evolved. Instead, I would like to

examine the intricacies of franchises in terms of a flat plane evolving into a sphere.

Before the advent of Marvel, franchises operated chronologically from a central point.

For the sake of continuity with my literature review, I will be using the 1989 Batman franchise as

an example of this system of production.

As stated by Meehan (1991), when the 1989 Batman was greenlit, the film was not

simply released with the hopes that the public would embrace it. Instead, a campaign was

launched by Warner Bros. to create what Meehan calls a mania. This included a partnership with

Coke and music videos featuring Prince to name a few key components. The mania that

surrounded Batman during its run-up and release was all directly connected to the single film it

was referencing. All of the ads and songs associated with the film were tied to marketing, not

any sort of storytelling. As such, I do not count these as cross-overs. Cross-overs will be

explained at length when I discuss Marvel’s paradigm.

Three years later in 1992, Warner Brothers released a second bat film starring Michael

Keaton. The film was titled Batman Returns and featured the same director (Tim Burton) and

aesthetic. This time, Batman must take on the Penguin as he threatens Gotham from the sewers.

This film is another addition to the same franchise that was started in 1989. New advertising and

marketing schemes were devised for the new film, but it all connected to Batman at large. In

order to make a clear distinction between the way these films were produced (the old paradigm)

and what Marvel is doing in the present, a visual representation will be valuable.

Figure 1 below is a diagram showing the way the Batman franchise produced its story in

films, comics, songs, ads, and merchandise. The only continuous story is told across Batman and

Batman Returns. As you can see, the nodes on the coordinate plane can be connected, creating a

closed loop. This loop signifies a franchise and all of the ancillary materials associated with it.

Most importantly, this loop does not represent a storytelling process. The line that connects

Batman and Batman Returns indicates the only place where the story is being progressed.

The nodes and the loop that connect them in Figure 1 are a visual representation of the

Bat-mania discussed by Meehan (1991). This is the way franchises produced their products for

the next 8 years. A big summer blockbuster was announced, and everywhere a consumer looked,

that franchise was being promoted. This production technique was effective because it created a

symbiotic relationship between the media product and the merchandise that surrounded it. The

merchandise built hype and got consumers to the theater. Once they saw the film, they wanted to

purchase the merchandise in order to associate themselves with the film. Effective though it may

have been, this closed loop of production lacked longevity.

As time passed from the release of a film like Batman, the mania began to fatigue and

eventually leveled off at a fraction of its former efficacy. This lead to the release of sequels such

as Batman Returns. The mania was revitalized, and all the merchandise purchased during the

first film was once again relevant. Thus, a cycle was created where franchises made big money

based off a mania.

Of course, after a certain amount of sequels are made (there is no magic number; it varies

vastly from franchise to franchise), the next film in the series does not revitalize the mania.

Instead, attendance plummets and merchandise is no longer consumed in mass quantities. This is

where the concept of the reboot comes in.

Batman as a character and a concept is ubiquitous, but the same man playing him across

too many films grows tiring. This is called the Roger Moore effect in scholarly circles. Instead,

the franchise is allowed to lay dormant until studio executives feel the time is ripe to bring back

the icon. The new franchise that follows, (in this case Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy) uses

the same source material but makes some major changes. The entire cast is new, the setting is

often modernized to fit the current culture, and the tone may change. These new Batman films

could not be understood in terms of Figure 1 because the franchise was new, the mania needed to

be started fresh. The toys, ads, and sponsorship deals all changed to reflect the rebooted

character. Franchise fatigue was bypassed, but a lag period was necessary, and money is not

made during that period.

As referenced in chapter 1, the Batman system of media production is one of three

paradigm shifts that have occurred in relation to this topic. The second shift occurred in 1999

with the release of The Matrix and it provided a unique way to cut away some of the time

between films in order to maintain franchise fervor. The Wachowskis, who directed the film, are

known for being pioneers in the film industry. The siblings spent 5 years on the initial film, and

their approach was unconventional. The film making duo had formerly written Marvel comics,

and they incorporated comic-book stories into their web site as part of their multi-media

approach (Proffitt et al., 2007).

The Matrix fell in the transition period between VHS and DVD. Thus, the series was

perfectly poised to be the progenitor of a brand new style of home video and the marketing that

surrounded it. The Wachowskis capitalized on this by placing additional content in the collectors

VHS and DVD versions of the film. As the consumer, one needed to pay the extra money in

order to get the full picture. On top of that, the directorial duo set up an interactive screening so

they could answer questions in real time. This required a copy of the DVD and internet access

(Proffitt et al., 2007).

The Wachowskis were not done blazing trails in terms of Hollywood market practices.

The two sequel films (Matrix Reloaded and Matrix Revolutions) were filmed simultaneously and

released just six months apart. In Reloaded, Neo finds out he has 72 hours before the machines

discover Zion, the last human city. He must find a way to save Trinity from a deadly fate before

the time is up. In Revolutions, Neo must defend Zion from the deadly swarm of machines that

threatens to wipe out the human race. Revolutions had a simultaneous global release. These

strategies were used to keep momentum for the series (Proffitt et al., 2007).

Batman Production Model

Figure 1

In the wake of The Matrix, Warner released Matrix Revisited, including new material, as a

way to monetize their upcoming Reloaded. They also released the video game, Enter the Matrix,

and promoted it as a bridge between the original Matrix and the final two films. Even after the

film series was finished, the MMORPG (Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game) The

Matrix Online served as a continuation of the universe after Revolutions. To add yet another

tether, the animated collection of shorts, Animatrix was meant to bridge the games and films.

These items were must-buy for those who considered themselves “true” Matrix fans (Proffitt et

al., 2007).

We begin to see an intricate web being created where the film franchise is being expanded

and molded by other related products. That web is visualized in Figure 2 below. The Matrix

exists as a central entity consisting of its three films. Branching from that are all the ancillary

nodes which add depth to the universe, but also serve as narratively necessary purchases. These

nodes are not simply part of the mania that Meehan (1991) described. They were not badges to

be worn to show fandom and solidarity with the franchise. These nodes were crucial to fans that

wanted the most complete understanding of The Matrix universe as possible. For huge fans, the

choice to make these purchases was not a difficult one.

The important thing to note is that these nodes shifted the medium. The ancillary

material consisted of DVD extras, video games, and anime episodes. This allowed fans to

engage in the story world transmedially. The world of The Matrix took what Meehan discussed

in relation to Batman and the old paradigm of production and utilized a unique method to sate

audiences who would normally fall victim to franchise fatigue. Audience members were not

exposed to the mania via advertisements and merchandise tie-ins. The tie-ins were utilized in the

form of narrative elements, media texts. This practice that began with The Matrix was not just a

novelty. It opened the door for franchises to present ancillary purchases in the form of

storytelling continuity.

The Matrix was released in 1999. Just two years later, the Peter Jackson-directed Lord of

the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring was released. Fellowship is the large-scale live action

adaptation of book one in J.R.R Tolkien’s high fantasy series, Lord of the Rings. The film

follows a young hobbit named Frodo as he is tasked with destroying an evil ring which may

herald the return of the evil Sauron. He must work with a team of dwarves, elves, and men to

achieve his goal.

Following the lead of what the Wachowskis were accomplishing, New Line Cinema

released an extended addition of each of the three films in the trilogy. The extended version of

the film would come out between the release of the original and the sequel. Thus, instead of

waiting for The Two Towers (sequel to Fellowship), fans could purchase the extended version of

Fellowship in the down time. The extended versions featured at least 30 minutes of additional

content that added depth to the original script and also bridged the gap to the next film. The

practice was identical to the narratively necessary purchases pioneered by the Wachowskis.

Furthermore, in the years following the Matrix trilogy, “.5” versions of films were

cropping up in the DVD marketplace. As a foreshadow of the spherical model to come, Marvel

released X-Men 1.5 as a DVD exclusive, claiming to bridge narrative content between X-Men

and X2: X-Men United. Though these examples may not be as ambitious as what was done by

the Wachowskis, they prove that the means of adding these narrative purchases was available.

Though under-utilized, I still consider this a paradigm shift because it added a new element to

franchise production and provided a direct segue-way to what Marvel is currently accomplishing.

The glaring difference is that in the Marvel model, the narratively necessary purchases are not

ancillary, but part of other franchises.

While the Batman model in Figure 1 features a closed loop of nodes, Figure 2 features

ancillary materials woven together with feature films to create a continuous story, as indicated by

the arrow that starts at The Matrix and ends after The Matrix Online. A consumer could simply

watch the film trilogy and understand the plot in a general sense, but the universe created by the

Wachowskis was frustratingly esoteric without having the gaps filled in.

As a result, this paradigm allowed consumers to seek narrative answers and continue to

engage with the story while sequels were in production. However, the task of jumping down the

rabbit hole and bouncing from medium to medium to seek answers was a large commitment,

both financially and temporally. Without a universe such as the Matrix which proved to be

simultaneously intriguing and elusive, transmedia storytelling would not have been adopted so

enthusiastically.

While the transmedia method of storytelling and production used by the Wachowskis

bolstered the model used by franchises like Batman, the original problem still emerged when the

dust settled. After the final Matrix film was released and the MMO became obsolete by

technological standards, Matrix mania fizzled out and died. The Wachowskis went on to new

projects and Warner Brothers appeared content to let the franchise stay in the past. Of course, a

reboot may appear in the future, but with a new paradigm shifting production standards in

Hollywood, such a reboot would look vastly different.

The third paradigm I am speaking of is the current paradigm of media storytelling, and it

accounts for all previous pitfalls related to franchise fatigue. In the following chapter, I will be

giving a detailed account of Marvel studios as they evolved into something nobody could ignore.

This production does not exist on a flat plane like Batman or The Matrix. Because of the level of

complexity and the myriad of connections, the visual representation of Marvel’s model of

production has developed into a three dimensional sphere.

Matrix Production Model

Figure 2

Below, Figure 3 represents that very sphere. For the purposes of this paper, so readers are

able to clearly see the way the story world interconnects, the visual is shown in two dimensions.

However, it should be thought of as a three dimensional sphere as viewed from a top down

perspective. The curved lines indicate the way the nodes in the model exist in three dimensions.

However, one cannot simply understand the Marvel universe by looking at it from one

perspective. Much of this is related to the fact that Marvel’s universe does not consist of just one

franchise, but twelve. Those franchises are color coded and labeled on the lower left-hand side

of Figure 3. All of these franchises exist on one model because they all make up one distinct

story world.

The franchises differ in regard to location and often in regard to time period. However,

all the characters act and react to the same set of stimuli. For example, the events of Avengers

shook New York to its core. In the Daredevil and Jessica Jones Netflix series, characters

reference the battle and newspaper headlines covering the story can be spotted in the background

of some of the scenes. Though Agent Carter (a series which follows Peggy Carter as she founds

S.H.I.E.L.D) is set in the 1940’s, Carter interacts with characters that directly link to current

Avengers, such as Tony Stark’s (Ironman) father. She is also heavily involved with the fledgling

S.H.I.E.L.D organization which oversees superhero activities in the modern films.

As a result of all these franchises existing in the same narrative universe, characters from

each individual franchise are often seen directly interacting with characters in films where they

did not originate. When such an event (or crossover, as I call it) occurs, it is represented visually

in Figure 3 by a line drawn between franchise nodes. The color of the line indicates that a

character crossover occurred in the franchise node that corresponds to that color. For example,

Captain America: Winter Soldier is connected to Iron Man 2 with a blue line. The blue line

represents that a character from Iron Man appeared in the Captain America film, since that

franchise node is partially blue.

Additionally, a distinction has been made between cameo appearances which often occur

during post-credit sequences, and full-fledged character cross overs. The cameos are represented

by dashed lines, while the full cross overs are solid lines. In the post-credit sequence of The

Incredible Hulk, Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark is seen in a bar talking to General Ross from

the Hulk film. This constitutes a cameo and can be seen in Figure 3 as a dashed green line

between the first Hulk and Iron Man films.

Proximity to the central Marvel node indicates the number in the series of a franchise. As

such, the Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, and Captain America nodes that appear clustered around the

central point indicate the first film in each of those franchises. The nodes branching out on the

same line as those films toward the edge of the sphere represent the second and/or third

installment.

The sheer number of lines making connections between franchises indicates the high

level of complexity exhibited in this new paradigm. The story is not continuous like The Matrix

paradigm, yet it is constant and ever expanding. Franchise fatigue has been greatly reduced by

presenting the overarching story of the universe across many different franchises simultaneously.

Consumers do not need to wait for a reboot or the next sequel in a single franchise, because a

different franchise in the same universe will doubtless be releasing a new film or season in the

down time.

Franchise fatigue was not the only issue that plagued the transmedia paradigm seen in

figure two. In order to better understand what stunted the second paradigm, a careful look at

narrative theory is important. First of all, a categorization of the Matrix trilogy will help to put

matters into perspective. The complex sci-fi model of production can be viewed as postmodern.

Postmodern films can be “characterized by the scrambling of temporal order, the mixing

of genres, a pastiche of quotes taken from previous films or other cultural forms, and a leveling

of light and heavy discourses” (Ben-Shaul, N.S., 2008). In other words, the postmodern

filmmaker challenges the natural order of how films operate. Thus, the use of other media to fill

in the narrative gaps of blockbuster films would most certainly fall under the postmodern

moniker.

Though the postmodern style is an attempt to give a film or text a distinct flavor that can

be separated from the average, many pitfalls are associated with the practice. Some of these

issues include “origin, creativity, coherence, closure and identity, along with textual depthless-

ness, loss of affectivity and viewer disorientation” (Ben-Shaul, N.S., 2008). Though few would

doubt the creativity and depth of the Matrix trilogy, the fledgling transmedial model which

demanded narratively necessary purchases suffered from lack of coherence and viewer

disorientation. That much can be gleaned from the early critical reaction to the films.

I want to argue that Marvel’s spherical model remains postmodern by virtue of spinning a

single narrative through twelve different franchises, all situated on one temporal plane. By that, I

mean to say that these films and shows are reactive to one another in a way that shows that many

of the events seen in each individual text may be happening simultaneously to events in the

adjacent franchises, only to be referenced later in passing. So, how does this model bypass the

pitfalls of postmodern media?

Unlike the Matrix trilogy, which had built-in gaps to accommodate the narrative presence

of other media, the texts in the spherical model began by operating under the traditional narrative

form. Each film had a distinct beginning, middle and end. Additionally, the events in each of the

films associated with one individual franchise such as Iron Man had a narrative arc that could

easily be followed from the first film to the third without any lack of confusion or viewer

disorientation.

The postmodern element appeared in the way the characters from these franchises

interacted with one another and directly impacted events in other franchises. However, these

impacts were never enough to derail coherence, they are mostly mentioned in passing.

Characters like Nick Fury or Tony Stark would appear in post-credit sequences to assemble the

team, or a glimpse of Captain America shield could be spotted. Thus, rather than being

narratively necessary, the viewing of all twelve franchises is narratively optimal. The order an

audience member consumed these franchises was not important, as they were only loosely

connected.

This of course is how the model began, but it has since begun to change drastically.

Instead of temporality and seriality being in flux, the ordering of events and timeline began to

matter. In the recent Ant-Man, for example, a film about a criminal named Scott Lang who is

enlisted to fight crime using technology capable of shrinking him to the size of an ant, finds

himself in a fight with Falcon. Falcon is a character introduced the year before in Captain

America: The Winter Soldier. He is another member of the military who is also in possession of

a rocket powered flight suit. After the events of Winter Soldier, Falcon is added to the ranks of

the Avengers, and left to guard their facilities. When Lang goes to break into those very

facilities, a battle ensues.

For those who had not seen Winter Soldier, this scene would be disorienting. Since

Marvel so carefully avoided postmodern pitfalls up to this point, why did they begin to embrace

them? My theory is that the Marvel model has become so popular based on ticket sales and hype

that Disney/Marvel felt confident that those who go to one Marvel film are going to all of them.

If not, a little disorientation may rub some viewers the wrong way, but the pleasure derived by

fans who are initiated isinvaluable for brand loyalty.

In essence, Marvel carefully created a media monolith by loosely connecting many

franchises. Once they picked up enough of a following, the brand began to make more subtle

connections and more direct cross overs dependent on seriality and temporality. They have also

proven that this method is working, given that the complexity has ratcheted up while ticket sales

continue to soar.

There are several other elements to the Marvel universe that are not listed on the model.

The comics are left out of the model because I wanted to focus on the screen elements of the

universe, as these are the most well-known and lucrative. However, starting in 2008, tie-in

comics were released. These comics were not necessarily adaptations from the films, but were

related to elements that may have been mentioned briefly in the films or happened off-screen.

These comics and the way they operate are very similar to what the Wachowskis did with their

multi-media tie-ins. As I have just described, however, Marvel found themselves immune to

postmodern pitfalls in the individual films due to the existing popularity of the universe.

Additionally, in 2011, Marvel announced Marvel One-Shots. These are direct-to-video

shorts that are directly tied to the MCU. They are used to experiment with characters that may

eventually be given their own franchises, as well as to bolster the backstory and information on

characters and events introduced in the main franchises. I do not depict these One-Shots as

nodes in the model because they are not established franchises. However, they can be thought of

as floating in the empty white space among the nodes and lines on the model.

Another element that can be attributed to that white space was introduced in 2015 by Cort

Lane, Marvel’s Vice President of Animation Development and Production. Marvel partnered

with Google to create a news program on YouTube called WHIH Newsfront with Christine

Everhart. This has been used as viral marketing for the universe.

These examples show that Marvel has paid close attention to the production models and

ideas that preceded the spherical model. They borrowed heavily from the transmedia practices of

the Wachowskis, and even emulated the fake blog created to promote True Blood with their fake

news program. The use of a single postmodern production tactic always seemed to fail in the

past, but the conglomeration of many, with the proper execution, has proven immensely

lucrative.

Marvel films are currently being released on a six-month cycle, but that pace is going to

pick up as we move toward 2020. Marvel’s goal is to have another piece of their universe almost

constantly releasing on one of three media platforms. Those platforms consist of blockbuster

films, Netflix original content, and television series. These three platforms are split into sections

in Figure 3 and labeled accordingly. Not only does the utilization of three platforms allow for a

steady release schedule, it allows for the acquisition of new demographics and niches.

Blockbuster films are designed to appeal to the broadest possible demographic of

consumer. Thus, they do not take many risks and deal with generic themes. Television is a bit

more targeted, yet the shows on broadcast networks must abide by strict standards that do not

allow for anything terribly shocking. As a result, you can see that lines directly connect the

blockbusters and television series. Either set of texts can be enjoyed by a large demographic,

and thus direct connections will not alienate those who would be unable to cross from one

platform to another.

In contrast, Netflix does not need to abide to any set of rules or regulations. They have

free reign to do whatever they wish with their Marvel characters. Instead of playing it safe and

creating more generic heroes, Marvel went in a dark direction with its Jessica Jones and

Daredevil heroes. As a result, no lines directly connect the Netflix nodes to any other nodes in

Figure 3. They are solely connected to one another, and are only obviously connected to the

broader Marvel universe by various references. I will spend the final two chapters of this thesis

talking about each of these series in turn, and the way they are able to pull in new audiences

while remaining a part of the Marvel canon at large.

Now that this new organization of franchises has been established, it is important to grasp

the logic behind the re-structuring. While the initial inspiration clearly emerged from Marvel

comic book worlds, the partnership between Disney and Marvel indicates something much

deeper. Congruency and continuity in story worlds is not only appreciated by audiences, but

expected. As such, the complex web used in the spherical production model is risky. Juggling so

many different stories and characters on the same timeline while using many different creative

talents can very easily lead to plot holes and mistakes. What better way to mitigate risk than to

have access to the capital and resources of one of the most powerful entertainment

conglomerates in the world? I mentioned in chapter 1 that the motivation behind this new

paradigm was to have access to many markets. We can see this hypothesis beginning to shift out

of its ephemeral form into something solid by looking at Marvel's trade stories as they built

themselves from a comic book publisher to the biggest powerhouse in Hollywood.

Figure 3

Chapter 3: Marvel Trade Narratives and Netflix

I have mentioned Marvel's transformation from comics to film to television. Now that I

have established that Marvel is a new type of franchise (or system of franchises) and that I

believe they are motivated by the desire to be a pervasive brand in all demographics, a full

chapter on their history will put matters into context. Rather than look at the stories told in the

media texts, I will examine stories told by executives, analysts, fans, and critics. This

perspective depicts the way Marvel wants to be viewed, how they are actually viewed, and the

way they utilize partnerships and acquisitions to make their spherical system possible.

The best place to begin when thinking about the political economics of Marvel is with

an outline of the company’s market practices between 2005 and 2009. This allows for an

effective analysis of Marvel’s trade stories. Trade stories should be understood as the stories told

about a brand by the brand itself, industry insiders, and in the case of this thesis and the new

paradigm it is trying to explain, the fans as well. Trade stories are constituted as a mixture of

facts about brand mergers and acquisitions, opinions of analysts and fans, and powerful myths

spun by those most invested in the brand (Marvel executives).

Johnson (2012) argues that Marvel's independent film production allowed it to accrue

creative and economic power from major studios. Marvel negotiated these changes through

trade stories which gave power to comic book managers (Johnson, 2012). Due to the success of

the properties licensed by Marvel to big studios, the company was able to pull itself out of

bankruptcy and even dive into the world of independent production. The first film created by

Marvel independently was Iron Man, and Derek Johnson (2012) argues that this marked the

launch of “a unique model for cinema production in the age of convergence: an independent

company with expertise in a different media industry drove block-buster film content” (p. 1).

Iron Man is a film about Tony Stark, an extremely wealthy engineer/businessman, who finds

himself taken as a prisoner of war. In order to escape, he builds an iron suit, and ends up refining

himself into a crime fighting dynamo.

Though he did not know it at the time he was writing, Johnson was making reference to

the origin point of the spherical model of production. Marvel's success prompted Disney to buy

the company in 2009 for $4 billion. Johnson (2012) views film as central when looking at

converged media economies. As a result, it was more important for Marvel executives to stay in

line with film styles than to remain loyal to comic book logic.

Looking at where Marvel is today, it is important to focus on what Marvel did in their

brief moment of independence as a film studio. Johnson (2012) finds that Marvel's “self-

production initiative constituted a significant economic reorganization of Hollywood modes of

production” (p. 2). He views these changes in terms of trade narratives in which Marvel's

independence was described in a teleological fashion. Johnson (2012) wants us to think about

how the convergence of comics and film has altered both industries, specifically in relation to

production. He also wants to focus on the role of the comic book fan in these changes (Johnson,

2012).

Johnson (2012) argues that companies like Marvel and WingNut studios (Lord of the

Rings) are Hollywood outsiders. Instead of these properties being controlled by the Hollywood

system, they work independently to create deals and partnerships which converge books, comics,

games, merchandise and film on their own terms. With Hollywood holding so much power,

Johnson wonders how these outsiders garner such support and success (Johnson, 2012).

He comes to the conclusion that ancillary texts are utilized by these secondary outlets in

order to justify their existence in the mediascape. Specifically, “stories that film producers tell

about their labor play a direct role in reproducing conditions in which that labor occurs” (p. 4).

He suggests that these producers construct the production context into which their work can

flourish. Johnson (2012) goes on to examine Marvel production strategies and trade stories in

order to back up his claims. He argues that “Marvel Studios narrativized itself and imagined its

ability to serve established Hollywood production communities in spite of its outsider status and

even its bid for material independence” (p. 4-5). With the context firmly in place, Marvel went

to work creating a new model for filmmaking practices (Johnson, 2012).

Nick Fury first appears in a post-credit sequence of Iron Man. This was the first

independently produced Marvel film, and they wasted no time setting up a convergence of

narrative universes. Nick Fury represents the character in the Marvel universe who brings the

heroes together. I have discussed an intangible thread that connects transmedia texts, and Fury is

the humanization of that thread for the MCU.

From the start, The Avengers movie itself and all the movies required to lead into such a

powerful media force were being slated and announced by Marvel. The Avengers is the first film

in Marvel’s spherical model which features characters from many franchises, allowing Iron Man,

Captain America, Thor, and Hulk to battle together to take on an earth shaking interdimensional

force. In order to remind audiences of universe continuity, subtle clues such as Thor's hammer

and Captain America's shield were included in films that did not feature those characters.

Intelligently, rather than toss these characters into other franchises from the beginning, Marvel

teased these connections. Thus, when the origin films for these characters were released, the

jump between franchises felt less far-fetched to consumers.

These films became “mere episodes in a larger work” (Johnson, 2012, p. 6). Prior to

Marvel independence, Marvel films were licensed to different studios. As a result, continuity

and convergence would have been next to impossible. The speed at which Marvel began its

transmedia campaign suggests that their bid for independence was not simply to absorb all

financial assets from the films, but to create an entirely new paradigm of film production and

consumption.

Johnson (2012) also argues that the links established by Marvel between franchises lead

to higher DVD sales, as they “encourage careful, repeated, often frame-by-frame viewing” (p. 7).

Beyond the DVD sales, Marvel was careful to use tie-ins via other media outlets. Using

transmedia, Marvel continued storylines through video games and television series, creating

synergy (Johnson, 2012). I want to argue that these claims made by Johnson about Marvel and

its aims are accurate, but a product of the time the article was written, conditions have evolved

since 2012. DVD sales have fallen as a percentage of total film revenue in the current market.

As a result, the subtlety of narrative tie ins was replaced by overt cross media interactions.

An important element of the Marvel trade story is sorting out who has creative control

over production. With so many properties feeding into one large universe, many creative minds

with different visions are utilized to oversee each separate production. How does this group

maintain continuity? Even before those questions needed answers, Marvel sought to increase

creative control, as they began by licensing their properties to large established studios. Johnson

(2012) makes the argument that Marvel paved the way for a non-cinematic outside firm to have a

place in Hollywood. He outlines why licensing has its advantages, such as revenue without risk

or production costs. However, without creative power, Marvel's direction was left to the whim of

the big studios. Due to the competition between production partners, it became increasingly

difficult for Marvel to keep fans interested in their toys and video games in a consistent fashion

(Johnson, 2012).

In order to branch out on their own, Marvel secured a credit deal with Merrill Lynch.

They were required to prove the viability of their first four films as a worthwhile investment.

Iron Man was Marvel's first film as an independent studio, and “Marvel Studios profited more

than from its previous sixteen films combined” (Johnson, 2012, p. 11). Marvel had proven its

viability, and thus moved into its years of independence (Johnson, 2012).

As part of its quest for universe continuity, Marvel's independence made great changes in

the organization of production communities. For instance, Marvel employed different directors

and had them work together on a large project. In addition, unique deals were signed with

actors, such as Scarlett Johansson, who made appearances in multiple Marvel films. These deals

are discussed by Johnson in relation to cameos made by Scarlett and Samuel L Jackson across

many films. These cameos often occurred in the post-credit sequences of Marvel films, and they

are represented by dashed lines in Figure 3 above. Today, not only are these cameos being made

by much larger characters, they are doing more than popping up in post-credit sequences. In the

upcoming film, Captain America: Civil War, Iron Man is a main character. Iron Man and

Captain America are at cross purposes as the world tries to grapple with how super heroes could

be regulated by the UN, sparking a feud which leads to violence between two groups of heroes.

As described in the theory chapter, these cross overs are represented by solid lines in Figure 3.

However, Hollywood talent was not always terribly warm to the idea of participating in

such a sustained project. In order to circumvent these types of issues, Marvel utilized a creative

committee in order to streamline all aspects of making their films, shows, and video games

(Johnson, 2012).

Marvel established new creative and economic methods for large Hollywood films. In

doing so, they challenged existing ideology. This brought out two tensions in Hollywood: who

could cross media borders, and who could control the combination of comics and film? Marvel

put itself in an authoritative position regarding these tensions, and Johnson (2012) questions why

Hollywood did not resist this move (Johnson, 2012).

The answer to this question lies in trade narratives. Marvel used them to legitimize their

control, reassure the existing fan base, show expertise in the brand, and use teleological claims

like destiny and inevitability to explain their dominance (Johnson, 2012). The justification used

by Marvel when writing these trade stories was that the next logical step was to cut loose from

outside studio control. The word “destiny” is used repeatedly in stories about Marvel in trade

publications like Variety and Hollywood Reporter between 2002 and 2009. For instance, the

phrase, “control our own destiny” was used by analyst Anthony DiClemente, Marvel Studios

president Michael Helfant, and David Maisel, the man responsible for arranging the sale of

Marvel to Disney, in a short span of time between 2006 and 2007.

Using their creative control, the films and games Marvel created operated in terms of

characters, not individual media platforms. In this way, a relationship could be formed between

the characters and the fans. Marvel used Elektra, what they deem to be their “one bad film”

(Avi Arad in Johnson, 2012, p. 17), as evidence that without creative control, disaster was a real

possibility. Elektra is a film about a character seen in Daredevil who is trained as an assassin at a

young age. Industry analysts like Borys Kit picked up on this and criticized DC for not

following suit. On top of that, Marvel executives, in working closely with comic books, claimed

to have a special understanding of what their fans want, even identifying with these fans.

(Johnson, 2012)

Johnson (2012) points out that it is not in the interest of Marvel to please these “fanboys”.

They simply do not make up a large enough demographic to sell the millions of tickets necessary

to make a film successful. Instead, the trade stories pandering to fans were used to justify

Marvel's existence in the industry (Johnson, 2012). Thus, Marvel is not overly concerned with

pleasing comic enthusiasts, but they absolutely need to act as though they are. A blatant lack of

loyalty to the canon looks bad to any audience. However, if the trade stories reflect a concerted

effort to remain true to the source material, mass audiences feel reassured that they are being

ushered in to a larger narrative universe.

Yes, the fanboys may rage in the forums, but they still pay the money to see the film. Not

only did Marvel use trade stories to secure audiences, it also made reference to itself as a

community for laborers to join (Johnson, 2012). Because Marvel has large film franchises that

are interconnected, they also use large interconnected labor forces. Unlike other large

Hollywood productions where laborers finished a project and looked for another one, Marvel

provided a steadier model of employment.

Even back in the late 2000's, Marvel had its eyes on the big picture. Establishing

themselves as an extension of their comic books gave Marvel credence in the eyes of their oldest

and most devout fan base. However, film is about getting theater seats filled, and that requires

ubiquity. This is where the spherical model of production comes in, with cross-overs allowing

for seamless extension into any market or niche with minimal risk of any narrative fau paux.

To re-iterate why these cross overs differ from those seen in the cartoons and in a few

Hollywood films, these examples reach relatively static markets. Cartoons are always going to

be consumed primarily by younger age groups. Thus, before the MCU was created, these

iterations of Marvel remained in those groups. With the spherical model of production, new

cartoons can be created which directly reflect plot points and character attributes from the MCU.

That way, established fan bases of older generations for the large tent pole franchise films will be

more likely to show their kids Marvel cartoons, and may even watch themselves. When those

kids reach the age where they can go see PG-13 films, the odds are higher they will be attending

the vast majority of films in the MCU.

Marvel had only recently been acquired by Disney at the time Johnson (2012) was

writing, so he only mentions it briefly in his conclusion. I will discuss some highlights from

Marvel's trade history from 2009 to the present. What was the media saying when the Disney

acquisition occurred?

The reception to the idea was resoundingly positive in the trade world. In August of

2009, The New York Times was quick to point out the symbiotic benefit that would occur for the

two companies. Disney has long found it difficult to tap the male market, with their most viable

properties pertaining to little girls. Marvel, on the other hand, was about to access a very large

sum of capital. “The acquisition points to the film industry's biggest issue at the moment: access

to capital. Those who have it are finding opportunity; those who do not may be left behind”

(Times, 2009). The Times also pointed to market analysts who felt this purchase would not only

catalyze more media consolidation, but that it was a “smart and ambitious move” (Times, 2009).

Analysts and the general media were in agreement that this merger would benefit both

companies, but what about the fans? Paul Young of Screen Rant addressed the rumblings in the

Marvel fan community that a merger with Disney would water down their favorite characters.

Young pointed to other Disney-owned producers such as Miramax and the fact that they released

films like Kill Bill (a film about the bloody murder of a woman’s husband and family and her

violent journey toward revenge) under Disney. Young provided further evidence that Marvel

characters were safe by discussing Disney's track record of letting production companies do what

they do best, as is the case for Pixar. For him, Disney just means more money for Marvel

Studios to pump out even higher quality content. (Screen Rant, 2009)

Much of what was being talked about in the trade world at the time of Disney's purchase

was how Marvel would be able to integrate their own characters into the broader Disney

universe. This is exactly what both companies wanted. Not only does Marvel use cross-overs in

their own films and shows to seek new fan bases, they cross over into other media conglomerates

to merge with their universes as well. Disney thinks the same way, as they have been buying up

smaller studios for many years, so the purchase was by no means spontaneous.

At this point in their history (circa 2010) Marvel had a firm hold on the tent pole

blockbuster action film and young male demographics as far as the MCU was concerned.

Looking at these groups, the glaring weakness in market saturation were women and adults

looking for mature/progressive themes. By progressive, I mean to suggest themes that promote

the strengthening of identity movements such as feminism and racial equality. Progressive

themes detach themselves from the ideological status quo seen in popular media, allowing for the

maturation of society. To maintain consistency, the films making up the MCU are geared toward

a broad, low common denominator audience. The films are the largest cash cow for

Disney/Marvel in the media, so maintaining ideological status quo is in their best interest.

Considering the track record of large conglomerates, settling for current profit margins is

a death knell, as it was for franchises in the former two production paradigms. Remaining

dynamic is important to insure longevity, and Netflix has made that dynamism possible.

Netflix took the streaming world by storm in 2010, offering a service with a plethora of

content for a marginal fee. Without the need for advertisements, Netflix quickly became a new

frontier of film and television production. Shows that were put to death on cable networks were

finding themselves resurrected on this platform, and consumers were, (and still are) in love.

Netflix, like Marvel, began as a media company that promoted redundancy. Marvel

would license their heroes to big studies who would endlessly churn out origin stories and a

handful of sequels. The model was lucrative, but unsustainable. Netflix offered content to

subscribers by way of old syndicated television series’ and films you may also have found in the

dollar section of a video store. However, Netflix was willing and able to evolve into something

with more substance.

Given their astounding success, Netflix was able to produce original content, starting

with House of Cards in 2013. House of Cards is a political drama about Frank Underwood, a

corrupt whip who will stop at nothing to make his way to the top in Washington. With Marvel

sitting on the cutting edge of unique film worlds, a partnership with the company re-inventing

home media was a match made in entertainment heaven.

When the announcement was made that Marvel would partner up with Netflix late 2013,

what was the trade reaction? To start with, I will return to Screen Rant, who situate themselves

as an independent film and television news outlet. As such, agendas and biases based on the

industry itself should be minimal.

The article by Rob Keyes begins with some benign factual observations about the

partnership. Marvel and Netflix had plans to develop four shows and a miniseries. The

characters attached to these installments were Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Luke Cage, and Iron Fist.

After that, Keyes quotes the president of Marvel Entertainment, Alan Fine:

This deal is unparalleled in its scope and size, and reinforces our commitment to deliver

Marvel’s brand, content and characters across all platforms of storytelling. Netflix offers

an incredible platform for the kind of rich storytelling that is Marvel’s specialty. This

serialized epic expands the narrative possibilities of on-demand television and gives fans

the flexibility to immerse themselves how and when they want in what’s sure to be a

thrilling and engaging adventure.

Keyes gleans from this quote that Netflix will offer these new shows in full seasons. In other

words, fans will be able to sit down and binge-watch the new Marvel programming. Keyes also

points out that unlike Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D (a series about the missions of those who

work for the Strategic Homeland Intervention, Enforcement and Logistics Division) which is

reactive to the films, and thus plays itself out over long time spans, these Netflix shows will

provide concise and independent stories about new characters being introduced within the

Marvel universe (Screen Rant, 2013).

When looking at Fine’s quote from the perspective of the stories media companies tell

about the stories they are telling, key words are important to focus on. Just like Johnson noticed

the repeated use of “destiny” when looking at Disney/Marvel merger trade stories, particular

words are strategically used here as well. “Scope”, “Platforms”, “Storytelling”, “Flexibility”,

“Expand”. All these words are used to evoke Marvel’s main objective, the acquisition of new

audiences while remaining in continuity with the rest of their brand. Not only can the fans be

flexible, as Marvel provides them with the means to watch these Netflix shows on their own

terms, but people reading these quotes will also be subtly reminded that Marvel is flexible as a

brand. Marvel is able to provide content across platforms with a wide scope and expanded

storytelling techniques.

Keyes correctly predicts that the Netflix format will allow for more adult themes. He

hopes for “something like House of Cards but with superheroes” (Screen Rant, 2013). These

adult themes are exactly what Marvel needed to bring in new audiences. It further proves their

expanded flexibility as a brand, allowing a foothold for those who have not yet been seduced by

the Marvel craze while simultaneously providing a safety valve for those older audiences who

may be experiencing Marvel fatigue.

Once again, the trade story coming from Screen Rant is all positive, and it focuses on the

connections between franchises (spherical production). Variety contributed a few interesting

additions to the burgeoning trade story. Todd Spangler, a New York Digital Editor, seems to be

the voice of authority on all things Marvel/Netflix at Variety. In his first article, Spangler puts

special emphasis on the New York filming location. He notes the amount of jobs created and the

economic bolstering such a project will provide for the state. (Variety, 2014). In another article,

Spangler quotes Marvel chief content officer Ted Sarandos, “Marvel’s Iron Man and The

Avengers are very popular on Netflix today, and the new series will draft off that fan base. Like

Disney, Marvel is a known and loved brand that travels.” He was also quoted as saying Marvel

provides “new approaches to storytelling and to global distribution” (Variety, 2013).

The motives behind the Disney and Netflix Mergers with Marvel are not terribly difficult

to figure out, but Marvel is not trying to subtly gain fan bases through strategic moves around the

industry. The connections and potential for an ever-expanding universe are presented by Marvel

as transparent aims, and with repeated reminders, fans are not likely to forget it.

When looking back at the old flat plane model of branding seen in Figure 1, references

(symbols, settings, style) were all used incessantly to make sure audiences drew connections

between different iterations of the same brand. As such, trade stories at the time were relatively

silent on the topics of inter-connected properties. Instead, academics like Meehan (1991) were

doing extensive research on the strategic moves made by brands such as Batman.

Marvel, on the other hand, when moving across to another medium, streaming television,

has been explicit about the way they are connecting their universes in these trade stories.

However, as I will describe in greater detail in the following two chapters, the references

occurring in the actual content are infrequent and subtle. As a result, individual media texts can

be watched and enjoyed independently of the greater Marvel universe.

Now that Daredevil and Jessica Jones have both been released on Netflix, speculation is

no longer needed to uncover what Disney/Marvel/Netflix intend to make of these intellectual

properties. How exactly does Marvel utilize the Netflix platform to reinforce and expand their

model of a multi-faceted, multi-dimensional story universe? The key to answering such a

question is to look very closely at the first season of each of these shows, carefully noting the

tone and cross-over moments. That is precisely what I will be doing in the final two chapters of

this Thesis. Examining the history of storytelling paradigms and trade stories is important, but

close critical cultural work is where the theory is put into operation.

Over the course of these final two chapters, I will be using the two existing Marvel

Netflix series as case studies for what can be accomplished under the new paradigm set up by

Marvel and visualized in Figure 3 above. I have mentioned in some detail the way the films are

connected in the MCU. However, these films have a fairly static tone, and are thus susceptible to

franchise fatigue. In order to break from that and provide the audience with something different,

Netflix has gone in a different direction with the heroes it has acquired.

For Daredevil, this happens by way of allegorically grounding the setting of the show to

something rooted in the real world. For Jessica Jones, it is accomplished by using Jones as a

symbol for a more progressive version of feminism than Marvel has previously represented. To

further connect the series to one another, they are both set in Hell’s Kitchen, and they both

utilized elements of 9/11 allegory. In this way, Marvel has demonstrated that they will not only

use their spherical model for a new tone, but as a mouthpiece for important societal issues.

Chapter 4: The Devil of Hell’s Kitchen

Chapter four takes a very close look at season one of Netflix/Marvel’s Daredevil and the

way it uses 9/11 allegory and dark themes to carve out a space for a new audience while

simultaneously making connections to the material seen in the major tent pole films. Themes

such as autonomy, violent obsessions, and the god/demi-god disparity will be explored.

From the outset, it is apparent that the Daredevil Netflix series is not the same Marvel

from the MCU. The series is set in New York like the Avengers, but the borough of Hell’s

Kitchen is not a place you want to take your kids. The opening scene is set in the daylight. The

visual aesthetic is akin to what you would see in a Marvel film. However, the content of this

scene is emotionally profound, depicting a young Matt Murdock (Daredevil) in the aftermath of

a chemical accident. The viewer gets a POV shot of Murdock as darkness closes in and his sight

is lost forever. As Murdock’s sight fades to black, the aesthetic and tone of the show follows

suit.

Marvel and Netflix were sure to place Daredevil in the position of an allegory. With

adults being more steeped in the world around them than youthful audiences, allegory is a strong

method to bridge the gap between fiction and reality. The narrative world of Hell’s Kitchen is

not only darker and grittier, but serves as an allegory for post 9/11 New York.

When the World Trade Centers were attacked on September 11

, the whole world was set

on edge, so ground zero must have been a place of great fear and uneasiness. In the rest of the

country, the news presented the 9/11 events as a cultural and political narrative. This narrative

pitted radicals in the Middle East against the United States. Thus, people began to mistrust Arab

people, as well as the U.S. military and government whom were supposed to keep massive

terrorist threats at bay.

For the people of New York, however, these issues needed to be dealt with in a very real

manner from day to day. In the Marvel universe, the Avengers proved victorious in their fight

against the evil dimensional beings who were attacking the city. In the film, this victory is

celebrated, and the feats of the “gods” who made up the team were gawked at by millions of

audience members. However, this clash of large forces came at a high cost. Whole sections of

New York were leveled, many people died, and the city was thrown into disarray. Daredevil and

Jessica Jones seek to answer the question of what happens to all the individuals caught in the

crossfire during these earth-shaking events.

Matt Murdock serves as an allegorical character who stands in for the concept of blind

rage in the face of atrocity. He had his sight and his father taken from him as a youth, and as he

tells his priest in confessional, “Murdock boys got the devil in em”. One could argue that the

other Marvel characters have their fair share of anger and violent tendencies. The Hulk by

himself brings a very violent element to the MCU. However, the Hulk is a godlike figure, and

when he enters the battle, he fights other godlike figures. Murdock is merely a man with

extraordinary sensual perception. He has no powers, he cannot heal, he has no iron suit or

hammer. When he takes a hit, he feels every ounce of it. Additionally, Murdock takes on other

men who are simply flesh and bone. As a result, those bones can be broken, and they very often

are.

Not only does Daredevil fight against men, he fights men who commit very real crimes

that could easily be committed outside the world of superheroes. Very early on in the opening

episode, Daredevil tracks a group of men to the Hell’s Kitchen docks. They are herding a group

of screaming women into a storage trailer, clearly implying sex trafficking. This kind of evil is

not represented in the MCU. Instead, we are given larger-than-life villains with doomsday plans.

These villains are allegorically similar to world powers such as Sadam Hussain and Osama Bin

Laden. In Daredevil, however, these smaller men stem from the underbelly of society, they

represent realistic violence against everyday people. Murdock, then, is allegorical of the force of

average people trying to put a stop to this hateful behavior.

Murdock does not don a shiny uniform and engage in high-flying stylized fight scenes.

He operates in the dead of night wearing nothing but a black body suit and a scarf over his face.

He remains simultaneously anonymous to his foes as well as the rest of the city. He does not

want recognition, just to clean up his streets. His fighting style is not neat and tidy. Instead, he

audibly breaks bones, and when he has an enemy down and incapacited, he repeatedly punches

them in the face until they are a bloody mess. All the while, he is taking hits. To the godlike

Avengers, these hits would be nothing more than a minor inconvenience. For Murdock, they

mean spending the next day being stitched up and stabilized. At one point, he is even stabbed in

the chest with a needle to provide air to his collapsing lung.

This stitching brings me to the aspect of these Marvel/Netflix shows that adds them to the

spherical model of production. The woman who stitches up Murdock in the aftermath of his

bouts is named Claire (Rosario Dawson). She is a nurse in Hell’s Kitchen, and was directly

exposed to the aftermath of the invasion in Avengers. For the majority of season one, Claire is

the only who knows the true identity of “the devil of Hell’s Kitchen” as he is called by the Hell’s

Kitchen public. However, the larger purpose of her character is to serve as the Nick Fury for the

Netflix Marvel characters.

Looking at the differences between Fury and Claire, we are once again reminded of the

allegorical significance of these streaming series. Fury is in charge of a large organization called

S.H.I.E.L.D. He has access to powerful information that many of the Avengers don’t even have,

a legion of personnel, fancy machinery, and a stable of super heroes to call upon. He represents

the organizational power that operates behind large powers like world governments and terrorist

cells. Clair, contrastingly, is a regular woman whose job is to help the sick and the wounded.

The only information she has about super heroes is what she sees on the news, and she puts

herself at risk by helping these vigilantes.

It is impossible to doubt the connection between the narrative worlds of Daredevil and

Jessica Jones because Claire is featured in both. This constitutes a cross-over and thus, the

Netflix/Marvel television series exists in the spherical model of production of the Marvel media

brand. (This connection is visualized by a pink line drawn between the nodes of Daredevil and

Jessica Jones in figure 3). However, the cross-over occurs within the universe of the television

series, it does not bleed into the MCU. This can be seen by a lack of lines connecting the Netflix

nodes to any other nodes in the sphere.

Strategically, Marvel avoids direct cross overs between the MCU and the Netflix Marvel

universe. This is due to a conflict of interest related to subject matter and an impulse to woo

mature audiences without advertising the fact that these shows are extensions of the tent-pole

blockbuster installments. Marvel also wants to avoid linking the more family-friendly texts to

one where drugs, alcohol, sex, and heavy violence are prevalent.

Just because Marvel does not want to make an overt connection between the MCU and

the Netflix series, does not mean they will not take great care to connect the two in a subtler

fashion. In order to accomplish this, Marvel hearkens back to the model in Figure 1 discussed in

chapter 2. Instead of direct cross overs, the flat plane model deals with reference, and reference

is exactly what you get in Daredevil.

Less than ten minutes into the show, Matt Murdock and his partner Foggy Nelson are

attempting to pick out office space for their new law practice. A line of dialogue between

Murdock and the agent serves as the first instance of reference to the MCU.

Real Estate Agent: “This office was barely touched by the incident”.

Murdock: “Incident, is that what we’re calling it”?

Agent: “Better than death and destruction raining from the sky” (Daredevil).

To those looking for it, this is a fairly clear reference to the events in the first Avengers film.

However, to an audience who is not paying close attention or who has little to no knowledge

about the MCU, this brief dialogue could be a reference to any number of things in the diegetic

world of Daredevil. The exchange is only three lines and does not name anything specific to the

MCU.

This type of reference serves a dual purpose in its vagueness. Those initiated into the

Marvel universe will have the background knowledge to pick up on what is being discussed.

Because it is vague, the pleasure derived by those initiates is greater because it requires that the

viewer has, in Jenkins words, “done their homework.” On the other side of the coin, the

uninitiated audience member does not feel self-conscious about the missed reference because

they may either take no note of it or assume it will be explained later on.

Though this is not the only reference to the MCU in this series, the references are

strategically placed and usually front-loaded. Later on in the first episode, Murdock and Foggy

investigate Union Allied Construction in relation to possible foul play. They discover that the

company has been heavily involved in government contracts after the “incident.” Union Allied

were making money hand over fist in the wake of the dimensional catastrophe, and Murdock

notes that they were able to secure lots of sympathy after New York was half destroyed.

Allegorically, this reference is also getting political, implying that crooked companies

took advantage of the 9/11 tragedy to further their economic aims. As a result of this allegory,

the uninitiated may take this reference to be about the 9/11 tragedy instead of the Avengers battle.

This keeps the show grounded not just by featuring more human characters, but potentially

deferring fictional references to real world events. Simultaneously, Marvel once again winks at

its more devout, initiated fans.

Before the pilot episode is over, we get a third reference to the MCU. The forces of evil

at work in Daredevil include a drug pushing Chinese woman, two Russian brothers who

distribute the drugs, a Japanese business man who secretly leads the Yakuza, and a crooked

financial analyst named Leland. The figurehead of this organized criminal cell is named Wilson

Fisk. In the Daredevil comics, he is known as the King Pin. Once again, that title is not used to

maintain a grounded tone. In that vein, Murdock is only referred to by his hero’s title

(Daredevil) at the end of the final episode.

The reference to the MCU comes when these villains (minus Fisk) meet to talk shop.

They get to a discussion of the sex trafficking incident earlier in the episode and the man in

black. While the others in the group are angry about the inconvenience, Leland remains

insightful:

“Heroes and their consequences are why we have these opportunities. Each time one of

them punches a guy through a building, our margins go up” (Daredevil).

This time, heroes are explicitly mentioned, but the word “hero” is ambiguous. Though the

initiated know he is referring to the Avengers, a less knowledgeable viewer may assume hero is

used to describe vigilantes like Daredevil. Because Murdock does not possess any kind of super

strength, he is not the type of hero Leland is describing. The series takes up the stance that the

large powers like The Avengers and world governments may deter the immediate threat with

brute force, but leave a tear in the fabric of society in their wake.

Characters like Daredevil are more akin to demigod’s and their job is to clean up the

remains of the clash of titans. Thus, Leland’s insight is accurate, but he misappropriates the type

of hero Daredevil represents. Wesley, Fisk’s right hand man, begins to grasp the dynamic later

on in the series. When more trouble occurs in terms of the drug distribution, Wesley states: “An

iron suit or magic hammer would maybe explain why Russians keep getting beaten up.” Gods

are highly visible; they do not have secret identities. As a result, they are more reckless in their

actions. They are distracted with their large scale battles, heedless of the repercussions. When

the Avengers aren’t suited up, they are billionaire playboys, military dogs, scientists, and princes

of Asgaard.

Murdock, on the other hand, is a lawyer. Not just any kind of lawyer; he and Foggy made

the conscious decision to abandon a high profile firm to create their own in order to serve the

public interest. Murdock attempts to battle injustice through legitimate avenues, and only acts as

a vigilante when he deems it necessary. The Avengers are fairly one dimensional. They prep for

large scale events when they aren’t in costume, and battle when they are. Allegorically, Murdock

represents the average activist. Such activists do battle with evil forces on their own time, but

they still need to get up the next morning and earn a living. In this way, a more mature audience

has many opportunities to identify with Matt Murdock, to identify with his battles in the dark as

well as in the light.

As I have described, episode one contains a heavy concentration of subtle references to

the MCU. These references serve to complicate the allegory, hook established audiences from

the MCU, and maintain a spherical model of production while strategically blending in the

original paradigm in order to avoid direct connection between contrasting content. So as not to

alienate the uninitiated audience members, the references lower in magnitude and occur

sporadically as the series progresses.

Instead of any MCU references in episode two, audiences are met with a different kind of

reference. This episode is incredibly gritty and violent. Murdock tortures an enemy to get

information, and drinks heavily to numb pain. He fits many attributes of a noir hero. We want

him to succeed, but his methods are often hard to stomach. The final fight scene in the episode

extenuates this grittiness, but contains a very specific reference.

The scene is shot in a long hallway with several doors along the walls. The fighting is all

shot from the perspective of a person standing at the end of the hall, and no cutting occurs.

When the character’s fight in the various rooms, we only hear the thumps and see the muzzle

flashes. As Murdock beats on the thugs, very real exhaustion is choreographed. The fighters

often take small breaks to lean on the walls and catch their breath. Many of the punches are

heavy and sloppy, indicating a loss of stamina. Though this scene seems unique, it is far from

original.

OldBoy is a South Korean neo-noir thriller directed by Park Chan-wook in 2003 in which

a man, Oh Dae-su is imprisoned for 15 years over a crime he is unaware of committing. Upon

his release, he seeks answers by any method available to him. The film was critically

acclaimed, winning awards at the Cannes Film Festival and accolades from Quentin Tarantino.

To this day, the film sits at 80% critical consensus and a 94% audience approval rating on Rotten

Tomatoes. Even Roger Ebert, a notoriously harsh film critic, had only positive things to say.

Simply stated, OldBoy is a film appreciated by film lovers. What is the relationship of this film

to Daredevil? The scene I described in the previous paragraph is a direct homage to an iconic

scene from Oldboy.

In the film, the main character Oh Dae-su has been captured and held in solitary

confinement for 15 years. He spends much of that span attempting to piece together who he

wronged. Open his release, Oh Dae-su seeks revenge, and part of that revenge is making his way

into a compound to interrogate a lead. Armed with nothing but a hammer, he takes on a hallway

of at least 20 men. The fight is filmed in one shot, but from a side perspective. As the men fight,

Oh Dae-su is beaten badly and stabbed but fights through his pain and fatigue. Just like in

Daredevil, the men often stop and lean on the wall to rest or writhe in discomfort. Even the

walls have the same two toned nature to them.

Once again, Daredevil throws out chum to film buffs who know and love Oldboy,

offering another level of pleasure to this scene. Not only that, but they are nodding to something

outside the Marvel universe, implying broader capabilities. Entertainment outlets took notice of

the homage, and greeted it with applause. Entertainment journalist Nate Scott at USA Today

labeled it “the greatest fight scene in TV history” (USA Today, 2015). A compilation of fan

comments on FanFare.com proves that audience members felt much the same way. A few

comments include, “Holy shit, I cannot believe they did an homage to the hallway scene from

Oldboy.” “TBH, I think it’s possible that they might have outdone the Oldboy scene” (Fanfare,

2015).

Association with a well-known cult film favorite is extremely important to what the

merger of Marvel and Netflix means for the spherical model of production. References to R-

rated films would simply not be practical within the MCU section of the sphere, but moving the

Netflix series to a different section and bridging the gap through references creates depth by

association with the huge money making blockbusters. Marvel is able to represent a spectrum of

content from young children to critically savvy adults, all while maintaining continuity.

As the series elapses, the Daredevil world continues to be associated with the MCU, but

only fleetingly. A headline from the “Battle of New York” can be seen hanging in the office of a

journalist. Super heroes are incorporated into jokes and colloquiums made by characters. When

discussing the man in black, Murdock suggests he is trying to help. Foggy fires back with, “I

can say I’m Captain America, doesn’t make it true” (Daredevil). These moments occur quickly

and offer no follow-up. They subliminally plant the idea of the MCU in the viewer’s head

without alienating those who do not appreciate the association.

Not only does Marvel use Daredevil as an allegorical vehicle for a more mature

demographic, they also use it as a means to acquire a more diverse demographic, as well.

Though the main characters are primarily white, many other cultures and languages are

represented. Throughout the show, subtitles are necessary when the Russian, Spanish, Chinese,

and Japanese languages are used. Interestingly, this diversity is almost entirely attached to the

villains of the series. All the Russian, Chinese, and Japanese characters are associated with the

crime syndicate. This asks the question, does this series justify the rampant xenophobia that was

prevalent post 9/11? It is difficult to argue otherwise. Thus, while Daredevil represents a new

paradigm, it also demonstrates that the ability to pull in a new demographic does not necessarily

come packaged with more progressive themes. Jessica Jones, however, capably remedies the

missed opportunity to present those themes.

Chapter 5: The Feminist Side of Marvel

Chapter 5 is an exploration of the first season of Netflix/Marvel’s Jessica Jones and the

way it perpetuates the mission put in motion by Daredevil in chapter one though a focus on a

female protagonist and post-feminism. In this chapter, I will explore how such themes as post-

feminism, progressive feminism, the patriarchy, noir, and violence are used as a problematic

response to patriarchal control in Jessica Jones. I also deal with allegory and the connections

between Netflix and the MCU, as in chapter 4. The contrast between how these issues are

executed between the first and second Netflix productions suggests the way the sphere of

production evolves as it grows.

The second series produced by Netflix, Jessica Jones, is also set in Hell’s Kitchen in the

wake of a 9/11 style attack. In addition to the dark themes dealt with in Daredevil, this series

deals with the loss of autonomy in the aftermath of a crisis. Marvel and Netflix made the

decision to frame this serious social issue in a feminist light.

Given the current social and political landscape, ignoring or even circumventing feminist

aims would be ill-advised by any large media being scrutinized by the public eye. Marvel saw

an opportunity with their feminine protagonist Jessica Jones to engage the positive side of the

conversation. Dark themes have always been present in Marvel comics, so Daredevil is an

adoption of those themes. Jessica Jones, however, is actively re-writing the way Marvel has

treated females. To demonstrate the sharp contrast, I will be explaining the concept of post-

feminism and the way it manifested itself in one of the films released before Marvel became

independent, Elektra.

In the final portion of the chapter, I will provide an analysis of Jessica Jones, exposing

the major shift that has occurred in Marvel’s portrayal of women. Marvel comics and films

released before the advent of the spherical model of production portrayed their female characters

in skin tight outfits. Though they were fighting and exhibiting power, they often did so under

the traditional gender assumptions of pre-feminist ideology. This notion of simultaneously

giving power and removing it is called post-feminism.

I will be using post-feminism as a lens for my historical analysis, so it is useful to give an

outline of what post-feminism means. McRobbie (2007) describes post-feminism as a concept

which “draws on and invokes feminism as that which can be taken into account, to suggest that

equality is achieved, in order to install a whole repertoire of new meanings which emphasize that

it is no longer needed, it is a spent force” (p. 12). To be clear, feminist media scholars agree that

feminism is most definitely still needed. For these scholars, McRobbie included, post-feminism

is a confounding force for the feminist movement. That being said, if we are to believe that

culture and media are symbiotic in some way, post-feminism is looked at as a desirable state

outside the circles of academia. This fact makes the concept that much more pervasive.

Postfeminism walks a line between women who are scatterbrained, frivolous, and

desperate to find a man but who also maintain a feminine wittiness. McRobbie (2007) describes

this as a celebration of old-fashioned femininity that is not quite out of reach. Coupled with the

nostalgia is a constant reminder that women now have “sexual freedom, the right to drink,

smoke, have fun in the city, and be economically independent” (p. 12). Bridget Jones is an

example of this postfeminist tightrope walk. She is a character marketed toward women, and she

embodies something McRobbie (2007) calls a double entanglement, an intermingling of

conservative values and tropes of liberation. She argues that under the initial definition of post-

feminism, the term can be deployed in very different ways. One iteration of post-feminism is

that of irony. The use of overtly sexist themes in a tongue in cheek fashion to suggest that we

know what is wrong here, but it is no longer an issue. I argue that in in terms of the Marvel

enterprise, these forms of post-feminism emerge, with a distinct divide between the spherical

universe and the rest of the canon.

To date, out of the 42 films based on Marvel comics, only one has a female protagonist.

Elektra was released in 2005, and follows a character of the same name played by Jennifer

Garner. An important thing to note is that Elektra came in the wake of the Marvel film,

Daredevil. Elektra's character comes from the Daredevil universe and is featured in that film as

a secondary character. Thus, Elektra emerged as a spin off film from another male-led Marvel

production, not of natural origins. On top of that, Elektra dies in Daredevil (she is also killed off

in the Daredevil comic series). In the case of the comic, due to her popularity a comic series was

created for her. In the case of the Elektra film, Marvel resurrected her in the wake of Ben

Affleck and Colin Farrell refusing to reprise their roles in a sequel to Daredevil. Elektra is

introduced as a love interest for Murdock to complicate his character. To make Daredevil even

more tragic, she is killed in the story arc. However, once an opportunity to commodify her

popularity presented itself, Elektra is brought back to spur revenue. She is not important on her

own; she is a tool in the Marvel media-scape.

The poster for the film depicts Jennifer Garner's face in full makeup holding a knife. The

tagline reads, “Looks Can Kill”. Already in the promotional content, Garner is portrayed as a

mix of beauty and brutality. The question is, does she push beyond that in the film?

Postfeminist discourse maintains that girls are liberated, feminism is not necessary. Elektra is

certainly liberated. She is not only free and independent, but she is an accomplished martial

artist, and her targets are primarily men. However, a mistake of post-feminism is to draw

attention to such liberated characters as women in a traditional sense. Elektra as a film is guilty

of this double entanglement from the very beginning. However, is this post-feminism taken for

granted as an objective truth, or is it presented ironically? Both are a problem according to

McRobbie (2007). Elektra is celebrated in her physical prowess, but under what circumstances?

In one of the opening scenes of the film, where Elektra assassinates a male victim,

postfeminist dynamics present themselves immediately. Elektra fights a bodyguard with her

physical prowess and renders him unconscious. This scene has been shot in relative shadow, no

focus is placed on Garner’s female characteristics. Immediately following the violence, Garner

slowly turns as wind blows her styled hair out of the way to show her features with perfectly

applied makeup. The entire sequence resembles a Cover Girl advertisement and borders on

absurd. However, irony is not present. The next shot is of Elektra walking toward her target.

The camera cuts directly to her backside, and slowly pans upward. Elektra does not engage her

opponent directly. Instead, she throws a knife all the way across the room to do the job. The man

is sitting in a chair and does not get a chance to fight back.

To recap, the audience sees a strong, capable woman fight toe to toe with a man.

However, this man is just a thug, not a main target. Thugs of his ilk are dispatched en masse by

traditional male heroes. Whatever progress is made here is instantly erased by the indulgence of

the male gaze. Elektra is dressed provocatively and the camera itself objectifies her. Instead of a

showdown between target and assassin, the more dangerous foe is murdered from afar, causing

the audience to question female strength against an accomplished enemy. In reference to the

evidence thus far, Marvel is not attempting to be ironic with their post-feminism. Instead, they

use the expected Bridget Jones format. Because the female in question in this film is an assassin,

the double entanglement dynamic is meant to be subtle, but comes off jarring when one focuses

on it.

Elektra was released three years prior to the creation of the MCU. Since Marvel was still

licensing its characters rather than producing its own films during this time, the film was

produced by 20

Century Fox. But even within the MCU, a female led film will not emerge until

2019. After 11 years, does this suggest that the failure of Elektra gave Marvel Studios pause

when considering another female lead, or could it be connected to an unwillingness by Marvel to

give females any major positions of power within the MCU?

Recently, as if in response to such questioning, Marvel released a Netflix series titled

Jessica Jones. This series is overtly feminist, giving much of the power to female characters. It

lacks many of the post-feminism pitfalls listed previously, and serves as a bit of a foil to the way

women have been represented in Marvel products up to this point. Was this an all-in attempt by

Marvel to avoid bad press and improve reputation? The spherical production paradigm and its

aims serve as an answer to this question. The goal here is to simultaneously blot out the brand’s

weak stance on women and access a progressive demographic who will appreciate a truly

feminist character.

Though these may have been the aims of Jessica Jones with regard to feminism, the show

stumbles in several key areas. Progressive feminism, that which seeks to dismantle the

patriarchy, views the ideal society as one filled with empathy and community. Though we are

given glimpses of this this kind of society through victim therapy sessions, our hero Jones scoffs

at them. For her, violence and force are the only effective paths away from patriarchal influence.

I will be providing examples throughout this chapter of the way Jones is powerful, but under her

own terms. However, those terms look eerily similar to the terms our stereotypically masculine

and patriarchal heroes operate by. Thus, Jones may escape postfeminist, but falls instead into the

trap of patriarchal impulse.

During this chapter, I will be invoking the term film noir and using it to describe the

general style used in Jessica Jones. Noir could also be used to describe Daredevil, but to a lesser

extent. At the core of the concept, noir is usually thought of as an aesthetic. In other words, one

can just look at the mise-en-scene (composition of a scene or frame) and narrative tone of any

given film or show and be able to pick it out as noir. This is due to several stereotypical

elements such as cynical private investigators, dark lighting, femme fatales, flashbacks, and

bourbon.

However, as pointed out by James Naremore, “a slightly more complicated discourse on

noir has grown steadily over the past three decades” (Naremore, 1998). The main staples of this

more complicated view of noir includes the “cynical treatment of the American Dream,

complicated play with gender and sexuality, and foregrounding of cinematic style” (Naremore,

1998). As I will be illustrating in this chapter, Jessica Jones holds elements of the aesthetic

tradition of noir as well as the thematic tenets outlined by scholars over the years.

Noir is at once a broad concept that can be applied to many screen spaces based on

certain tenets, and a complex term used to track both filmic style and the constant use of

temporality to remix the past in the present. I argue that in Jones, generalizable tenets of noir are

strategically utilized to further the depth of the Marvel universe.

This association serves Marvel well. As Naremore (1998) points out, “film noir has

become one of the dominant intellectual categories of the late twentieth century, operating across

the entire cultural arena of art, popular memory, and criticism” (p.2). Like Daredevil’s overt use

of Oldboy, the overt use of the noir style by Jones translates into cultural capital derived from

those audience members who are familiar with the concept.

Jones, like Daredevil, is a part of the Marvel sphere, but fits into the Avengers saga

through reference. What can be learned from the way the series is situated within the Marvel

machine?

The series follows a tough, powerful woman (Krysten Ritter) in Hell’s Kitchen as she

battles a formidable enemy and alcoholism. From the very beginning, the tirelessly repeated

origin/hero story used by Marvel is inverted. Jessica is not a normal person who discovers power

and uses it to fight for good. Instead, we are brought into her world in the aftermath of her crime

fighting career, as she attempts to rebuild her life as a private investigator following an extreme

trauma. The protagonist is dealing with her own personal trauma while the city deals with the

trauma of a widespread attack. Once again, allegory comes into play as Jones represents a

microcosm of the struggle for autonomy after events led to the loss of control. Postfeminism

seeks to control the image of women, to limit autonomy.

This series is centered around a powerful woman (she possesses super strength), but so

was Elektra. To repeat a question I asked earlier, under what terms is she powerful? A

character’s introduction tells the viewer a great deal about the way that character will be

represented throughout.

The series Jessica Jones begins with two noir tropes that have been distinctly remixed.

First of all, we are given a voice over. Jessica explicates the events on screen as if she were

recounting them to a curious stranger. She describes her job as getting dirt on people, and states

that she excels at it. This method is very frequently used in noir, with Double Indemnity, a noir

from the 40’s about an insurance man who follows a woman down a dark path leading to murder

and fraud, serving as a perfect example. Visually, the viewer is presented with a voyeuristic shot

of two people having sex. This view is captured through the lens of a camera, as the adjustment

in focus and shutter movement signify. PI work is a common noir theme, and voyeurism is

almost always associated with it. What makes this a remix is that the voice over and voyeurism

is from the perspective of a female, our lead character Jessica Jones. Noir films almost

exclusively deal with male protagonists, as the term “femme fatale” emerged from the genre to

describe the dangerous female from the perspective of the male. Instead of gazing at the heroine,

the viewer forced to take on her perspective.

Shortly following this voyeuristic montage, the viewer’s first physical glimpse of Jessica

occurs when she breaks the glass of her apartment door window by throwing a man through it.

After just one minute of screen time, Jessica has demonstrated skill and power, all in terms of her

own perspective, not in terms of audience scrutiny. However, she engages in violence to prove

her point, and she seems unable to communicate through progressive female avenues such as

discussion and the written word.

Jessica's best friend and confidante, Trish, is a successful talk show host. She lives alone

and is completely self-reliant. She knows Jessica is being stalked by a powerful enemy, and is

shown training to fight in her apartment. A poignant scene occurs late in the season when Jessica

is being attacked by a man using black ops steroids. The drugs allow him to compete with

Jessica's super strength, but the fight is only fair because of Jessica's previously sustained

injuries. To defend Jessica, Trish takes the same drugs, and is able to compete equally with the

violent assailant. At no point is male physical strength shown dominating over women. Across

the board in Jessica Jones, women are portrayed as smart and capable, and most importantly,

they operate independently of men.

Though Jessica and Trish are independent, we are once again presented with patriarchal

behavior. Trish is able to best the man, but only by stooping to his level. She does not use her

brain to figure out a plan to subdue him, she simply follows his lead in order to emulate his

strength. Much of the power displayed by women in this show is derived by an emulation of

patriarchal forces.

Two important scenes involving Trish occur in episode 5. A flashback occurs about

halfway through the episode, where Trish unveils a super suit for Jessica to wear as she fights

crime. This suit is a mockup of the one her character wears in the comic books. Jessica looks

disgusted as she claims the outfit would only work in a kinky role-playing scenario. Instead,

Jessica hides her identity by wearing a giant sandwich and acting like the saleswoman for a sub

restaurant. Her “costume” is completely utilitarian and non-sexualized. Instead of showing off

all of her curves with a skin tight garment, she purposefully hides them.

This scene is a direct disavowal of the gender and beauty standards employed by comic

books. Once again, the points made by McAllister et al. (2006) are given credence. Marvel's

film and television properties have been slowly but surely distancing themselves from a dated

comic book culture. Jessica Jones essentially turns her nose up at the thought of her comic book

persona, inviting the audience to do so as well. This moment with Trish represents something

progressively feminist. The women disavowal the old post-feminist system without any type of

patriarchal corruption.

The second important Trish-related scene happens earlier in the episode. It begins with

Trish receiving oral sex from Simpson, the man who will later take stimulants and be beaten into

submission by the two female friends. This is important because women's pleasure is often

censored in our society, and the act puts Trish in a position of power and value. Trish and

Simpson are interrupted by Jessica, and Trish opens the door, leaving Simpson unseen in her

room. Jessica (unaware of Simpson's presence) begins to discuss plans to take down Kilgrave,

(the central villain of the series) with Trish. As the two talk, Simpson walks out wearing nothing

but a pair of briefs and begins to argue with Jessica about her plan.

After Jessica disagrees, Simpson shows his value by listing off his expertise as a former

black ops specialist. Jessica repeatedly ignores Simpson and his suggestions. When he discovers

Trish will be driving the get-away vehicle, Simpson insists she let “one of his boys” do it. Trish

snaps back, “Hey, last night was fun but that doesn't mean I want your opinion” (Jessica Jones).

Any avid viewer of film would find this scenario distinctly familiar. The important

difference is that the genders are reversed. Normally, a strong male would be receiving oral sex

in the beginning of the scene, only to be interrupted by another man. The two would start talking

business, and the pretty young women would emerge in lingerie. She would claim she could

help, and list off a skill the two men didn't have. Feeling emasculated, the two men would tell

her to stay in her place, only to eventually agree because of her charm. Here, both women are

fully clothed, and the man is sexualized as well as trivialized.

This scene definitely fits the feminist theme of the series. However, is this the proper

way to use media to fight against a patriarchal society? Instead of creating a climate where

gender is irrelevant, and value is associated with skill and moral fortitude, this scene simply puts

the man in the role women have been trying to escape. However, the writers remedy this

regressive foray with their key male character.

The main villain in the series is named Kilgrave (played by David Tennant). His power is

mind control, and he is able to exert his will over any person simply by giving them a command.

Before the events of the series, Jessica was put under control by Kilgrave, and repeatedly raped.

She had absolutely no autonomy. When we are introduced to her, all of her actions are based

around maintaining her autonomy now that she has it back. People in New York post 9/11 had a

similar response, rallying together to rebuild. Plans for an even larger tower were drawn up, and

many citizens felt the urge to join the armed forces and directly fight the evil that attacked their

city. Jones represents this need for autonomy in the wake of trauma.

An initial reading of Kilgrave’s mind control could be that even with super strength, men

still hold all the power over women. Even with the power of the masses, terrorist cells still hold

power by their constant threat of violence hiding in the shadows. However, as the viewer

becomes more acquainted with Kilgrave, they realize he is a petty, childish, and love-struck

character. His only motive for the mayhem he causes is to get the attention of Jessica, who he is

hopelessly in love with.

Kilgrave’s terror comes from a misplaced attempt to charm a woman. The terror of

Islamic extremists comes from a misplaced perception that their religious gods wish it to be so.

The allegorical similarities between Jones and post-9/11 America are subtle, yet they provide a

progressive element to a universe steeped in masculine strength and violence. Additionally,

likening the plight of rape victims to the war on terror is a powerful association likely respected

by those in our society who wish rape victims to be given more credence.

In the present world of the story, Jessica realizes she has become immune to Kilgrave's

powers. Rather than fight her, Kilgrave cowers behind his ability to command people to commit

suicide. He is a vain, cowardly, violent sociopath and his power is used as a device in the series

to illuminate the pretenses of patriarchal control and dominance. It is meant to show that the

power wielded by men is not a product of them being more intelligent or capable, but that they

hold an unfair means of coercion. In the real world, this coercion manifests itself in the threat of

violent attack or nuclear strike. The realization that this alleged stockpile of weapons was

nothing more than fiction is identical to Jones’ realization that she can no longer be controlled.

In relation to feminist discourse, the mind control powers of Kilgrave, which nobody on the

show believes are real besides the ones who have suffered at his hands, as analogous to the glass

ceiling faced by women in today's society.

This logic continues to make sense when thinking about the past of the two characters.

Jessica was once a super hero, actively going out into the city to fight crime and save lives. This

persisted until Kilgrave got a glimpse of her power and decided to use it for his own criminal

purposes. After that experience, Jessica decided to relinquish her hero status and live a relatively

normal life under the radar. Her career ambitions were quashed by the invisible powers wielded

by a man.

Jessica does have a love interest in the show, Luke Cage. Cage has unbreakable skin,

putting him in the same category as Jessica and Kilgrave (enhanced individuals). She enlists his

help over the course of the series, but only as an equal. When he finally meets Kilgrave, he is

put under mind control. As a result, Jessica is tasked with saving him from a situation where he

finds himself helpless. A main theme of the show is that power has the ability to coerce, but can

also corrupt. Kilgrave has power and uses it to sate his sociopathic tendencies. Luke has power,

but has to hide it because he knows it either leads to people asking for help or trying to kill him.

Finally, Jessica has power, but despite being the “hero” of the series, she often uses her power

carelessly or maliciously to get what she wants. Even in objectively good hands, power is

unpredictable and dangerous.

Cage is a foil to Kilgrave. He behaves ethically toward women, and Jones respects his

kindness. The two have sex multiple times throughout the series. However, this sex is

consensual, and Jones is generally shown on top asserting her strength. This is again tied to

autonomy. In the wake of Kilgrave, she is having sex with who she wants and she is in control.

This relationship is complicated by a secret held by Jones. When she was under control

by Kilgrave, he forced her to kill Cage’s wife. She feels immensely guilty, but does not divulge

this information and continues to sleep with Cage. An entire episode is devoted to Jones going to

great length to keep this secret. Looking at the themes in the series, Jones is not simply being

selfish and lacking remorse, she is ashamed of her loss of autonomy. She is trying to live a new

life free of Kilgrave, and if Cage found out about the murder, his influence would still be

controlling her life.

The post-feminist heroine would be depicted as strong and powerful, but only in terms of

stereotypical feminine norms. Jones is not only strong on her own terms, she is shown to have

faults and emotional scars. However, these faults are part of her struggle to grapple with her

place in the world as a new woman.

One could argue that of the two new Marvel/Netflix series, the female protagonist is the

one we see as a sexual being. However, for progressive feminists, autonomous sex is a very

important issue. Having Jones resist Kilgrave’s influence and rapist tendencies is not enough.

She must be shown bouncing back, not shying away from the type of sex she desires. This is not

used in the series to sexualize Jones; Cage’s body is objectified much more. Jones uses her

strength to tear Cage’s shirt off his body. When he attempts the same thing, she grabs his hands

and forces them behind his back. She cannot and will not be controlled. We are not invited to

assert our male gaze on Jones. We are mostly only shown her back, and from afar. She is not

voyeurized by the camera.

Cage also serves the purpose of creating two important connections. At the beginning of

episode 3, Jessica and Luke have a conversation about their powers. This discourse leads to

Luke saying, “So it's you, me, the big green dude and his crew. You think there's more of our

kind out there” (Jessica Jones). This quote, though vague, directly connects the MCU with the

events of Jessica Jones. It also gives the audience pleasure knowing that there are in fact more

out there, one in particular right there in Hell’s Kitchen. Once again, the referential model is

employed by Jessica Jones, but this time the references are even fewer and subtler.

I will provide a brief breakdown of cross overs and references to the MCU in this season

of Jessica Jones in order to demonstrate the way Marvel is able to associate their more generic

tent-pole texts with the progressive texts made possible by a partnership with Netflix. Not only

are the characters deeper and more complex, the world they live in is grounded in events that

reflect real world situations. With this type of grounding, Marvel has opened the door for more

franchises to appear in their sphere which could go in any number of directions. We may see

westerns, thrillers, horror, etc. The possibilities are endless now that consumers have shown

their acceptance of these different types of heroes. For these ambitious extensions of the MCU,

the spherical transmedial thread must be utilized. For example, Jones’ friend Trish Walker is

actually a Marvel comic character who goes by the name Hellcat. Though no direct reference

has been made yet, it is not farfetched to think Trish will join the Defenders as more content is

added.

When Jessica goes to interrogate a criminal in a warehouse, burn marks are visible on the

walls. This is no coincidence, as the warehouse is the same one from Daredevil where he fights a

drug ring and has to flee from the flames.

Sergeant Mahoney is a cop with a heart of gold that helps Murdock and Foggy fight

corruption in Daredevil. Lo and behold, he appears once again in Jessica Jones, helping her out

of a sticky situation at his precinct. Finally, in the same precinct scene, a clipping from Ben

Urich’s article on Union Allied corruption can be seen on a bulletin board in Jessica Jones.

Urich was a journalist helping the heroes in Daredevil and the headline is direct reference to

those events.

These references are subtle and at times very difficult to spot. This difficulty has direct

relationship to the pleasure derived by those who not only spot them, but understand the

reference. This fan service is not the only reason for these minute references. Because it is the

second Marvel/Netflix series, direct character cross overs are possible.

Claire, as the Nick Fury of Hell’s Kitchen, makes an appearance toward the end of the

series, solidifying the direct connection between the two shows. Luke Cage is introduced and

given a small origin story. Because he will soon have his own series, I label this a pre-crossover.

Finally, Sergeant Mahoney, mentioned above, adds one more facet to the connection.

The important thing to note is that Cage’s reference to “the big green guy” is the only

time the Marvel films are brought into the mix in Jessica Jones. All the other references are in

relation to Daredevil. This creates an interesting dynamic where Daredevil provides a referential

link to the MCU, while also linking to Jessica Jones. However, Jessica Jones only really relates

to the MCU by proxy through Daredevil. The Marvel/Netflix section of the sphere is now

operating autonomously, not needing to constantly remind the audience of the broader universe it

shares.

Jessica Jones is a Marvel product that continues the post 9/11 allegory while situating

itself in a progressive feminist perspective. The show thoroughly does away with the regressive

post-feminist discourse seen up to this point in Marvel products.

Characters like Black Widow, Scarlett Witch, and Jane Foster (all female characters in the

MCU) are strong women, but they are either portrayed in skin tight clothing and perfect hair or

used to prop up the male protagonists. Thus, Jessica Jones is a much more progressive female

icon in the Marvel Universe, but she is distanced from the post-feminist Marvel through layers of

subtle references. This raises the question, does the Netflix Marvel world exist to reach new

demographics and pacify those who would accuse Marvel of lacking progressive tendencies, or

will it be utilized in the future to push these progressive ideas into large tent pole blockbusters?

That remains to be seen, but with these two Hell’s Kitchen anomalies, one can maintain hope.

Conclusion

The world of media and entertainment is not just about any one thing. It is not just about

content, it is not just about economics, and it is not just about academic theorizing. In light of

this, I wanted my Thesis to reflect elements of all of those aspects of media.

The spherical model of production utilized by Marvel at this time may appear complex

and abstract. However, this paradigm was not simply created by corporate masterminds when it

was deemed viable. Influenced by their origin in comics, production modes used by those before

them, and the business models that were fused together by partnerships with Disney and Netflix,

Marvel and their paradigm are all about building on what was already established.

The foundation was a rapidly evolving system for the production of large franchise texts.

That system is ephemeral and hard to follow, but the research of academics has grounded its

practices in a way that can be understood. These scholars were not just looking at the content of

texts in franchises, but the ways they interconnect.

That big picture has led me to the study of Marvel and the way they have evolved in their

method of production. In the case of Marvel, singular franchises with sequels and reboots were

cast aside in favor of an ecosystem of franchises that relate and build off one another.

In terms of my visual model, Marvel has created a sphere of texts. As such, when a

consumer tires of one section, they simply need to look in another direction to be exposed to a

new and exciting text that still relates to the universe as a whole. Such a thing would not work if

the sphere only dealt with one medium and demographic. By utilizing three major mediums of

visual storytelling and changing the tone to fit new demographics, a sphere like Marvel’s could

allow a system of franchises to last for decades.

This longevity implies a massive half-life for the economic potential of companies like

Disney and Netflix based solely off one IP like Marvel. It also means the cultural power held by

big media is becoming increasingly homogenized. Though this has a negative connotation, such

entertainment entities would not survive without appealing to current cultural and political issues

such as feminism and post-terror environments as we already see in Daredevil and Jessica Jones.

As a result, these mega-franchises may start with the lowest common denominator in

audience appeal, but if Marvel is any indicator, they will develop new perspectives as they fight

to maintain dominance. If there are doubts as to whether this new paradigm is affecting the rest

of the media-scape, Universal Studios puts them to rest.

Universal is rolling out “a Monster Mash of interconnected horror movies” and Cinema

Blend is calling it their answer to the MCU. Universal has put together an all-star team of screen

writers (Noah Hawley, Aaron Guzikowski, Ed Solomon, Chris Morgan, Alex Kurtzman) who are

being referred to as “Monster Men”. These men are being tasked with creating the scripts to

films about The Mummy, Dracula, The Wolfman, Frankenstein, The Invisible Man, The Bride of

Frankenstein, and Van Helsing. This is a long list of monster films, and they key is that they will

all be connected via a central character in the same vein as Nick Fury (Cinema Blend, 2014).

As such, cross overs between the characters in these new franchises will be routine, and

another spherical model of production will be created. Without the model of Marvel, some of

these monster films may be been made over the years, but not with such a comprehensive plan of

cohesive entertainment.

If Universal is any indication, consumers should be ready for their entertainment to come

in this spherical form not as a novelty, but as a norm. As Marvel has demonstrated, this large

spheres have the power to squeeze out the competition in the box office, making it difficult for

standalone films to own a release weekend.

Film and television is called mass media because it is consumed by the masses. As such,

entertainment franchises and the ideology they promote can hold very powerful sway. The

possibility presented by this new model of production seems to be that franchises need not be

contained narratives. Instead, they can be made up of many texts and many genres led by

creative teams of many backgrounds. This may imply that big conglomerates like Disney and

Marvel can create franchises so vast that they can occupy such a large place in the market that

other films may not survive. We must ask ourselves as scholars, consumers and professionals, is

this a good thing? When we can answer this question, we can better interrogate our entertainment

and use it as a lens for critical thought.

References:

Barnes, B, & Cieply, M. (2009, August 31). Disney swoops into action, buying Marvel for $4

billion. The New York Times. Retrieved from

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/01/business/media/01disney.html?_r=0

Ben-Shaul, N. S. (2008). Hyper-narrative interactive cinema: Problems and solutions (Vol. 18).

Rodopi.

Brooker, W. (2001). Living on Dawson’s Creek: Teen viewers, cultural convergence, and

television overflow. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 4(4), 456-472.

DirtyOldTown (username). (2015, April 10). Daredevil: Cut Man. FanFare. Retrieved from a

post on http://fanfare.metafilter.com/3017/Daredevil-Cut-Man

Couldry, N. (2000). Inside culture: Re-imagining the method of cultural studies. London: Sage.

Fast, K, & Ornebring, H. (2015). Transmedia world-building: The Shadow (1931-present) and

Transformers (1984-present). International Journal of Cultural Studies, 1-17.

Flanagan, M., Livingstone, A., & McKenny, M. (2016). The Marvel Studios Phenomenon: Inside

a Transmedia Universe. Bloomsbury Publishing USA.

Fleming Jr., M. (2015, October 15). Alejandro G. Inarritu and ‘Birdman’ scribes on Hollywood’s

superhero fixation: ‘Poison, cultural genocide’- Q&A. Deadline Hollywood. Retrieved

from deadline.com/2014/10/birdman-director-alejandro-gonzalez-inarritu-writers-

interviews-852206/

Hardy, J. (2011). Mapping commercial intertextuality: HBO’s True Blood.

Convergence, 17(1), 7-17.

Holland, L. (2012, June 19). Looking back at The Matrix. Den of Geek. Retrieved from

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/21716/looking-back-at-the-matrix

Jenkins, H. (2008;2006;). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York:

New York University Press.

Johnson, D. (2012). 'Cinematic Destiny': Marvel studios and the trade stories of industrial

convergence. Cinema Journal, 52(1), 1-24.

Johnson, D. (2007). Will the real Wolverine please stand up?: Marvel's mutation from monthlies

to movies. In I. Gordon, M. Jancovich, & M.P. McAllister (Eds.), Film and comic books

(pp. 64-85). Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi.

Keyes, R. (2013, November 7). Marvel & Netflix confirm deal for 4 TV shows & ‘Defenders’

miniseries. Screen Rant. Retrieved from http://screenrant.com/marvel-netflix-deal-tv-

shows-daredevil-luke-cage-iron-fist-jessica-jones/

Lefevre, P. (2007). Incompatible visual ontologies? The problematic adaptation of drawn images.

In I. Gordon, M. Jancovich & M.P. McAllister (Eds.). Film and comic books (pp. 1-12).

Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi.

McAllister, M.P., Gordon, I., & Jancovich, M. (2006). Art house meets graphic novel, or

blockbuster meets superhero comic?: The contradictory relationship between film and

comic art. Journal of Popular Film and Television, 34(3), 108-114.

McRobbie, A. (2007). Post feminism and popular culture: Bridget Jones and the new gender

regime. In Y. Tasker & D. Negra (eds.), Interrogating postfeminism: Gender and the

politics of popular culture. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.

Meehan, E.R. (1991). 'Holy Commodity Fetish, Batman!': The political economy of the

commercial intertext. In R.E. Pearson & W. Uricchio (Eds.). The many lives of the

Batman: Critical approaches to a superhero and his media (pp. 47-65). New York:

Routledge.

Mendelson, S. (2014, June 23). Tim Burton’s ‘Batman’ at 25, and it’s wonderful, terrible legacy.

Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2014/06/23/tim-

burtons-batman-at-25-and-its-wonderful-terrible-legacy/#1d977a624458

Milchan, A. (Director). (2005). Elektra [Motion picture]. 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment.

Naremore, J. (1998). More Than Night: Film Noir in Its Contexts. Berkeley: University of

California Press.

O’Connell, S. (2014, November 13). Universal’s Monster Universe: What we know so far.

Cinema Blend. Retrieved from http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Universal-Monster-

Universe-What-We-Know-So-Far-68204.html

Proffitt, J.M., Tchoi, D.Y., & McAllister, M.P. (2007). Plugging back into The Matrix: The

intertextual flow of corporate media commodities. Journal of Communication Inquiry,

31(3), 239-254.

Scott, N. (2015, April 24). On ‘Daredevil’ and the greatest fight scene in TV history. USA

Today. Retrieved from http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/04/daredevil-hallway-scene-fight-

netflix

 
87 
Spangler, T. (2014, February 26). Disney to spend $200 million on Marvel series for Netflix set 
to film in New York. Variety. Retrieved from http://variety.com/2014/biz/news/disney-
chief-bob-iger-new-york-gov-andrew-cuomo-set-11-am-et-news-conference-
1201121502/ 
 
Spangler, T. (2013, November 7). Netflix orders four Marvel live-action series. Variety. 
Retrieved from http://variety.com/2013/digital/news/netflix-orders-four-marvel-live-
action-series-1200804887/ 
 
Van Veen, T. (2003, June 27).  Matrix multitudes in Japan: Reality bleed or corporate 
performance? Hallucinations and Antics, Retrieved from 
http://www.quadrantcrossing.org/blog/C1692035385/E1656161427/ in Jenkins, H. 
(2008;2006;). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New 
York University Press. 
 
Travers, P. (1999, March 31). The Matrix. Rolling Stone.  Retrieved from 
http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/reviews/the-matrix-20010418 
 
Walt. (2013, June 9). A look back at the Superman movie 1978.  Retrieved from 
www.comicstalkblog.com/archives/7969 
 
Wilson, K. (2016, January 2). 12 worst movie & TV adaptations of beloved comic book 
characters. Screen Rant. Retrieved from screenrant.com/worst-movie-tv-adaptations-
beloved-comic-book-characters/?view=all  

Wolf M.P. (2012). Building imaginary worlds: The theory and history of subcreation. New York:

Routledge.

Young, P. (2009, August 31). So Disney bought Marvel…What does it all mean? Screen Rant.

Retrieved from http://screenrant.com/disney-marvel-deal-2-pauly-23687/