An Alternate Approach to Adaptation: Superheroes, Branding and Media Franchise Culture
by
Katerina Marazi
A dissertation submitted to the Department of Translation and Intercultural Studies,
School of English Language and Literature,
Faculty of Philosophy – Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
In fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
2017
An Alternate Approach to Adaptation: Superheroes, Branding and Media Franchise Culture
by
Katerina Marazi
has been approved
June 2018
Supervising Committee: Approved:
Michalis Kokonis (Professor, School of English) ……………………
Tatiani Rapatzikou (Associate Professor, School of English) ……………………
Eleftheria Thanouli (Assistant Professor, School of Film) ……………………
Department Chairperson: Approved:
Fotini Apostolou ………………….
In dedication to my family and all who encouraged and believed in me
We all wish we had superpowers. We all wish we could do more than we can do. -Stan Lee
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all the members of the committee for their insightful and challenging questions. Their words of praise have given me confidence and their unique perspectives have provided constructive feedback towards my further development and improvement as a researcher.
I would like to extend a heartfelt thank you to the members of my supervising committee. Dr. Kokonis has shown patience, persistence and support in this long endeavor. His comments, corrections, and direction have helped shape this dissertation. He has given me the motivation to seek out conference opportunities, publication opportunities and has been unfailing in his efforts to help me develop my research background further. Dr. Rapatzikou has been a constant and stable force of support. She has encouraged me to pursue conference, seminar and employment opportunities. She has always been available for long, extensive discussions concerning my research and academic development. Her corrections and comments have helped navigate me in this long, arduous journey. Dr. Thanouli’s attention to detail and advice have enabled me to see and draw significant connections in my research. Her guidance and rigorous line of questions have shown me the complexity, demands and significance of clear and coherent positioning and argumentation in the field of research as well as that of academia.
Overall, the unique contributions of my supervisors have molded and motivated me as a researcher. Their suggestions have enriched my research experience and have equipped me with skills, knowledge and the desire to pursue more and achieve more. Without their help, assistance and guidance this dissertation would not be what it is and for that I humbly extend my gratitude and appreciation.
Table of Contents
Abstract i
Introduction 1
Chapter One: Delineating the Field, Presenting the Problem and Elevating the Context 25
1.1 Adaptation Prejudices and Debates: Identifying the Problem 26
1.2 Approaching and Defining Adaptations from a Cultural Perspective 40
1.3 Conglomerate Hollywood, Media Franchises and Branded Entertainment 52
Chapter Two: Brand Identity, Superheroes and Cultural Adaptation 73
2.1 Identity and Branding: Adaptation as a Cultural Process of Brand Identity Articulation 74
2.2 Re-evaluating the Original: Brand Characters, the Role of Identity and the Superhero- 94 Adaptation Analogy
2.3 Extended Brand Identity and the Blending of Marketing and Narrative: Establishing the 113 Content/Form/Context Triptych
2.4 Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) Phase One: An Extended Identity Brand 128
Chapter Three: Fidelity or Value? Power Play in the Brand Context 148
3.1 Brand Management and Fandom: the Value of Power Play in the Brand Context 149
3.2 The Brand System of The Avengers: Leveraging and Creating the Megabrand 170
3.3 Adaptation or Trans-media? Media Franchises and the Cultural Value of Power Play and 179 Renegotiating Identities
Concluding Remarks 206
Works Cited 215
Short Bio 234
Marazi i
Abstract
This dissertation argues that adaptation is a cultural practice involving the conscious negotiation and change of identities taking place along the vertical axis of hierarchies. The vertical axis constitutes the context of adaptation. The conscious negotiation results in a variety of texts and products along the horizontal axis of narrative media. The dynamics of both axes reveal the intentions and purposes of those who adapt texts or products. Furthermore, the two axes demonstrate the power play between those who adapt and those who receive the adapted product or text. It is the power play, however, along the vertical axis that influences and governs the process and product of adaptation. The point of intersection confirms adaptation products as synchronic identities. The dynamic relationship of the vertical and horizontal axes on the other hand confirms the diachronic nature of adaptation as practice.
Adaptation is first and foremost a cultural practice of identity negotiation. To support this argument, the current dissertation adopts a cultural studies approach to adaptation as both process and product. As a cultural practice adaptation can produce literary texts but it should not be understood as producing only literary texts. To that end, this dissertation more specifically combines elements from John Bryant’s fluid-text approach so as to argue that all texts, both source material and adaptations, exhibit an identity. The practice of adaptation is concerned with negotiating how that identity will manifest concretely.
Contrary to expectations, this project does not provide a textual analysis of its case studies. Rather a contextual examination is conducted by employing the tool of brand identity.
The chosen case study this dissertation provides a contextual reading of is the Marvel Cinematic
Universe (MCU) Phase One franchise. While adaptation theory examines the end-product or text, brand identity is dependent on the product-context relationship and the development of an Marazi ii identity. By adopting brand identity for the examination of adaptations, one is immediately confronted with what the entertainment industry is adapting, namely identities of Intellectual
Properties (IPs) that are treated and promoted as brands. Brand identity demonstrates the workings of culture via its structure, aims and intentions. The structure of brand identity provides an alternate way of approaching, analyzing, and comparing adaptations because it takes the context of production/reception into consideration. As a result, it reveals the power play in the dialogue between producers and audiences concerning the adapted identity.
In contrast to adaptation studies which so far focus on the literary and textual aspects of adaptations as products, this project focuses on the cultural significance of the context and adaptation as a process. The overarching question this dissertation seeks to answer is what adaptation is and what is its cultural significance? The answer, as this project demonstrates, is not found solely in the adaptation products. It is located in the dynamic relationship of products, process and context. In other words, cultural significance lays in the interrelationships between producers, texts and consumers that negotiate and contribute to the perpetuation of cultural textual-identities.
Marazi 1
Introduction
The field of Adaptation Studies emerged out of the novel-to-film comparisons originally developing a path of its own ever since. In essence a complex, controversial and interdisciplinary field, for a long time it has been the focus of literary and film scholars. These disciplines have provided significant textual comparisons and analysis of adaptations by focusing on the horizontal axis of texts and narrative media. The main problem, however, is that the cultural context that produces adaptations has been overlooked. Focus along the vertical axis of context, process and value are lacking. The acknowledgment of the cultural context is vital because it confirms that adaptation is both a product and a process. Literary Studies, and Film Studies are capable of providing interdisciplinary examinations of adaptations resulting in richer accounts and interpretations. Instead, they provide discipline-specific textual comparisons with a persistent focus on what and how a work is adapted. The sole focus on the adaptation text creates a domino effect resulting in debates and dilemmas revolving around matters of fidelity and medium-specificity discourses. This is due to the fact that individual disciplines view adaptations only as literary texts instead of a cultural process resulting in products. Other questions remain for the most part neglected. For instance, who is the adaptor, why does an adaptation occur, under what conditions are a work adapted and for what purposes? The most frequent re- occurring question in adaptation, “Which is better, the book or the film?” ironically, is not literary but cultural.
Adaptation Studies exhibits a limited scope when embarking solely on textual comparisons of the aforementioned kind. In order to answer questions such as is adaptation necessary, why adapt some works instead of others, what is the significance of adapting certain works over and over again, one needs to take the context of production and reception into Marazi 2 consideration. For instance, textual comparisons adopting a gender studies approach could reveal the different treatment and representation of gender between novel and film. Approaches such as this are more frequent and they do move away from medium-specificity and fidelity discourses.
Nevertheless, they would pose as even richer accounts if they took the logic and mentality of the process into consideration. Viewing how the production team handles gender representation for instance when adapting a film, and how audiences interpret such representations would culturally enrich textual and adaptation comparisons. The adaptation of comic books, graphic novels, video games, and theatrical plays further demonstrates that the notion of adaptation goes beyond a novel and a film. Therefore, it is vital to move beyond debates that originate from a novel/film hierarchy and from prejudices focused on this hierarchy. In addition, contemporary practices of trans-media storytelling prompt a reevaluation of the definition of adaptation in light of both catering to storytelling practices across multiple media. What is more, adaptations may indeed offer longevity to any work but that does not explain why some works are not adapted and why others are adapted many times over. Hence, new questions arise such as: “Is it necessary to adapt?” and “Why do we adapt certain works or texts?”
To understand adaptation as a process one needs to examine the context of production as well as of reception. As a result, new areas of interest and approaches to adaptation products emerge. For instance, in addition to film narratology, the film industry exhibits economic interests, marketing strategies and sociopolitical factors evident in producer-audience relationships. Examining the product via the process poses as an integral turn in the field. For example, economic motives aside, individual disciplines alone cannot sufficiently answer why we adapt stories when they focus only on the text. The main reason being the intentions for adaptation are not specific to a single discipline and they are not always explicitly evident in the Marazi 3 text. Therefore, Adaptation Studies needs to consider the vertical hierarchies of the value of adaptations that pertain to intentions and how those intentions are received before proceeding to literary, film, or semiotic analyses of the texts. Just as practice precedes theory in adaptation, so too does context precede and determine the end-text. The context within which a work is adapted should be considered first. The context to a high degree influences what, how and, in some cases, why the work is actually adapted. More importantly, the context shapes the identity of the story that is to be adapted. Furthermore, as this dissertation argues, the context does not negotiate texts. Instead, it negotiates the identities of texts, what makes a product a text, and what makes it a superhero text in particular, in order to produce more texts.
This dissertation argues that adaptation is a cultural practice of production and reception involving the elements of identity negotiation and change in a particular context. The notion of identity as adopted in this dissertation is dependent on the tool of brand identity which will be delineated further down. Linda Hutcheon confirms that "[a]n adaptation, like the work it adapts, is always framed in a context – a time and a place, a society, and a culture; it does not exist in a vacuum" (142). What is adapted is an identity that acts as an interpretive and creative response of prior and current identities. These identities engage both producers and consumers in a cultural dialogue of meaning-making and identity forging, thereby exhibiting dynamics of a power play.
This project aims at establishing the cultural significance and intentions of adaptation within the media entertainment industry context of conglomerate Hollywood. The focus is on the context of franchise culture. The overarching question this dissertation seeks to answer is: what is adaptation and what is its cultural significance? This will be achieved not by following the conventional comparative textual reading and analysis of adaptations but by implementing a contextual reading of adaptation identities. Marazi 4
The starting point for this dissertation is Robert Stam and Alessandra Raengo’s Literature and Film: A Guide to the Theory and Practice of Film Adaptation (2005) a work that reveals unexplored areas in the field of adaptation. According to Stam, an area that Cultural Studies has neglected is the vertical hierarchies of value (9). In other words, the interrelationships of texts or intertextuality and the interrelationships of producers, texts, and consumers have been overlooked. This poses as an area that extends beyond the text mainly towards the value and role of the context of production and reception. Stam informs that Cultural Studies has been keener on exploring the horizontal relations between neighboring media whilst viewing all narrative media as texts. More specifically, "adaptation forms part of a flattened out and newly egalitarian spectrum of cultural productions;" (10-11). Adaptation becomes yet another text. While this has posed as an arable ground for the impact of poststructuralism and the implementation of Julia
Kristeva's theory of intertextuality, discourses of medium-specificity and fidelity continue to plague the field of adaptation and perpetuate certain debates. Seeing the need to explore the matter of context and vertical hierarchies further, the point of departure for this dissertation is
Linda Hutcheon's seminal work A Theory of Adaptation (2006).
Unlike previous scholars who provide a comparative textual reading of adaptations,
Hutcheon calls attention to how adaptation can be viewed as both a product and a process. She suggests the need for a theoretical perspective that is formal and experiential. Hutcheon's method
"has been to identify a text-based issue that extends across a variety of media, find ways to study it comparatively, and then tease out the theoretical implications from multiple textual examples"
(xii). Believing that common denominators across genres and media can be as telling as the differences, Hutcheon shifts focus from individual media – thus avoiding the medium-specificity pitfalls – to a broader context of how we engage with stories, namely telling, showing and Marazi 5 interacting (xiv). By posing questions such as what? who? why? how? where? when? something is adapted, Hutcheon raises awareness towards the fact that Adaptation Studies needs to examine areas of production and reception even more. The focus should not solely be that of textual comparisons. This is complemented further by the collection of essays titled Adaptation Studies:
New Approaches (2010) that draw attention towards intentionality as will be seen further down.
Given the notions of context, process and intentionality two main features that have influenced the current dissertation are: i) the notion of adaptations as interpretations of and responses towards a source text which draws on Mikhail Bakhtin’s concept of the utterance and ii) the need to consider the aspect of intentionality which I see as integral when examining vertical hierarchies and adaptation as a process.
Adaptation Studies has adopted to a degree the tendency of viewing adaptations as utterances towards or responses to other works both prior and contemporary. This view has influenced the stance of this project as one that sees adaptations as interpretive/creative responses. More importantly, the notion of utterance emphasizes the significance of context.
With regard to adaptation, this dissertation accepts that each text can be viewed as an utterance in a dialogue pertaining to the perpetuation of an identity. Bakhtin has argued that
"[u]nderstanding comes to fruition only in the response, [thus], [a]daptations should be seen as responses to other texts that form a necessary step in the process of understanding. Rather than seeing adaptations as taking one thing and placing it into another context, we should recognize that the ‘essence' is neither knowable nor directly representable" (qtd. in Albrecht-Crane and
Cutchins 17). Instead, adaptations enter into a dialogue with the original and other adaptations of the original. If one were to view this in a broader sense, then one could even claim that all texts enter into a dialogue with all other texts to a higher or lesser degree. There is no one essence or Marazi 6 core text being adapted, a fact that explains why so many adaptations of a specific text can occur.
Rather as utterances, each text establishes an identity in a particular chronotope.
Bakhtin’s dialogism has also influenced the present dissertation due to the fact that it is rooted in the idea of the utterance, not simply as a unit of language but as a unit of communication and social interaction. When applied to adaptations, it emphasizes the inseparability of text/context, process/product, and horizontal/vertical axes. As Stam explains,
“‘dialogism’ […] refers in the broadest sense to the infinite and open-ended possibilities generated by all the discursive practices of a culture, the matrix of communicative utterances which ‘reach’ the text not only through recognizable citations but also through a subtle process of indirect textual relays” (27). In order to reach the end-product, this process of dialogism needs to precede it. This is where the notion of the Bakhtin’s chronotope proves useful. Bakhtin’s notion of the chronotope exemplifies the communication between works of different socio- historical contexts. According to Bakhtin, chronotopes:
are mutually inclusive, they co-exist, they may be interwoven with, replace or oppose
one another, contradict one another or find themselves in ever more complex
interrelationships.1 The relationships themselves that exist among chronotopes cannot
enter into any of the relationships contained within chronotopes. The general
characteristic of these interactions is that they are dialogic. (252, emphasis in the
original)
1 In Bakhtin’s The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays (1981), the concept of dialogism, or heteroglossia, is explained as the way “of referring, in any utterance of any kind, to the peculiar interaction between the two fundamentals of all communication. On the one hand, a mode of transcription must, in order to do its work of separating out texts, be a more or less fixed system. But these repeatable features, on the other hand, are in the power of the particular context in which the utterance is made; this context can refract, add to, or, in some cases, even subtract from the amount and kind of meaning the utterance may be said to have when it is conceived only as a systematic manifestation independent of context” (xix). Marazi 7
What this entails for the process of adaptation is that it is not enough to simply restrict one’s view to the dialogue existing between text-chronotopes. A textual comparison will only take us so far. This dialogue must include the context, namely the production team and their intentions as well as the audience and their expectations. Even though Bakhtin’s focus is that of the novel, his ideas of dialogism and chronotope are applicable beyond that. The reason for this is because he appoints the term “novel […] to whatever force is at work within a given literary system to reveal the limits [and] the artificial constraints of that system” (xxxi). What is more, if the term
“novel” is seen as something new, or different then by extension adaptations, as both products and processes, cater to the on-going supplication of utterances. The idea of “novel” refutes the
“generic monologue,” because it insists on “the dialogue between what a given system will admit as literature and those texts that are otherwise excluded from such a definition” (xxxi). It is at this point that I would like to stress the importance of the notion “system” and its connection to the context and the intentions of the institutional factors within different contexts.
In spite of past misconceptions, adaptations are not simply copies or duplicates of an original due to the varying degrees of differences with the source material. This is re-affirmed by the current direction Adaptation Studies has taken. This current direction focuses more on differences and intertextuality. In their Adaptation Studies: New Approaches (2010), Christa
Albrecht-Crane and Dennis Ray Cutchins emphasize the need to focus on “difference” rather than sameness. As they posit “[d]iscovering difference then becomes not a quest to uncover the inevitable lack of fidelity, but rather an affirmative focus on how texts form and in-form each other” (15-16). Evidently, there is a change in attitude towards similarities/differences. As adaptation is a process that involves change, differences between texts or narrative media will occur. Orson Welles once pointed out that “[i]f one has nothing new to say about a novel, why Marazi 8 adapt it at all?” (qtd. in Stam 16). Welles’s comment, however, reflects the intentions behind the adaptation process, intentions that according to Noël Carroll are not medium-specific.2 Focus on similarities/differences, although not completely unavoidable, can ultimately lead back to discourses of medium-specificity and fidelity. Thus, it is difficult to escape from dichotomous thinking when examining adaptations. For instance, the perpetual question of which is better, the novel or the film, is one that initially prompted my academic interest in adaptations.
Nevertheless, I find the question problematic on the grounds that it should not be a matter of choice between one and the other. It should be a matter of how the novel version and film version help one understand the function, the significance and the cultural value of adaptation.
Hutcheon, for instance, defines adaptation as a retelling of stories without reiteration, hence signaling that differences are evident (xvi). However, to experience multiple adaptations of a story is to experience multiple and varied retellings. As a result, we discover something new, confirm various points and possibly understand aspects in a different light. Adaptations do not replace or copy the source material. As argued earlier, they act as interpretive and creative responses to the source material capable of generating more versions.
By emphasizing the idea of intentionality, one brings the production studio or production team and their intentions to the forefront alongside the text. If we are aware of these intentions, then we will not necessarily attribute various shortcomings of the adaptation to medium incapabilities or long-held prejudices. Albrecht-Crane and Cutchins argue that adaptation theory must address the issue of intentionality (19). It is vital to take the context within which a work is
2 Carroll in his Theorizing the Moving Image (1996) views styles, genres, movements and their subtending purposes as not deriving from media where he states, "[t]he medium is initially tongue-tied as regards these issues" (14). Hence, it is vital to not confuse intentions with the capabilities that a narrative or medium exhibits. According to Carroll, "the purposes we find for the medium derive from the preoccupations of the culture at large as well as the particular momentums – artistic revolutions and long-term developments – that inhere in the art world at a given point in time" (14). This is a vital point to consider and an issue that cannot be accommodated when focusing solely on textual comparisons and not acknowledging how the context, in this case, the production, seeks to use a medium in order to adapt a source material. Marazi 9 being adapted into consideration, as it will determine the intentions of the production team. This is an indication of attention towards the vertical hierarchies of value. The value of adaptation and by extension its products, the process as well as issues of interest and debates are context specific. What this means is that value is negotiable and malleable, temporary and transient. As
Bakhtin remarked: “[t]o study the word as such, ignoring the impulse that reaches out beyond it, is just as senseless, as to study psychological experience outside the context of that real life toward which it was directed and by which it is determined” (292). Any observations regarding similarities/differences and choices in general between source and adaptation are lacking in meaning, if not contextualized within an authorial/producing intentional scheme. What is more, if these similarities/differences are reconsidered in light of identity negotiation then this can alleviate Adaptation Studies from the dichotomous thinking brought on by medium-specificity and fidelity discourses.
While the matter of intentionality is given some attention in Adaptation Studies: New
Approaches (2010), I believe it should be more prominent given the practices of production and cultural consumption. Julia Kristeva’s theory of intertextuality is another vital component to consider when examining the context because intertextuality is enacted by producers and realized by consumers. All texts can exhibit intertextuality, meaning that audiences can draw associations between texts. Adaptations, however, prompt specific intertextual associations with the source work. By being an announced retelling of a source work, however, an adaptation announces the existence of associations with the source work. That being said, adaptations also stand as works on their own thus allowing audiences to draw associations between the adapted text and other works. Therefore, adaptations and source texts each exhibit their own textual identity. The only publications I have encountered that assigns the notion identity to a text is John Bryant’s critical Marazi 10 article “Textual identity and adaptive revision: Editing adaptation as a fluid text” and his seminal work The fluid text: A theory of revision and editing for book and screen (2002).
Bryant adopts the fluid-text approach arguing that a “work is the sum of its versions; creativity extends beyond the solitary writer, and writing is a cultural event transcending media
(47).3 In order to explore the vertical hierarchies of adaptation as a process, I feel more than a textual approach is required. This is where the notion of the fluid text is useful because it draws attention to aspects that constitute the identity of a text. Hutcheon also refers to the matter of intentionality by drawing on John Bryant's The fluid text: A theory of revision and editing for the book and screen (2002), where fluid texts pose as the “material evidence of shifting intentions”
(9, emphasis in original). The theory of adaptation appearing one step behind that of adaptation practice needs to broaden its scope and begin considering the context of adapted works. Kamilla
Elliott argues in her critical essay “Theorizing Adaptations/Adapting Theories” that “adaptations require theories to adapt to them” (20-21, emphasis in original) a valid argument considering that adaptation practice precedes that of theory. Depending on how adaptation practices change and evolve, so too the theories and approaches employed to examine them must develop. For example, many have accused adaptations of exhibiting an alleged “profanity” of bastardization,
3 Bryant points out that “if adaptation is to achieve its proper textual legitimacy, we need a broader conception of geneticism in which the notion of work embraces all versions of a text, including sources and adaptations, and the creative process is extended to include all forms of revision, both authorial and cultural” (48). He clarifies that the fluid text “is any work that exists in multiple versions in which the primary cause of those versions is some form of revision. Revisions may be performed by originating writers, by their editors and publishers, or by readers and audiences, who reshape the originating work to reflect their own desires for the text, themselves, their culture. This third category, which he has elsewhere been called ‘cultural revision,’ is the proper arena of adaptation. Bryant explains and clarifies the ideas and terms he implements: “[a]daptation is an announced retelling of an originating text;” “[a]nnounced adaptations are distinct from but related to adapted revision, in which an originating writer or adaptor appropriates a borrowed text and, by ‘quoting’ it, essentially revises it and therefore adapts it, though in an intertextual and necessarily partial rather than comprehensive way;” “[b]oth announced adaptation and adaptive revision are versions of the originating or borrowed text;” “[t]he meaning of any adaptation is essentially a measuring of the critical distances between and among adaptive versions;” “[i]nterpretation is the analysis of the strategies of revision perceived in the making of these textual distances;” “[w]hile versions are necessarily interconnected, they possess distinct textual identities. The ethics of adaptation is knowing and acknowledging the boundaries of textual identity;" "[e]diting adaptation and adaptive revision are best achieved through digital and fluid text approaches” (48-49, emphasis in original). Marazi 11 essentially violating or desecrating an “original” text. Bryant provides a unique take on this by drawing on the ethics of adaptation which will be seen in Chapter One. These accusations, however, are directed towards the text due to the textual focus certain disciplines have adopted for the examination of adaptations. The choices, purposes, and intent that lead to the end-text, however, are made by a production team under certain circumstances and influenced by various industry policies, legal matters, and contextual parameters. Consequently, both a contextual reading of and a context-representative tool that considers the aims and scope of the context and the dialogue within that context is necessary. After all, there is more than one way to adapt a text and there is more than one reason for doing so.
While Bryant argues for a fluid text, I would take this a step further and argue for fluid identities, when it comes to adaptations specifically. If adaptations are to be viewed as identities, then matters of narrative and media simply become aspects, features or textures of that identity.
They do not dictate the identity. I would, nonetheless, agree with Bryant that texts set the boundaries of their distinct identities, identities that manifest in the end-text due to the purposes and intentions of their context. Given the range of products, literary and non-literary, that can be produced and adapted, the fluid text is not broadly applicable. The fluidity of a text's identity can be vague and ambiguous when examined from various disciplines unless one takes the intentions of the context into consideration. The intentions of the context this dissertation is examining are governed by branding which is why the tool and theory this dissertation employs is brand identity.
Etymologically speaking, the word "brand" is defined as "marking with a branding iron," for instance when burning the skin of animals, especially cattle, so as to indicate ownership or property. In this light, the context of production brands the texts it produces. The American Marazi 12
Marketing Association defines the word brand as "a name, a term, a strategy, a symbol or any other characteristic that creates associations with the product, the service or the company and distinguishes it from others (trans. by Dimitra Zervaki). According to Matthew Healey in his,
What is Branding? (2008), brands are understood as “a promise of satisfaction,” while the process of branding is the “continuous struggle between producers and customers to define that promise and meaning” (6). Branding is not to be confused with marketing. According to Dimitra
Zervaki in her article "What is Branding and the Brand?" (2015), branding refers to the strategy a company adopts while marketing refers to the actual tactics the company will follow so as to realize the adopted strategy. Thus, branding precedes marketing, it is a dynamic non-linear process where branding is the umbrella term that encompasses marketing, design, and trademarks. Zervaki stresses that branding is something that triggers a feeling in the minds of consumers. It sets consumer expectations and it is the impression people have of a company, its services, and its products. It enables the distinction between companies, products, and services.
Most importantly, it is predominantly connected with the creation and negotiation of identity in the sense of who we are, who we want to be and how we want consumers to perceive us (trans. by Zervaki, n.pag.)4. Following this logic, the identity that is negotiated in the process of adaptation within the context of franchise culture is that of the respective genre and the respective production team.
The decision to implement brand identity theory is based on the matter of context. The majority of adaptations in American popular culture are produced within the context of
4 According to Zervaki brand and branding are: a promise; the way products distinguish from other similar products; what consumers believe about a company; the feeling created via the interaction with a product, service or company; the tangible representation of a company’s values; a set of expectations that have been met and satisfied; the trust between a company and consumers; the intangible value of a company; a set of unique benefits; the reasons for purchasing something; the story of the brand; the symbol of the brand; how messages and their meanings are communicated with or without words; a consumer’s experience; and the impression left to consumers after their latest interaction with the brand (n.pag.). Marazi 13 conglomerate Hollywood. Hollywood deals in intellectual property content and treats intellectual properties as brands. According to Aaker, brand identity is:
A unique set of brand associations that the brand strategist aspires to create or
maintain. These associations represent what the brand stands for and imply a promise
to the customer from the organization members. Brand identity should help establish
a relationship between the brand and the customer by generating a value proposition
involving functional, emotional or self-expressive benefits. (68)
As a result, brand identity is the tool this dissertation adopts in order to perform a contextual reading of its chosen case study, the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) Phase One franchise. In the context under examination in this dissertation, the dynamic identity negotiation that takes place is between superheroes and Marvel resulting in Marvel branded superheroes. The logic behind the choice of brand identity is threefold: i) it combines Bryant’s fluid text identity approach and the five major cultural processes coined as the circuit of culture;5 ii) it is representative of franchise culture context practices, whether literary, cinematic or other; iii) it caters to a contextual reading as it takes context, text, and paratexts into consideration. Brand identity is the most representative tool one can employ, so as to understand the logic and practices of franchise culture.
5 The circuit of culture this project will draw on is that employed by Paul du Gay et al. in their Doing Cultural Studies: The Story of the Sony Walkman (1997). The Circuit of Culture (the Circuit) as a concept was coined by Stuart Hall and members of the British Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS). It was initially "created as a tool of cultural analysis […] and later developed as a conceptual basis to the 1997 Culture, Media, and Identities series (Sage & Open University) (cited in Leve 1). More specifically, Hall’s encoding/decoding model is believed to be the precursor to later circuit models developed by cultural theorists. The particular circuit this project will employ was refined in 1997. According to Chris Barker in his Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice (2016) "cultural meaning [in this model] is produced and embedded at each level of the circuit. The meaningful work of each level is necessary, but not sufficient for or determining of, the next instance in the circuit. Each moment – production, representation, identity, consumption, and regulation – involves the production of meaning which is articulated, linked with, the next moment. However, it does not determine what meanings will be taken up or produced at that level (69). Marazi 14
The works that have proven influential in this area are David A. Aaker’s brand identity theory developed in his Building Strong Brands (1996), as well as Derek Johnson’s “Will The
Real Wolverine Please Stand Up? Marvel’s Mutation from Monthlies to Movies;” also, his
Franchising Media Worlds: Content Networks and the Collaborative Production of Culture
(2009). In the first, Johnson references David A. Aaker as “providing the basis […] to understand the relationship between Marvel, its comic characters, and their incarnations in multiple product lines across varying media" (69) via brand identity. In the latter, Johnson explores content networks, imaginary worlds, and media franchises, arguing for the emergence of a franchise culture where media texts, institutions, and audiences engage in significant, ongoing relationships. Aside from Johnson, Paul Grainge in his Brand Hollywood: Selling
Entertainment in a Global Media Age (2008) also confirms that Hollywood itself is a brand that deals in branded entertainment. The concept of brand and branding is becoming so widespread that it is being applied to authors and directors as well such as Stephen King and Christopher
Nolan. Will Brooker is yet another scholar who advocates that adaptations form content-matrixes that are treated as brands, as he indicates in his Hunting the Dark Knight: Twenty-First Century
Batman (2012).
Brand identity demonstrates the workings of culture via its structure, aims, and intentions. It reveals the power play between production and reception in the attempt to communicate and negotiate the notion of who we are, who we want to be and how we want others to perceive us. Through the prism of brand identity one understands that prejudices do not originate from the texts themselves but from within the context that adapts, transforms, interprets and consumes such texts. The structure of brand identity consists of four perspectives, namely Marazi 15 product, organization, person, and symbol.6 It provides an alternate way of approaching, analyzing and comparing adaptations. Adaptation is initially a cultural process that is context- specific and influences what is adapted, how it is adapted and for which purposes. Brand identity assists in identifying the purposes and scope of adaptation. As a tool that both encompasses and reflects the cultural practices of franchise culture, it can shed light on the vertical hierarchies of
Adaptation values.
Contrary to expectations, this dissertation will not provide a comparative textual analysis, nor does it seek to explore the semiotic, narrative or media similarities/differences across texts. It does not even intend to apply theories such as Gender Studies, Gothic representation or a Marxist approach so as to interpret the texts. What is more, it does not claim to provide a reading of the paratextual features or the discourse surrounding the texts. All the aforementioned have already been done by other scholars such as Henry Jenkins, Derek Johnson, Ian Gordon, Matthew P.
McAllister, Angela Ndalianis, Will Brooker, Pascal Lefèvre, Deborah Cartmell, and Marie-Laure
Ryan to name but a few. Instead, this dissertation aims to contribute a contextual reading of the identity aspects and interrelations of the adaptation as process and as product and to renegotiate long-held debates in the field of adaptation. Through this contextual reading, it draws attention towards the vertical hierarchies of Adaptation values as a dialogic process of identity forging and meaning-making. Finally, it introduces the theoretical tool of brand identity arguably the most representative to examine the practices of the media-franchise context of both the Hollywood entertainment industry and pop culture.
As an industry, Hollywood has merged the culture with the economy by dealing in branded intellectual properties. Numerous scholars have written about the industrial aspect of
Hollywood and have examined its ancillary markets and their synergy. From a marketing
6 An explanation of these terms is provided on page 17. Marazi 16 standpoint, these intellectual properties are treated as brands, where usually a film adaptation acts as the driving force for an entire branded franchise (transmedia) experience.7 Thus, the process of and the aims of adaptation acquire a different logic than that8 which has been observed between works of fiction turned to film. What is more, in this context focus is not solely on the end product but also includes production phases and audience reception. Arguably, brand identity acts as a context-representative tool from which adaptation theory’s prejudices and long-held debates can be re-evaluated with regard to franchises. By taking into account the context of production one can begin deciphering the intentions of the production team to a high degree and begin attributing meaning to choices made in the adaptation product.9 In this context, all texts, both originals, and adaptations are viewed as intellectual properties and treated as brands.
In order to employ brand identity for the examination of adaptation as both process and product within a media franchise culture, one initially needs to reconsider and substitute terms such as “narrative” or “text” with intellectual property and brand. I feel that the notions of
“narrative” or “text” that have been used until now actually fuel the long-held debates of
7 Some of the most renowned branded media franchises which provide cultural experiences with the driving force being a blockbuster film include the following: Star Wars, Star Trek, The Lord of the Rings, The Matrix, The Pirates of the Caribbean, Jurassic Park, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Transformers. This cultural experience, however, need not be restricted to a blockbuster driving force; lately, The World of Warcraft and The Assassin’s Creed franchises have been adapted from video games to motion pictures. There are also television franchises that exhibit this cultural experience such as Lost, Game of Thrones, and The X-Files. 8 Among these scholars are Douglas Gomery, Tino Balio, Justin Wyatt, Murray Smith, Thomas Schatz, Janet Wasko, and Geoff King. While prior scholars have discussed the studio system, the blockbuster format, the marketing tactics and overall production practices, the only reference to brand intellectual properties has been in Janet Wasko’s account of the Disney brand in her Understanding Disney: The Manufacture of Fantasy (2003). In addition, scholars in Adaptation Studies have indeed commented on adaptations as utterances, the need to include the production's intentions but none have equated adaptations – and even their source material – with identity aspects as this dissertation is advocating. 9 It must be noted that knowing the precise intentions of any Hollywood studio or production team by employing brand identity alone is not feasible. This would require interviews with representatives of those studios a practice which certain scholars such as Derek Johnson and Casey Brienza have adopted. Given the high competition between studios, however, actually getting an interview let alone detailed insight into the practices of studios is quite difficult. Marazi 17 adaptation instead of reconciling them. Continuing to focus initially, almost exclusively on a textual comparison, in my opinion, perpetuates long-held debates. What is more, the postmodernist view of the text, while useful in matters of intertextuality, is also problematic when considering the issue of cultural meaning-making. True, in order to adapt a piece of work, an original text is of course necessary. Otherwise, the work produced would be the “original” in its own right. On the other hand, what would the point of adapting be, if the end result is just a duplicate of the exact same thing? Brand identity also inserts the idea of value into the equation and that prompts the reconsideration of issues and debates. Brand identity assists us in stripping down an intellectual property to the bare core basics, amplifies what is important but always acknowledges the status and quality of the source material. After all, in the mind-frame of pop culture, if an idea is not meaningful, negotiable, profitable, or valuable, then why build upon or invest in it.
While adaptation theory examines the end-product or text, brand identity is dependent on the product-context relationship and the development of an identity. By adopting brand identity for the examination of adaptations, one is immediately confronted with what the entertainment industry is adapting, namely identities of intellectual properties that are treated and promoted as brands. As this dissertation will examine in the following chapters, brands consist of a core and an extended identity which will exemplify the dialogic relation between original and adaptation.
The extended identity consists of four parameters that demonstrate how this tool does not focus only on the product or text. The four perspectives that cater to both the product and context are product, organization, personality, and symbol. Products are the tangible items or the services available to customers. The franchise films under examination constitute the products.
Organization refers to the production studio developing the brand product while personality can Marazi 18 cater to both the product and the organization. The Marvel brand is the organization behind the production of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase One franchise. The personality of the superheroes aside, the Phase One franchise is also imbued with the Marvel personality. The symbolic status indicates the widely established story and mentality of certain brands; this can allow for the differentiation and distinction of brands but it can also become a liability by being conceived as the generic/encyclopedic reference.10 The personality of brands can foster the development of a brand community where consumers can be entertained but also engage in meaning-making and identity-forging. Thus, if brands are more than products, adaptations are more than just texts. As a cultural practice, they signify something more that can only be understood by taking the context into consideration as well.
To achieve a contextual reading and examination of text-identities via brand identity theory, this dissertation adopts a Cultural Studies approach to adaptation. The main aim is to explore vertical hierarchies of value by arguing that adaptation is first and foremost a cultural practice. To that end, this dissertation more specifically combines elements from Bryant's fluid- text approach and the circuit of culture in order to argue that all texts, source material, and adaptations, exhibit an identity and the practice of adaptation is concerned with negotiating how that identity will manifest concretely. What is more, a contextual examination will display the interrelationships between producers, texts, and consumers whilst renegotiating long-held debates within the field of adaptation, namely the original, content/form and fidelity issues. The case studies this dissertation examines are those of American superheroes and, more specifically,
Marvel superheroes belonging to the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) franchise of Phase
10 Xerox and Kleenex are brand names but they have been adopted as the generic terms for referring to the products they have become so closely associated with, in other words copying machines and tissues. See Aaker, Building Strong Brands (1996). Marazi 19
One11. The films of Phase One include Iron Man (2008), Iron Man 2 (2010), Thor (2011),
Captain America: The First Avenger (2011), The Incredible Hulk (2008), and The Avengers
(2012).
The reasons why I have chosen the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) Phase One as my main case study are grounded on certain unique practices of the franchise as well as on matters of identity. At the point of this dissertation’s commencement, Phase One was near completion and no publications providing a similar reading of Phase One were available. Other well-known franchises such as Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, The Matrix have already been examined and, more importantly, they do not exhibit certain unique characteristics as the MCU Phase One does.
The MCU Phase One is innovative because it places great emphasis on a shared universe franchise12 and not single superhero franchises existing autonomously. Though this is also true of the phases that follow, another reason why I will focus only on Phase One is that it was developed when Marvel Studios was an autonomous brand organization and had not yet become a subsidiary of the Disney brand. This would entail viewing two brand organizations and would stray into areas of studio comparisons something that has already been done by scholars such as
Janet Wasko, Yannis Tzioumakis, Geoff King and Douglas Gomery.
Another reason for choosing the specific case study is how Marvel interweaves storytelling and marketing in the particular franchise. This practice accentuates the dialogue between producers and consumers and by extension raises awareness towards the power play
11 The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), sometimes referred to as the Marvel Film Universe, is an American media franchise whose unique characteristic is the shared fictional universe amongst varying series of independently-produced Marvel superhero films. All productions are based on superheroes that appear in the Marvel Comics publications. Phase One, otherwise referred to as Avengers Assemble initially introduces us to the core and most well-known Marvel superheroes, which will comprise the initial cinematic roster of the Avengers team. The basic characteristic of this phase is the emphasis placed on origin stories, laying the groundwork for future film projects. 12 A similar type shared universe set to be released in 2018 will weave together the stories of Stephen King in the upcoming television series Castle Rock, a project that will premiere on Hulu and is a result of the collaboration of Stephen King and J. J. Abrams. Marazi 20 between them with regard to meaning-making and brand community building. Both the idea of the shared universe and the interweaving of storytelling and marketing are practices that have inspired other companies to apply similar strategies to their franchises.13 Finally, modern day superheroes pose as an analogy for the “issues” found in the field of adaptation. This, of course, does not mean that the contextual reading provided is applicable or restricted only to instances of superhero franchises. Hence, this project will complement with some examples from rival company DC, as well as from other franchises such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1997-2003).
To that effect, this dissertation includes three chapters each contributing to the recommendation of the brand identity as the most context-appropriate tool for the examination of franchise adaptations and the re-evaluation of prejudices and debates concerning the field of adaptation. Introducing brand identity also falls in line with Elliott’s suggestion that theories of adaptation be influenced by production practices. Chapter One provides an account of the field of Adaptation Studies, focusing on theories, practices and their shortcomings. The main aim is to highlight the prejudices plaguing the field. It further provides an account of the Cultural Studies approach this dissertation adopts. More specifically, it delineates how the project combines the fluid-text approach with the circuit of culture, so as to argue for brand identity as the context- appropriate tool for examining adaptation as process/product. It further deciphers the practices of the franchise culture context under examination via a historical overview of Hollywood from a studio system to corporate conglomerates that have come to treat their products as intellectual property brands. While adaptation debates have been discussed by many scholars, I argue that
13 Similar practices have been employed by the television network CW in collaboration with DC in the crossover events of the TV series Arrow (2012-present), The Flash (2014-present), Supergirl (2015-present) and DC’s Legends of Tomorrow (2016-present). The idea of a shared universe is a prominent theme in the upcoming television series Castle Rock (2018), a series that aims to demonstrate that Stephen King’s novels exist in the same universe. Deadpool (2016) and Deadpool 2 (2018) are two examples of strong marketing, Easter eggs, and post-credit scenes. However, the film rights currently belong to Fox Studios and not to Marvel. Marazi 21 what they fail to take into consideration is the context within which a work is adapted because they are focusing almost exclusively on the text. Due to the fact that the context falls under the broad umbrella of pop culture, establishing the converging and diverging points of the Cultural
Studies schools of thought is necessary. This will demonstrate that irrespectively of which school of Cultural Studies one is affiliated with, brand identity is not school of cultural studies specific but can be employed by all three schools.14
Chapter Two provides an account of the brand identity structure and the role of identity in place of text. This will assist in the reconsideration of issues pertaining to the original and content/form. This chapter posits that the brand identity structural components provide a way to re-examine original and content/form along the vertical axis of value by taking into account adaptation as a process of creation. More specifically, Chapter Two argues that adaptation is both a process and product that caters to the forging of identity-utterances. Adaptation’s cultural purpose and value is that of meaning-making and raising awareness towards the power plays involved in the process. Thus, it examines aspects of the hero/superhero genre as opposed to an original text, through the superhero/adaptation analogy. It considers the marketing strategies employed by Marvel so as to establish the inseparability of content/form in addition to advocating for their interchangeability. Finally, this chapter examines the matter of context-text interrelationships through the notion of intertextuality and the practice of marketing.
Chapter Three focuses on the main problematic issue of Adaptation Studies, namely that of fidelity. It suggests substituting fidelity with the notion of value introduced by brand identity.
It also focuses on adaptation as a process of reception. The idea of value is initially examined from a brand management perspective; hence the focus is on media franchise intellectual
14 The three schools of thought referred to here are 1) the school of Cultural Studies, 2) the school of The Production of Culture perspective, and 3) the school of Popular Cultural Studies. Marazi 22 properties and their adaptations. The notion of value is further enriched by considering the components of reception theory, such as fan culture and transmedia storytelling practices. The power play between producers and consumers through the idea of the brand system/community is also examined. The cultural value of adaptation, as the chapter argues exists in the top- down/bottom-up power play dialogue of meaning-making between producers and consumers, otherwise known as white space.15 Thus, fidelity continues to be prominent because either one side, that of the producers, or the other, that of fans, makes it so. As a result, fidelity is heavily value-laden which prompts the question: What is the value of adaptation, what is adapted and why? This dissertation aims to answer this question based on more current practices in the media industry such as those of transmedia storytelling, whilst indicating areas for future research that require investigation.
The originality and contribution of this project stem from the focus it has taken in connection with the approach adopted. The current dissertation places great importance on the notion of context in which adaptation texts must be scrutinized. In addition, this project stresses the significance of vertical hierarchies of values that result from the examination of context and the interrelationships existing within the franchise context. By considering the vertical hierarchies, this dissertation raises awareness towards the matter of power play between producers and consumers. The choice to utilize brand identity sets a precedent for an additional analytical tool that no other critical studies have undertaken so far and provides a tool one can utilize to examine texts and context. Brand identity allows one to avoid the pitfalls of medium-
15 In an article in Brand Quarterly titled “The White Space Is Where Your Brand Lives” Adam Pierno explains that white space is where vital brand interactions occur. White space is “the area your control doesn’t reach. The gap between your owned properties and the consumer. See, for that company, the jet fleet is largely leased not owned. They can’t perfect that part of the experience. Remember that brands exist for the most part in people’s minds. Those gaps between your product and polished communications, and consumers’ comprehension and experience are fertile and critical opportunities” (n.pag.). Marazi 23 specificity discourses and brings other vital aspects to the forefront such as intertextuality and marketing. Finally, viewing adaptation as a cultural process and not solely as a literary process sets the interdisciplinary tone of this dissertation.
The aforementioned contributions suggest fruitful directions and approaches for future research. Text-centered questions such as how, what, and why is something adapted now become context-centered. Such questions include who, when, where, what, how and why is something adapted. Thus, this dissertation echoes the questions Hutcheon has already deemed vital for the examination of adaptation. The logical next step is to conduct quantitative and qualitative research focusing on the production team and/or audience consumers. Companies, in fact, conduct similar quantitative and qualitative research for advertising and marketing purposes.
They do so to see how the equity of their brand fares in the market compared to others. As a result, similar investigations can be conducted for instances of adaptation. For example, interviews, surveys, and questionnaires can provide quantitative as well as qualitative data to the field of Adaptation Studies and can assist in testing various hypotheses. This will provide important insights as to how and why certain adaptations are made and how and why audiences respond the way they do. This also points to another fruitful area of investigation that of intertextuality and the marketing techniques employed. In light of the increasing shared cinematic and television universes, the spin-offs, and cross-overs that occur as well as the prominent intertextual-markers both intertextuality and marketing need to be examined in more depth. Finally, I would suggest that a genre analysis approach is adopted for the examination of adaptations. Jason Mittell argues in his article "A Cultural Approach to Television Genre
Theory" (2001) and seminal work Genre and television: from cop shows to cartoons in American culture (2004) that genres “are cultural categories that surpass the boundaries of media texts and Marazi 24 operate within the industry, audience, and cultural practices” (3). An interweaving of genre and adaptation as cultural processes will heighten the focus on context and will provide an innovative perspective to the interrelationship between genre and adaptation.
Marazi 25
Chapter One
Delineating the Field, Presenting the Problem and Elevating the Context
The aim of Chapter One is to delineate the field of Adaptation Studies in order to provide a theoretical account of the debates and prejudices within the field. This will assist in identifying the shortcomings and problems it continues to face. The problem in question is the persistent focus on adaptation as a product rather than a process. Rigorous comparative textual analysis has limited the scope of adaptation to that of texts and has neglected to view it as a process in a particular context. As a result, the value of adaptation as a process has been diminished. This chapter seeks to elevate the context that produces adaptations. By equating the value of adaptation as process and product, this chapter further provides a contextual definition of adaptation. In so doing, it argues that adaptations are and should be viewed as cultural identities because the entertainment industry views and treats them as branded intellectual properties. To achieve this, Chapter One provides an account of the Cultural Studies schools of thought and their common point of reference, namely the circuit of culture. The reason is to emphasize the notion of identity from a Cultural Studies perspective in contrast to the notion of text from a literary perspective. This is further associated with Bryant’s fluid-text theory, where Bryant has argued that what he terms ‘cultural revision’ is the proper arena for adaptation. This confirms the need to examine adaptations more extensively from a Cultural Studies perspective. What is more, the historical overview of the Hollywood entertainment industry demonstrates the evolution of Hollywood from film studios to corporate conglomerates of branded entertainment.
In light of these cultural practices, brand identity poses as the context appropriate tool for examining such products because it caters to the specific context of production/reception.
Marazi 26
1.1 Adaptation Prejudices and Debates: Identifying the Problem
Adaptation theory began acquiring momentum in the academic community around the 1960s due to the attention it received from the fields of Structural Semiotics and Literary Studies. As a practice, however, it can be observed much earlier. The field of Semiotics, by focusing on a comparative examination of texts and sign systems, has accused adaptation of committing two semiotic heresies.16 Even though narrativity between semiotically different media and sign systems has been established, other problems remain. Literary Studies have identified the narratological equivalents of novel and film thus exhibiting what can be transferred from a narratological perspective and what requires adaptation. As a result, adaptation categories have been formed allowing one to label and categorize adaptations based on their loyalty towards the original. This, however, also highlights non-equivalent narratological components due to differences between media that prompt certain prejudices revolving around media capabilities/incapabilities, in other words, medium-specificity.
The prejudices arising from Structural Semiotics, Literary Studies and medium- specificity discourses fuel the three main debates within the field of adaptation, namely 1) that of the original, 2) if content can separate from form and 3) fidelity. Some scholars, as this section will exemplify, have adopted story as the common denominator. In this way, they seek to avoid a microscopic semiotic or narratological examination of adaptations, as well as account for differences between source material and adapted text. Other scholars have adopted a narrative media studies approach by acknowledging the differences between adaptations due to different media and what that contributes to the understanding of the story. Some, such as Janet Wasko
16 Kamilla Elliott in her Rethinking the Novel/Film Debate (2003) informs that the two heresies committed by Adaptation are: i) “words and images may be translatable after all;” ii) “form separates from content – that the characters, plots, themes, and rhetoric of a novel distill to content apart from form and transfer into the form of film” (133). Marazi 27 and Thomas Schatz, have examined the workings of the entertainment industry, not so as to examine adaptations but to confirm that adaptations are yet another type of product the industry produces. Nevertheless, a gap remains between the adapted texts under examination and the industry responsible for producing them. Given certain problematic issues within the field of
Adaptation Studies, I argue that this is a matter of how adaptations are approached, namely as literary texts and not as cultural identities and the fact that the context that produces and receives them is not sufficiently examined.
The first types of adaptation that have drawn the attention of Structural Semiotics and
Literary Studies are novels turned to films. As far as Structural Semiotics is concerned, novels and films are two different semiotic sign systems. The practice of adapting semiotically different media, namely translating words into images, has been viewed as committing semiotic heresy.
The root of the problem, according to Kamilla Elliott, has been traced back to two main branches of the eighteenth-century poetry and painting debate where poetry is associated with words and painting with images: "One branch categorically differentiates poetry and painting along word and image lines, classifying the two arts as separate species, […] the other identifies them as sister arts" (Elliott 1). Thus, the debate regarding the semiotic systems of novel/poetry and film/painting consists of the following two sides: either novel and film will be seen as semiotically different, hence untranslatable and incapable of adaptation, or they will be seen as analogies or related sister arts, which display equivalences across their semiotic systems thus allowing for translation and adaptation.17 In light of the plethora of adaptations today, to adopt
17 Elliott in her study Rethinking the Novel/Film Debate (2003) demonstrates how “literary film adaptation places the greatest pressure on the debate’s central paradox. From the one categorical side that opposes novels as words and films as images, adaptation emerges as a theoretical impossibility, for words and images are everywhere declared untranslatable, irreducible, a priori systems – even by poststructuralist critics like J. Hills Miller. But from the analogical side that speaks of ‘cinematic novels’ and ‘literary cinema,’ adaptation appears as the logical, even inevitable, outcome of interart analogies, as cinematic novels become cinema – the discursive word made aesthetic flesh” (2, emphasis in the original). Marazi 28 the premise that semiotically different media cannot be adapted is to ignore the actual practices at hand.
The developments in structuralism have had an impact on the matter of semiotic heresy while those in poststructuralism have helped to alleviate a degree of tension within the debate.
According to Robert Stam, Structuralist Semiotics in the 1960s and 1970s “treated all signifying practices as shared sign systems productive of ‘texts’ worthy of the same careful scrutiny as literary texts, thus abolishing the hierarchy between novel and film” (8). Therefore, film exhibits shared sign systems with that of the novel, thus rendering the practice of adaptation both logical and feasible. What is more, viewing adaptations as texts pose as an arable ground for a cultural studies examination of adaptations. In spite of this, adaptation has been viewed as the outsider from a semiotic and even narratological perspective because its practice is considered to be an affront to what other disciplines see as inseparable. As Elliott points out, “[f]rom Walter Pater, to
Ferdinand Saussure, to New Critics and structuralists, scholars remain adamant that form does not and cannot separate from content” (134). New Criticism, for instance, favors notions of organic unity, an “unparaphrasable core” thus indicating that adaptation cannot adapt or paraphrase the content of one form into another. In fact, in practice adaptation challenges this notion of New Criticism. Adaptation, as Elliott points out, “troubles the inviolable bond of structuralism’s signifier and signified when words and images are decreed untranslatable as whole signs, leaving only some part of a novel’s signs available for transfer” (134). Though there is a consensus that novel and film exhibit shared sign systems, this does not apply to whole signs or all signs.
The influence of poststructuralism has certainly aided in dissolving certain dichotomies.
Nevertheless, it has raised other problematic issues. Stam (2005) informs that the main Marazi 29 contribution of poststructuralism includes Julia Kristeva’s theory of intertextuality that derives from Mikhail Bakhtin’s concept of dialogism as well as Gerard Genette’s five types of transtextual relation. Bakhtinian dialogism supports that since words, texts, even utterances cannot speak for themselves, meaning can only be created through dialogue and relationships both horizontally between author and reader and vertically between texts (Brooker 47). Texts are conceived of as cultural utterances that aid in the communication and discursive practices within a culture. By displaying references, associations, and citations with prior and contemporary texts, dialogism demonstrates that each text exists and takes shape as a response to an on-going conversation with other texts. Drawing on Bakhtinian dialogics,18 Kristeva’s intertextuality asserts the strong connection between texts through reference, association, citation, and interpretation. To study one text in a sense is to study all those that have influenced and affected it. This automatically dissolves the binary relation between original and adaptation. If “[e]very text, and every adaptation, ‘points’ in many directions, back, forward, and sideways,” then establishing faithfulness becomes an impossible feat (Stam 27). By viewing the original and adaptation as texts in general, the focus can now turn towards their interrelationships. It seems, however, that those interrelationships lead back to discourses of medium-specificity and fidelity.
The field of Literary Studies has employed the narratological approach as a way to avoid accusations of semiotic heresy. In doing so, they have perpetuated the content/form debate by confirming differences between the formal aspects of narrative media. This by extension continues to fuel fidelity discourses. From a Structuralist Semiotics perspective, the hierarchy between novel and film is abolished. Structuralist Semiotics confirms that “all signifying practices [are] shared sign systems productive of ‘texts’ worthy of the same careful scrutiny as
18 Bakhtinian dialogism, in the broadest sense, refers to the “infinite and open-ended possibilities generated by all the discursive practices of a culture, the matrix of communicative utterances which ‘reach’ the text not only through recognizable citations but also through a subtle process of indirect textual relays” (Stam 27). Marazi 30 literary texts” (Stam 8). Therefore, even though novel and film are different sign systems, they both display narrativity.19 Literary Studies, however, does not rely on this notion of text. Rather it is influenced by the idea of different narrative media and the need to establish narratological equivalents during the transfer of a story from novel to film. Placing focus on content/form and media capabilities/incapabilities perpetuates prejudices that have emerged from the novel/film hierarchy. As a result, these theorists are divided into those who see novel and film as two incompatibly distinct categories or, as sister arts, who nevertheless present differences in certain narrative or storytelling capabilities. In his Novels to Film: the Metamorphosis of Fiction into
Cinema (1957) George Bluestone has followed the categorical logic and distinctions advocated by Lessing. Bluestone argues in favor of separating novel and film as representational arts. More specifically, the novel is characterized as “conceptual, linguistic, discursive, symbolic, and inspiring mental imagery, with time as its formative principle; while the film is perceptual, visual, representational, literal, and given to visual images, with space as its formative principle”
(qtd. in Elliott 11). Bluestone supports the mentality of “to each his own,” emphasizing that success in each case will only be achieved if the novel and film respectively focus on their separate, unique and specifically different attributes and properties. Dudley Andrew reinforces the idea of “the absolutely different semiotic systems of film and language” (34) with one vital distinction. Andrew aims at bridging the categorical gap by implementing a narratological approach, coupled with a sociological dimension. He argues that verbal and cinematic signs share a common element of narrative codes and connotation. In order to achieve a faithful
19 According to Marie-Laure Ryan in Narrative Across Media: The Languages of Storytelling (2004), “The property of ‘being’ a narrative can be predicated on any semiotic object produced with the intent of evoking a narrative script in the mind of the audience. ‘Having narrativity,’ on the other hand, means being able to evoke such a script. In addition to life itself, pictures, music, or dance can have narrativity without being narratives in a literal sense” (9). This is due to the fact that narrative, on the one hand, “is a textual act of representation – a text that encodes a particular type of meaning,” but on the other hand, “narrative is a mental image – a cognitive construct – built by the interpreter as a response to the text” (Ryan 9). Marazi 31 literary adaptation, one must locate and match the "equivalent narrative units" between the different sign systems (34). Similarly, Keith Cohen in his Film and Fiction: The Dynamics of
Exchange (1979) sets up “detailed and complex narratological categories and codes under which to study novels and films” but, in spite of acknowledging the significance of connotation, he continues to view the process as one of “words to images” (qtd. in Elliott 13). Evidently, the influences of medium-specificity and fidelity continue to prevail in the examination of literary adaptations.
Adaptation as practice and product today does not only include novel and film. It also includes comic books, graphic novels, theatrical performances, video games and television series. The variety of media cannot simply be equated to words or images. For example,
Bluestone equates novel with "word" and film with "image" but this does not accommodate the multimodal features of the film medium. Unlike Bluestone and Cohen, Brian McFarlane in his
Novel to Film: An Introduction to the Theory of Adaptation (1996) acknowledges the cinematic codes and extra-textual features of the multi-track medium. McFarlane highlights the centrality of a narratological approach, and similarly to Andrew, notes that certain elements are transferable due to the common element of narrativity. Drawing on Christian Metz and Roland
Barthes’s argumentation, McFarlane states that narrative is the central and unifying element from which to examine adaptations. He focuses on the narrative functions of each medium and distinguishes between those that are transferable and those that require adaptation. Nevertheless,
McFarlane continues to distinguish between novel and film as word and image respectively.
Echoing the logic of Lessing’s categorization, McFarlane sees the novel as linear and conceptual whereas the film is spatial and perceptual. In addition, he continues to use terms such as original and fidelity, even though he has advocated strongly against the latter. The need to delineate Marazi 32 narratological equivalents and areas that require adaptation has resulted in adaptation categories that indicate the loyalty of an adaptation to the original, as well as the capabilities of the medium in question to adapt the source material. The problem that arises here is that focus falls on media incapabilities as well as on the degree of fidelity exhibited by the adaptation.
Geoffrey Wagner and Dudley Andrew have suggested respective adaptation types mainly aiming at the categorization of adaptations based on their fidelity. This continues to pose a problem due to the fact that these categories signal differences between original and adaptation are a result of shortcomings deriving from media incapabilities. Wagner's categories consist of transposition, commentary, and analogy. In the case of transposition, a novel is given directly on the screen; commentary is "where an original is taken and either purposely or inadvertently altered to some respect"; analogy is where little of the original is identifiable (qtd. in Whelehan
8). The paradox of these categories is threefold: on the one hand, they confirm that adaptations cannot be completely faithful to their source material and are, therefore, in need of categories that cater to differing degrees of fidelity. On the other hand, they presume that adaptations can neatly fit into one of these categories when this, in fact, is not the case. Finally, adaptations are the result of a process that involves change determined by intentions; hence adaptations never claim to be absolutely faithful. The degree of fidelity is not an essence of adaptations but may be one of the intentions of those who adapt a work.20
At best these three categories appear ambivalent and insufficient. The logic behind transposition entails that an adaptation becomes a duplicate or copy and does not appear to take
20 It must be noted that numerous other factors also inhibit faithfulness in adaptations. Some of these factors include economic restraints and budgetary restrictions, studios’ policies and product marketability, technical and technological deficiencies, censorship and even ideology. Marazi 33 into account the unique, or at least different, narrative techniques and stylistics of other media.21
Commentary, on the other hand, appears to be the most frequent type of adaptation, although it would be wrong to view it as a clear-cut category. It would be preferable to view it as a spectrum of degrees. Even then, however, the scope of the degree spectrum would be to confirm what has remained faithful and what has not. Finally, analogy while attempting to stray away from the source material by creating something different would ultimately draw attention to it for two reasons: the first being acknowledgment of the source material due to intellectual property copyright issues, and the second being audience members who are capable of observing the intertextual associations with the source material with which they are familiar. If an analogy strays so far from the source material that it becomes unrecognizable, then why conceive of it as an adaptation at all and not a work in its own right? To further demonstrate the ambivalent and insufficient status of these categories, Wagner’s categories are compared with three modes of relation between novel and film suggested by Dudley Andrew: borrowing, intersecting, and transforming.22
The intersecting mode is driven mainly by a medium-specific mentality and perpetuates the debate of content/form in adaptations. It is considered the opposite of the borrowing mode where the latter highlights mutual influences across texts. The intersecting mode dictates that the
“uniqueness of the original text is preserved to such an extent that it is intentionally left
21 The notion of deconstruction further contributed to the dismantling of the original/copy hierarchy and prompted viewing adaptations as works in their own right. “In a Derridean perspective, the auratic prestige of the original does not run counter to the copy; rather, the prestige of the original is created by the copies, without which the very idea of originality has no meaning” (Stam 8). Consequently, an anterior text will acquire the prestigious characteristic of original only if and when an adaptation is produced. 22 As Andrew explains: when “borrowing” the “artist employs, more or less extensively, the material, idea, or form of an earlier, generally successful, text” but when “intersecting” “the uniqueness of the original text is preserved to such an extent that it is intentionally left unassimilated in adaptation” (30); “transformation,” which is more frequently associated with the notion of fidelity, involves the assumption that the task of adaptation is the reproduction in cinema of something essential about an original text” (31). In other words, transformation is viewed in maintaining the fidelity of an “adaptation towards the original in relation to the ‘letter’ and to the ‘spirit’ of a text” (31). Marazi 34 unassimilated in adaptation" (Andrew 30). This particular mode aligns with Wagner's transposition category and highlights the significance and status of the original but from an aesthetic viewpoint. Andrew explains that this mode seeks to "present the otherness and distinctiveness of the original text, initiating a dialectical interplay between the aesthetic forms of one period and the cinematic forms of our own period" thus alluding to "the specificity of the original within the specificity of the cinema" (31). The focus is placed on the original's unique aesthetics which must be transferred, undiluted, as faithfully as possible via the aesthetic capabilities of the adapted medium.
Borrowing, according to Andrew, is the most frequent mode of adaptation in the history of the arts. He does not limit this mode solely to literary adaptations but extends its application to other areas such as music, opera, and painting: "The artist employs, more or less, extensively, the material, idea, or form of an earlier, generally successful text" (30). In these cases, the adaptor seeks to acquire an audience based on the status of the original work by extracting or borrowing its "source of power" (Andrew 30). Andrew points out that an analyst's main concern here ought to be the generality of the original, its potential for wide and varied appeal, its existence as a form or archetype, much like the case of myth. As a result, success lies in their fertility, not their fidelity (Andrew 30). And yet, fidelity continues to be the dominating issue.
In the case of transformation, as Andrew informs, faithfulness appears in connection to the letter and the spirit of the original text. The letter includes aspects such as characters, geographical, sociological and cultural information through which to form the adapted context and basic narration devices (31-32). The spirit includes elements such as tone, values, imagery, and rhythm, elements pertaining to stylistics, whose equivalents are, according to Andrew, intangible aspects between the two narrative media (32). This mode assists in locating the Marazi 35 equivalent narrative functions which can be transferred between different sign systems, similarly to what McFarlane has suggested. And yet, if stylistic fidelity is considered intangible, then from the perspective of aesthetics actually achieving fidelity is questionable or impossible.
Out of Andrew’s three relational modes, borrowing could be considered the equivalent of intertextuality and intermediality. Here the relationship is one of influence, association, and reference to some degree between two works, whether literary or artistic in general. This mode actually appears promising for Adaptation Studies. The problem is that it does not account for the power relations and intentions of institutions. It does not provide insight into who attributes the primacy of an original's theme, structure, and aesthetics. It would be more fertile and culturally productive if this mode catered to the process and intentions of those adapting.
Andrew, for example, has advocated for a sociological turn in the field of Adaptation Studies, which would take into account issues such as "the interchange between eras, styles, nations, and subjects" (37). Here the discourse and examination of adaptation would be viewed as a cultural practice. This, however, is restricted only to accounts of adaptations that update their source material or consciously choose to maintain the time period of the original. The contextual parameters that influence such choices are not even considered. Instead, what takes precedence through these categories or relational modes is the status of the original and the degree of fidelity exhibited by the adaptation. Both original and fidelity, the latter of which will be examined in more detail in Chapter Three, have been the center of various prejudices. They hinder the field of adaptation from moving beyond and viewing various debates differently as well as acquiring a more interdisciplinary nature.
Even though the field of Literary Studies has contributed adaptation categories, relational modes and narratological equivalents for the examination of adaptations, it has also fueled the Marazi 36 novel/film hierarchy through certain prejudices that hinder it from moving beyond certain debates. The anteriority/seniority prejudice that has initially triggered the interest of Literary
Studies in adaptations is based on the assumption “that older arts are necessarily better arts”
(Stam 4). This mentality is problematic on the grounds that it restricts interdisciplinary examinations with the field of Film Studies. Moreover, a prestige status is appointed to the source material on the grounds of anteriority alone. This fuels the second prejudice or rivalry between film and literature, where the inter-art relation, as Imelda Whelehan comments, “is seen as a Darwinian struggle to the death, rather than a dialogue offering mutual benefit and cross- fertilization” (4). This rivalry reflects the word/image divide and extends to the high/low culture divide. The word/image divide further fuels the prejudices of iconophobia and logophilia, where the sanctity and prestige of the written word are favored over that of the image.23Another way of downgrading the status of the image is through the prejudice of anti-corporeality, namely the distaste for how film embodies and gives an “obscene” form to the written word (Stam 6). What this alludes to is the mind/body divide as well as the high/low culture divide. Literature and the written word are associated with mental faculties and cerebral activities that do not, per se, engage the body or the senses. The fact that visual arts engage audiences via bodily senses and experiences, rather than intellectual interpretations and cognitive thought, renders them as superficial and, as Stam highlights, “discredits [them] as a serious, transcendent, art form” (6-7).
23 The prejudice of iconophobia, a “deeply rooted cultural prejudice against the visual arts” can be traced to the “Judaic-Muslim-Protestant prohibitions of ‘graven images,’ but also to the Platonic and Neoplatonic depreciation of the world of phenomenal appearance” (Stam 5). In contrast, logophilia praises the written word and its status, which originates from “the sacred word of the ‘religions of the book’” (Stam 6). This can also account for prejudice against comic books as art or storytelling media. The irony of this prejudice is that contemporary culture is characterized by visual culture. What is more, adaptation has broadened its practice to include more visual narrative media. Evidently, the fear of the visual has been surpassed. The same, however, cannot be said of the illusions of the spectacle and how digital media are affecting our perception of reality.
Marazi 37
The myth of facility is yet another prejudice based on the assumption that films, unlike novels, are easy to create or experience. This assumption, as Stam displays, is based on the idea of the apparatus where mechanical reproduction does not constitute art. This notion is also coupled with the facility of reception where “it takes no brains to sit and watch a film” (7). The idea of the apparatus, acquiring negative connotations in the production of films, but overlooked entirely in the production of the novel through the printing press, is highly discriminating.
Furthermore, the facility of reception completely ignores the “grammar” and “syntax” of film narratives which, if not understood, would simply result in moving pictures with no unity, cohesion, or overall meaning. The seventh prejudice, that of class, again reflects the high/low culture divide. The association of the cinema strictly with mass audiences of lower-class origins, who entertain themselves with superficial and unsubstantial spectacles, degrades both the cinema and its audience (Stam 7). Film adaptations have been considered the low cultural and “dumbed down” versions of their high culture novels. As a result, film adaptations have been accused of acting parasitically on literature and being incapable of creating something original. Naremore, for instance, observes that "English professors have traditionally been suspicious of mass- produced narratives from Hollywood, which seem to threaten or debase the values of both
‘organic' popular culture and high literary culture" (2). In an attempt to reconcile debates between disciplines, overcome prejudices and cater to the matter of content/form, the notion of story is adopted by some scholars as what is ultimately adapted.
Currently, more and more theorists are in agreement that story is the common denominator in adaptation. While this premise appears promising, it does contain its own pitfalls.
If the story is, as Hutcheon supports, “the core of what is transposed across different media and genres” (10), then that has already been established as the narrative capabilities of various media. Marazi 38
The distinction, I argue, that needs to be made here, is one between narratology in general and narratology from the perspective of Literary Studies. The former is capable of granting cultural centrality to the narrative as opposed to literary narrative. Stam explains that for narratology in general “human beings use stories as their principal means of making sense of things, not only in written fictions but all the time, and all the way down,” thus “narratologists see story as kind of genetic material or DNA to be manifested in the body of specific texts” (10). Literary studies theorists, who have employed a narratological approach, overlook this factor and focus intently on aspects of the narrative, so as to identify and isolate the narrative kernels that can or cannot be adapted. What they see as being translated or transferred between two different sign systems or texts are narratological functions. Consequently, the pitfall of adopting story as the common feature again leads to a distinction similar to that of content/form.
Residual prejudice from the content/form debate is still evident even when adopting the concept of story as the common adaptable feature across texts. Millicent Marcus in his
Filmmaking by the Book: Italian Cinema and Literary Adaptation (1993) touches on the debate of whether story separates from discourse or of narrative and its concrete artistic medium of expression. The first group with supporters such as Paul Ricoeur, Roland Barthes, A. J. Greimas and Seymour Chatman posit that a story can exist independently of any embodiment in any particular signifying system. More specifically, they advocate that “there exists a universal, nonspecific code of narrativity which transcends its embodiment in any one particular signifying system. Such narrativity is both ‘distinct from the linguistic level’ and ‘logically anterior to it, whatever the language system chosen for its manifestation may be” (Marcus 14). The opposing group with proponents such as Jean Mitry and Gerard Genette support that a story cannot be separated from its material medium and that “meaning is indivisibly bound to the concrete Marazi 39 material terms of its realization in art and that it is absurd to posit a significance separable from, and equally available to, a plurality of discursive systems,” hence adaptation is impossible (14).
Marcus suggests that for the purposes of the adapter it is necessary to view story and discourse as separate and adapters “must posit the existence of a narrativity that lends itself to cinematic as well as literary form” (14). The reason this is necessary, as this project argues, is because adaptation is not medium-specific, it is not determined or dictated by media but employs them and their features in order to adapt. Hence, for the purposes of adaptation, Marcus’s suggestion that the adapter at least assume that story separates from discourse is understandable, yet runs the risk of the opposing group in the debate. Similarly to how the process of adaptation employs narrative media as tools to produce adaptations, I again posit brand identity as the notion that can substitute story in this debate. Brands use storytelling, as well as narrative media, to communicate a promise and meaning from producers to consumers. This practice and the mentality behind it are dominating features of conglomerate Hollywood.
Hollywood adapts texts to its own context and for its own purposes. André Bazin emphasizes an important cultural aspect of adaptations: “One must first know to what end the adaptation is designed: for the cinema or for its audience? One must also realize that most adapters care far more about the latter than about the former” (21). This highlights the need to explore the field of Reception Studies in connection with the field of Adaptation Studies even more. It also elevates the importance of the context of the adapted work and the issue of intentionality. Hutcheon further confirms that “there are manifestly many different possible intentions behind the act of adaptation” (7). Storytelling is only one of them. Robert B. Ray has pointed out that Literary and even Film Studies have failed to notice and ask two specific questions: “do popular narratives differ in some fundamental way from ‘artistic,’ ‘high art’ ones; Marazi 40 and second, why had the cinema committed itself almost exclusively to storytelling?” (39). The answer I provide is that within the Hollywood context today narratives and storytelling are different due to announced and pronounced brand treatment that governs the current practices and interrelationships in that context. The process of branding implies a promise between producers/consumers via the content/form of commodities, in these case adaptations, and by extension storytelling, in the context of brand franchise culture. Storytelling and adaptation are not the ends but the means to an end thus pointing towards other intentions. These intentions and practices are mainly located in the context of conglomerate Hollywood, and more specifically in franchise culture. What is observed in this context is that conglomerate Hollywood develops franchises where intellectual properties are treated as brands. As a result, this dissertation argues in favor of substituting terms such as that of text with brand identity. Brand identity will assist in delineating the notion of identity in the franchise context through its structure and it will demonstrate the cultural aspect of communicating a promise and meaning through an identity.
Before proceeding to that, though, it is vital to delineate the cultural studies approach, the position towards adaptation, and the definition of adaptation this dissertation adopts.
1.2 Approaching and Defining Adaptations from a Cultural Perspective
As seen in the previous section, Adaptation Studies faces various prejudices due to the novel/film hierarchy, the high/low culture divide as well as the debates regarding the original and content/form. In spite of viewing both originals and adaptations as texts and employing intertextuality for their examination, medium-specificity discourses that fuel fidelity discourses persist. This is mainly the result of textual readings where the focus on adaptation as a product is Marazi 41 seen across the horizontal axis of narrative media. Instead, this dissertation focuses more intently on the vertical hierarchies of value. This requires viewing adaptation as a process, a fact that entails the context of adaptation and the intentions behind it and seeing how those influence the intersecting meeting point resulting in adaptation as a product. To that effect, this section outlines the Cultural Studies approach adopted in this dissertation. More specifically, this project provides a contextual reading of adaptation as process/product by employing a brand identity theory approach. It ought to be noted that the cultural studies approach this dissertation adopts is not strictly affiliated with the Birmingham School of Cultural Studies, the Frankfurt School or the School of Popular Culture Studies. In the attempt to provide an identity-based reading, I draw influence from Gramsci’s concept of hegemony24 and the notion of a power play, the standpoint of contextualism,25 cultural consumption as advocated by John Fiske,26 as well as structuralist and poststructuralist27 contributions to textual readings. By doing so, the matter of medium- specificity is alleviated via the focus on identity. What is more, the significance of context via the power play and interrelationships between producers and consumers is further highlighted.
The choice of brand identity is based on the combination of the fluid text approach and the circuit of culture so as to demonstrate that adaptation as a process is not narrative specific, text-specific or medium specific. What is more, though the end product of adaptation may be for
24 This project is more influenced by Neo-Gramscian hegemony theory that insists on a dialectic relationship between the processes of production and the consumption. As John Storey indicates in What is Cultural Studies: A Reader (1996) a “consumer always confronts a text or practice in its material existence as a result of determinate conditions of production. But in the same way, the text or practice is confronted by a consumer who in effect produces in use the range of possible meaning(s)” (9). 25 Lawrence Grossberg in his Cultural Studies in the Future Tense (2010) highlights that people hold the misconception that cultural studies are about culture when the real concern of cultural studies is "always contexts and conjunctures" (169). 26 Aside from the fact that Fiske also adopts the notion of texts for cultural studies examination, he rejects the notion that mass audiences are passive entities who consume products without thought. 27 Given that the practice of adaptation precedes the theories that come to examine, analyze and ultimately interpret it, I feel an empirical observation of the practices of adaptation is necessary. These practices exhibit both structuralist and postructuralist characteristics as this dissertation will exemplify through its identity-based contextual reading of the case study. Marazi 42 example a text, the process does not negotiate the change of texts but the change of identities of the texts and products. As a result, this section establishes the following definition of adaptation: adaptation is a cultural practice involving the conscious negotiation and change of identities taking place along the vertical axis of hierarchies resulting in a variety of texts and products along the horizontal axis. The vertical axis pertains to the value of this practice by catering to the intentions and purposes of those consciously adapting and those receiving these intentions, thus reflecting the top/down-bottom/up power play between production and reception or in other words context. The horizontal axis continues to exhibit the range of products from text to media that may manifest but are influenced and governed by the practices of the vertical axis. The point of intersection demonstrates the synchronic utterance and the established identity of the product, while both vertical and horizontal axes confirm the diachronic nature of adaptation practices.
Even though this dissertation does not adopt a specific school of cultural studies approach, it does account for the fact that brand identity theory is not cultural studies specific and can be employed by all three thus enriching examinations and interpretations. This is mainly due to its overlapping points with the circuit of culture that is going to be analyzed further down. What is more, an account of the circuit of culture and the fluid-text approach explains why this project does not solely adopt the fluid text approach or the circuit of culture to examine adaptation but rather views brand identity as more appropriate.
The definition this dissertation offers for adaptation is influenced by and builds on
Bryant’s views on ethics and adaptation. Bryant considers cultural revision as being the proper arena of adaptation and claims that “if adaptation is to achieve its proper textual legitimacy, we need a broader conception of geneticism in which the notion of work embraces all versions of a text, including sources and adaptations, and the creative process is extended to include all forms Marazi 43 of revision, both authorial and cultural” (48, emphasis in original). To achieve this, Bryant proposes to adopt the fluid text approach, where the fluid text “is any work that exists in multiple versions in which the primary cause of those versions is some form of revision. Revisions may be performed by originating writers, by their editors and publishers, or by readers and audiences, who reshape the originating work to reflect their own desires for the text, themselves, their culture” (48). The fluid text approach exhibits validity on the grounds that it takes those who adapt and those who receive the adaptation into consideration. In addition, it acknowledges the revision and by extension reinterpretation of a text, as well as intertextual relations. As Bryant confirms, “[t]he announced retellings of adaptation […] are interpretive creations, which, as readers’ revisions, are homologous versions that find shelter under the ever-lifting umbrella of the further workings associated with an originating text. From a fluid-text perspective, adaptation extends the textual field of creativity and hence interpretation” (54). While the fluid-text approach could be employed for the purposes of this dissertation, I refrain from adopting it, due to the fact that, unlike works in general that can all display intertextuality, adaptation carries the marker of consciously announcing its status as an adaptation. Also, the fluid-text approach is not the preferred approach via which to examine single versions. What is more, adaptation is not a text-specific practice, thus an approach that caters to the adaptation of products/services other than texts is necessary.28
Bryant himself clarifies that the fluid-text approach is not conducive to examining single versions of texts. Instead, as an approach, it focuses on measuring the "critical distances between
28 Richard Johnson in What is Cultural Studies: A Reader (1996) notes that “ ‘the text’ is no longer studies for its own sake, nor even for the social effects it may be thought to produce, but rather for the subjective or cultural forms which it realizes and makes available. The text is only a means in cultural studies; strictly, perhaps, it is a raw material from which certain forms (e.g. of narrative, ideological problematic, mode of address, subject position, etc.) may be abstracted. It may also form part of a larger discursive field or combination of forms occurring in other social spaces with some regularity” (97, emphasis in original). Marazi 44 versions and on what is the meaning inherent in that distancing" (54). The connection between the fluid-text approach and adaptation as Bryant explains is found in the ethics of adaptation.
Bryant claims that “[w]hile versions [of works] are necessarily interconnected, they possess distinct textual identities. The ethics of adaptation is knowing and acknowledging the boundaries of textual identity” (49, emphasis in original). This notion, however, of measuring the distances especially in the case of adaptation is problematic, as it resorts to discourses of fidelity. Bryant correctly attributes such mentality to textual narcissism, where we assume that the goal of an adaptation is to faithfully reproduce its original, whilst we also presume that this can never be achieved.29 Nevertheless, I too agree with Bryant that adaptation has a different agenda, namely to revise the original "for whatever social or aesthetic end, through a re- performance or re-writing of it, in order to reposition the originating text in a new cultural context" (54). Adaptation, as a process of change for all entities and not simply texts, is about evolving and establishing new versions of identity. However, the aim of this dissertation is not to measure or delineate the boundaries of those textual identities, nor to examine the ethics of adaptation. Rather it seeks to establish that adaptation as a process negotiates the change in identities, resulting in textual-identities, product-identities, and even service-identities. I will now provide an overview of the circuit of culture, so as to explain why I refrain from employing it, though it poses as an appropriate tool from a cultural studies perspective.
In their Doing Cultural Studies: The Story of the Sony Walkman (1997), Paul du Gay,
Stuart Hall, Linda Janes, Hugh Mackay and Keith Nugas explore how culture works in the present day by focusing on the structures, strategies and cultural meanings of global and commercial enterprises via the case study of the Sony Walkman. Their cultural study aims at
29 Bryant clarifies that a fluid text approach detaches itself from the retrospective anxieties that derive from a false sense of originality, but does so primarily to sharpen the focus on the differences between identities and how one textual identity may be seen to evolve into the other” (55). Marazi 45 introducing the cultural turn –one that includes both a substantive and epistemological account– as they do not view cultural meanings found only in the processes of production. Rather they favor a theoretical model based on articulation resulting in the unity of two or more disparate elements.30 The model they coin “circuit of culture” (see figure 131), unites the five major cultural processes of representation, identity, production, consumption, and regulation and is the model "any cultural analysis of a text or artifact must pass if it is to be adequately studied" (du
Gay 3).
Representation
Regulation Identity
Consumption Production
Figure 1
30 Working within Gramsci’s concept of hegemony, Stuart Hall developed a theory of articulation given the double meaning of the term: to express and to join together. This theory also highlights the significance of context. More specifically, Hall notes that texts and practices in culture are not inscribed with a specific, absolute meaning deriving solely from the intentions of production but rather that the meaning results from articulation, in other words, "an active process of ‘production in use'" (qtd. in Storey 4). Meaning is expressed in a “specific context, a specific historical moment, within a specific discourse” (qtd. in Storey 4) and constitutes a social production, one that includes the audience as well. Hence, a text or practice is not the source of meaning but the location where the articulation of meaning takes place. 31 Figure 1 is an exact replica of the circuit of culture figure found in Chris Barker’s Cultural Studies (2012),p.61. An alternate image can be found in Du Gay’s Doing Cultural Studies: The Story of the Sony Walkman (1997) p. 3 and in the edited collection by Stuart Hall Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices (2000) p. 1. Marazi 46
Though the circuit of culture and brand identity structure displays overlapping, as Chapter Two will demonstrate, what follows is an account justifying why this project does not adopt the circuit and opts for brand identity.
What is noteworthy about the circuit is how it exemplifies the interrelations between all five processes. It focuses more on what and how something is represented, produced, consumed, regulated rather than how identities are established. The circuit examines the five instances of articulation and how they manifest concretely. The following example of the Sony Walkman demonstrates this. More importantly, by considering all five processes one is made aware of the particular brand's story, a fact that points back to the choice of brand identity over the story as seen in the introduction. Though reference is made to the Sony brand, the Sony Walkman brand and brands in general, the intentions of branding are not given the necessary prevalence in this publication. According to du Gay, the meaning of an object does not arise from the object itself but from the way it is represented in language. Du Gay et al draw on discourses surrounding the
Sony Walkman and texts to achieve the extraction of its meaning. This also extends to how people associate with the product, thus extending to the matter of identity. Du Gay et al view production as a dual process, namely one that produces culture but also one that exhibits cultural meanings through its practices. This prompts du Gay et al to examine how the meanings encoded in an object during its production lead to object/consumer identification and how consumers receive and understand these meanings. They also examine how production instills identity characteristics of the Sony Company in the object. Finally, the matter of regulation appeals to the notions of public/private space and how institutions regulate the usage of and even the meaning of products. The example in question comes to support the choice of brand identity over the story, as brands may use stories to communicate their promise and meanings. What is more, the Marazi 47 example of an object can broaden the focus of adaptation studies as, not only text-based but text- identity based examinations.
Even though reference to the five cultural processes and textual-identities will be made, I do not aim at examining these five processes via the case study of Marvel Cinematic Universe
Phase One. The representation of superheroes and how audiences identify with them has already been done by scholars such as Henry Jenkins, Angela Ndalianis, Geoff Klock, Danny Fingeroth and Richard Reynolds to name but a few32. I also do not aim at examining how objects in general and adaptations more specifically are produced, consumed or regulated, though this poses as a fruitful area for fieldwork and future research. That being said, what appears to be lacking from the aforementioned approaches is the matter of intentions and interrelationships. Intention is a matter that could even lead to the argument that adaptation, being a cultural process, can even pose as the link between the five processes of the circuit of culture, thus enhancing and enabling their interrelationship. If as du Gay et al posit, meaning does not arise directly from an object – the thing in itself– then similarly representation, identity, production, consumption, and regulation cannot be viewed without taking the matter of intentions into consideration. While the circuit of culture can be employed to culturally examine adaptation texts and artifacts, it cannot account for adaptation as a cultural process of change triggered by intentions. Branding, in the broad cultural sense of the word, is to forge an identity and establish a promise. Brand identity is not a concept deriving specifically from a cultural studies school of thought. It can be examined by all three, thus providing richer perspectives and interpretations of this promise and its meaning.
32 For Geoff Klock see How to Read Superhero Comics and Why (2006); for Danny Fingeroth see Superman on the Couch: What Superheroes Really Tell Us about Ourselves and Our Society (2006); for Angela Ndalianis and Henry Jenkins see The Contemporary Comic Book Superhero (2009); for Ndalianis see Super/Heroes: From Hercules to Superman 2007); for Richard Reynolds see Superheroes: A Modern Mythology (1992). Marazi 48
The study of popular culture within academics is undertaken by various disciplines and theoretical frameworks. These, however, according to C. Lee Harrington and Denise D. Bielby in their Constructing the Popular: Cultural Production and Consumption (2001) can be roughly categorized into the following three schools of thought: i) Cultural Studies; ii) the Production of
Culture perspective; iii) Popular Culture Studies tradition (3). More specifically, the field of
Cultural Studies “grew out of efforts to understand a complex set of social and economic processes, including industrialization, modernization, urbanization, mass communication and the global economy” (Nelson, Treichler, and Grossberg 5). It first appeared in Great Britain during the 1950s and is now closely associated with the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies founded in Birmingham, England, in 1964. The main argument held by its scholars is that culture cannot be understood separate from other aspects of social life but is found “between all the elements in a whole way of life” (Nelson, Treichler, and Grossberg 14). Highly interdisciplinary, heavily theoretical and exhibiting no clear methodology or defined area of content, as Harrington and Bielby point out, what distinguishes it from other perspectives is the emphasis on subjectivity and its explicit political or activist orientation (3-4). The influence of Antonio
Gramsci’s concept of hegemony in the 1970s, however, has led to a redefinition of the focus of cultural studies.
The redefined focus of cultural studies is on "identifying and analyzing systems of power embedded in processes of cultural production and consumption," where currently cultural studies have accepted the claim that "consumers of cultural texts are not passive dupes but rather active participants in the creation of meaning" (Harrington and Bielby 4). This view of consumers is also in alignment with current brand producer/consumer relationships. John Fiske, for example, acknowledges that there are large social systems that provide cultural resources to consumers but Marazi 49
“it is only consumers who can popularize objects or practices. [T]he power is ultimately with the people” (Harrington and Bielby 9). These social systems come to include fandom, cult followings, as well as brand communities, each exhibiting a bond, communication, and power in how they receive and react towards the industry, its products, and services. Cultural Studies establishes that culture and pop culture revolve around relations of domination, subordination, and acts of resistance. The politically-influenced idea of a power play is an element that also applies to brand identity. More specifically, it is employed when examining the relationship between producers and consumers with regard to brand management and negotiating the promise and meaning of the brand. Producers feel the need to maintain control of their products and how these products are used by consumers. This connects with the idea of intellectual property. In other words, they believe they can, if not impose then at least influence how consumers think and feel about intellectual properties. As Will Brooker explains in his Hunting the Dark Knight:
Twenty-First Century Batman (2012), the production company explicitly draws attention to the
“fidelity” between the Batman film adaptations and the source material they saw as representing the ur-text of the Batman matrix. The intent was to institutionally impose the value of the films by way of fidelity so that they would prove popular and successful with the audiences. These are points that will be examined in more detail in Chapter Three with the intention of shedding light on fidelity, as instigating a power play between producers and consumers that pertains to the value of adaptations.
The second school of thought called The Production of Culture perspective originating in the U.S. in the 1970s derives from the Frankfurt School of the 1940s drawing on the work of
Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer’s notion of culture industries.33 This perspective focuses
33 Horkheimer and Adorno’s seminal work Dialectic of Enlightenment (1947) proposes a connection between culture and industry at a time when the industry and by extension commerce were viewed as independent from the arts. Marazi 50 less on the “various meanings of cultural texts and the process of cultural consumption than on an examination of culture as a manufactured product;” thus it reflects the Frankfurt School of thought where all cultural objects were manufactured practically the same across industries in an assembly-line standardized fashion for a homogeneous mass audience (Harrington and Bielby 4-
5). Currently, as Harrington and Bielby inform, the Production of Culture perspective employs the use of “analytical systems from the sociology of occupations and of organizations to see how social resources are mobilized by artists, filmmakers, and the like to make cultural production possible” (5). They do not reduce cultural production to economics alone and they seek to understand the meanings of product and the practices resulting in said product. Emphasizing the need to understand the practices of cultural production coincides with what current adaptation theorists, such as Hutcheon, are advocating. To understand adaptation we need to view it as a process and a product. Also, the matter of production cannot be viewed only in association with economics. Brand management is more than tactics that seek financial gain. Brand management demonstrates the dialogue between production and consumption where the promise and meaning of the brand are negotiated. Hence, industrial and cultural forces are capable of changing the boundaries, relationships and even definition of certain concepts.
The third school of thought, associated with the work of Ray Browne and colleagues at the Department of Popular Culture at Bowling Green State University in the U.S., is that of the
Popular Culture Studies. This school defines pop culture very broadly. It supports that pop culture should be viewed as an umbrella term that will subsume the previously mentioned two schools, as well as other disciplines examining pop culture. The school of Pop Culture Studies defines popular culture as “the active and determined enlightened analysis of a culture’s culture
Their main argument with regard to culture industries is that under a capitalist system the production of, for instance, films, songs, etc. is similar to that of mass-produced cars, food, and clothing. Marazi 51 with its strengths and weaknesses thoroughly understood,” where the term “popular” is understood as “the everyday culture of a group,” big or small, “the way of life” and “the world around us” (qtd. in Harrington and Bielby 5). Mainly identified through its subject matter, the school of Popular Culture Studies views its field as more important than individual fields, thus aligning itself with the interdisciplinary character of Cultural Studies. Similarly to the school of
Popular Culture Studies, the field of Adaptation Studies needs to broaden its scope and incorporate multiple disciplines and methodologies. The field of Adaptation Studies needs to become more interdisciplinary. Harrington and Bielby stress that all schools “agree that popular culture both reflects and shapes broader social forces; it is a reciprocal process rather than a unidirectional one” (6, emphasis in original). Adaptation Studies is something more than Literary
Studies, or even Film Studies, capable of connecting fields and disciplines in a multidirectional way. Instead of talking just about literary adaptations, we should begin using the term cultural adaptations. With regard to brand identity, the school of Popular Culture Studies could easily provide an interpretation of meaning along the lines of the significance of branding in a broader sense, thus alleviating it from economic, marketing and financial associations and emphasizing its cultural significance and applications.
Having established both this project’s definition for adaptation as well as the choice for an identity-based reading of the chosen case study, the following section examines the context in which adaptations are produced and consumed. The overview provided further supports the choice of brand identity. It manages to do so by offering a historical account of the Hollywood industry, drawing on Johnson’s contributions regarding franchise culture and the overall treatment of intellectual properties in the particular context as brands. Finally, the historical overview of Hollywood demonstrates how the notion of brand identity emerges as a result of the Marazi 52 transformation Hollywood undergoes from a studio system to current day conglomerates. In order to comprehend the choice of brand identity, it is vital to be aware of how Hollywood’s current nature and practices lead to and result in the employment of brand identity.
1.3 Conglomerate Hollywood, Media Franchises and Branded Entertainment
The Hollywood Entertainment Industry of the twenty-first century is one of Media Franchise
Culture conglomerates.34 This is the context in which the majority of adaptations and more specifically franchise adaptations are produced and consumed. The aim of this section is to provide a historical overview of Hollywood's development from a studio system to one of media conglomerates. This will substantiate the current franchise culture in Hollywood, as well as explain how its commodities are treated as brands. The blockbuster franchise encapsulates the tension between consistency and change, similarly to adaptations and brands. Murray Smith sees
Hollywood in the twenty-first century as a “multi-faceted creature,” that cannot be reduced to a single entity such as “Old” or “New” (qtd. in King 2). Similarly, a franchise cannot be reduced to its single entities, because within this context, blockbusters, adaptations, and brands are multi-
34 According to Derek Johnson, a franchise or franchising has exhibited three instances of cultural significance that aid in providing a definition for the term. The term franchise, prior to the 80s, “held two primary meanings: first, the right to vote and exercise agency as the subject of an institution; and second, a retail operation (like McDonald’s) in which independent operators in local markets pay for the right to do business under a shared, corporate trademark. In the 80s, “the franchise began to take on a third cultural significance, used to describe both the processes of corporate intellectual property management and the serialized cultural forms that would result from it” (Johnson 5). Thus, if “the franchise operation was already understood as a chain or network of cooperating retail outlets, the emerging media franchise was conceptualized as a network of content constituted across multiple industrial sites; [or as adapted by Robert Iger, President and CEO since 1999 of Disney] the media franchise came to be understood as ‘something that creates value across multiple businesses and across multiple territories over a long period of time’” (Johnson 5-6). As such, Johnson’s definition of media franchise, upon which this project is based, states that a media franchise is “an intellectual property whose deployment of an imaginary world across different media spaces through a range of product lines, creative structures, and/or distributional nodes is managed over time” (25) and in historical conjunction, “the franchise has functioned as a networked system of content generation in which participants from diverse institutional and subjective positions –franchisors and franchisees– have negotiated shared cultural resources over time” (27, emphasis in original). Marazi 53 faceted creatures whose value is elicited from the cultural consistencies and changes they exhibit.
The following historical account will display the ubiquity and significance of the blockbuster that continues to drive the Hollywood industry today.
The neoconservative media deregulation initiated by the Reagan administration in 1980 has led to a dramatic reorganization of media industries. As Eileen R. Meehan points out, “media companies have restructured themselves to expand beyond their traditional operations, often restructuring as conglomerates that stretch across media industries with operations in as many kinds of media as possible” (108). Film studios have acquired television networks and vice versa.
In fact, it has promoted horizontal and/or vertical integration thus highlighting the significance of taking not only the horizontal axis but also the vertical hierarchies of value into consideration when examining adaptations. A conglomerate acts as an industrial network of operations consisting of multiple divisions that exhibit relationships either via synergy, such as Warner
Bros. or via licensing such as Marvel. Marvel is currently a case of both vertical integration as a subsidiary of Disney and of horizontal synergistic relations, mainly licensing with other studios such as Fox or Sony. Generally speaking, the industry consists of mutually benefited sectors interconnected through synergistic relations,35 whose aim is to produce a total experience of branded storytelling entertainment. The relationships and activities between conglomerate divisions in addition to the relationship between conglomerates resemble seismic plates where activities of one kind can generate significant influences, both positive and negative, towards others. Such infrastructural relationships have always existed in some form or capacity, dating
35 Johnson identifies three distinct stages in the institutionalization of media franchising: “first, a moment in the early 1980s where franchise management evolved to meet the needs of non-conglomerated, non-horizontally integrated production entities; second, a moment in the late 1980s and early 1990s when the desire to apply franchise strategies to corporate conglomeration and horizontal synergy led to failure; and third, a moment in the late 1990s when franchising was deployed as an alternative to synergy, and relations and partnerships between institutions became perceived as advantageous” (16). Marazi 54 back to the studio age.36 The main difference appears to be the grand scale upon which conglomerate Hollywood operates in addition to a branded franchise mentality.
Hollywood has globally infiltrated and influenced the entertainment market. In order to examine adaptation as a process, one needs to be aware of the nature and practices of the context that creates said adaptations. Media conglomerates are a direct outcome of mergers, acquisitions, synergies and licensing. They deal in intellectual property franchises spanning across multiple media, targeting heterogeneous audiences, and crossing national borders by taking full advantage of technological advancements, branded content, marketing, and media convergence.
Hollywood, as the leading export of American popular culture and entertainment, has transformed from a studio system oligopoly of motion pictures to media conglomerates within less than a century. In spite of the various connotations the term Hollywood is associated with, as
Geoff King has stated, “it remains, above all, a business” (2). What is even more important is that from day one, Hollywood has been a hit-driven industry and since the post-war era, one of the most controversial and yet defining periods of Hollywood has increasingly adopted a blockbuster ethos (Schatz 30). Today, the business of conglomerate Hollywood is mainly – though not exclusively – producing franchise-sustaining blockbuster hits. The blockbuster is the component that fosters the franchise mentality and drives various ancillary market byproducts from which the majority of Hollywood’s revenues originate, including videos, DVDs, soundtracks, toys, theme-park rides, streaming, video and computer games.37 Conglomerate
Hollywood to a high degree produces "calculated megafilms designed to sustain a product line of similar films and an ever-expanding array of related entertainment products," all for the benefit
36 Douglas Gomery asserts that the “Hollywood studio system never died – it was simply transformed. [It] is still made up of a small set of corporations that produce, distribute, and present films for profit. It is just that each film corporation is now part of a media conglomerate that also creates a wide array of other media products and services” (198). 37 For further information see Contemporary Hollywood Cinema (1998) and Hollywood Film Industry (2008). Marazi 55 of the parent conglomerates' entertainment and media divisions (Schatz 30). This franchise mentality is the driving force of the conglomerate era which is why the case study I have chosen is a franchise driven by blockbuster films. Schatz highlights that "[it] has gone into another register altogether due to the combined effects of digitization and media convergence that have significantly impacted both production and formal-aesthetic protocols, and due also to the effects of globalization as Hollywood fashions its top films for a worldwide marketplace" (30). Heated discussions regarding the similarities and differences of Classic, New, and Conglomerate
Hollywood have resulted in opposed debates of consistency or fundamental change.38 What has remained ubiquitous across historical and industrial changes is the blockbuster currently the main driving force of franchises. Before viewing what Hollywood is currently like, however, it is vital to understand what it was and how it reached this current stature.
In the beginning, Hollywood was comprised of vertically-integrated studios that enabled them to secure their power and control the film market via production, distribution, and exhibition. By the 1930s, eight studios dominated the filmmaking industry. On the one hand there were the Big Five: “Warner Brothers, Loew’s Inc. (which owned MGM), Paramount,
Twentieth Century Fox and RKO,” while on the other hand were the Little Three: Universal,
Columbia and United Artists – which later came to be known as UA (King 25). During the studio
38 The debate centers on the concept of “New” of New Hollywood. There are those who dispute the concept, claiming that “the classical Hollywood style of filmmaking was not really affected by any of the changes that the Hollywood industry underwent at the time (1965-76) and that it persists as the dominant filmmaking style even today” (Kokonis 170). Such scholars include David Bordwell, Janet Staiger, Kristin Thompson. Here the continuity and consistency of the system see both the industrial aspect and storytelling as exhibiting no radical changes. This is essentially based on the prevalence of the blockbuster, its formulaic modes of storytelling, respective promotional marketing strategies and commercial character. There are also scholars who observe changes to both the industry and to filmmaking styles. Such scholars include Geoff King, Thomas Schatz, Peter Krämer, Thomas Elsaesser, Timothy Corrigan, Douglas Gomery, Janet Wasko and Murray Smith. They view changes across economic, political, legal, socio-historical and cultural levels. Some, such as Gomery, see these changes dating back to the years immediately after WWII and resulting in radical changes for the Hollywood industry ultimately ushering in a New Hollywood both in terms of industrial infrastructure and filmmaking style thus indicating fundamental changes. The main confusion lies in when the term “New” can be applied historically; if it applies to the Hollywood Renaissance period, or if it designates the post-1975 period characterized by the conglomeration. Marazi 56 years or the “classical” era (mid-1920s-early 1940s), “movies were mass produced by a cartel of studios for a virtually guaranteed market” and exhibition was considered the most profitable aspect of the business (Schatz 8). The studios would produce very few “prestige” films a year with an occasional runaway box-office hit; for the most part, they would rely on routine A-class features to generate profits (Schatz 9). The runaway box-office hits are considered to be the blockbusters of the day. This confirms that such films were produced even in an era deemed more story-worthy than that of the current blockbuster age of spectacle; an age which also exhibits films of post-classical narration capable of influencing and adding their unique narratological quality to contemporary film and television productions.39
Robert Ray has stressed that the Hollywood industry does not only deal with the standard mode of entertainment; it is also a unifying force within American culture as the sole purveyor of
American mythology (130). According to Douglas Gomery, “[t]he classic Hollywood narrative film had become the standard and Hollywood corporations organized the studios to make these features on a regular basis” (73). Double features were introduced, namely an A-rate feature film and a B-movie. The content and quality of these films also reflect the relationship Hollywood has maintained with its audience/consumers. Hollywood has sought to accommodate consumers both in terms of story preferences via film content, as well as financially with cheap/affordable tickets. The eight major Studios generally
dominated all phases of industry operation. In their quest for profits, these eight
regularized film production with standardized products including features,
39 Eleftheria Thanouli in her Post-classical Narration: A New Paradigm in Contemporary World Cinema (2005) argues for the emergence of a cinematic paradigm, whose cinematic language is “richer than ever before” (25), and capable of distinguishing itself from other established cinematic traditions. Employing Historical Poetics as a framework and methodology for examining contemporary films, Thanouli emphasizes how “in contrast to the classical narration that maintains a low degree of self-consciousness in order to create the feeling of invisibility and transparency, […] the post-classical mode celebrates a high self-reflexivity that is accomplished through the use of various narrative devices and the relentless shifting of the narrative levels” (28). Marazi 57
animation and live short subjects, serials, and newsreels. All embraced narrative
structures and then actively sought to convince potential movie patrons of the
differences in their products. They differentiated their wares, but hardly possessed
individual personalities themselves – just different styles of leadership” (Gomery
79).40
The control of exhibition constitutes an integral key-factor. The property of theater chains guarantees a safe outlet for the studios’ product, as show-case revenues ensured cash flow.
Schatz (1993) and Michael Storper (1994) confirm that both property and revenues have acted as collateral against any financial losses or risk by guaranteeing both certainty and stability for the studios. This form of business was soon viewed as an oligopoly. In 1948, however, the
Paramount Decree would allegedly be the end of this oligopoly, as it sought to separate “the branch of production from distribution and exhibition to stimulate competition” (Yannis
Tzioumakis 48). The system, therefore, began to change, thus leading to a power shift brought on by social, political, and economic factors.
Two elements played a vital role in the studios’ attempts to regain and maintain the power and control they appeared to be losing after the Paramount decree. Those two elements are independent productions and the Hollywood Renaissance period. The collaboration with independents came as a result of the dismantling of the Studios’ vertical structure. The
Paramount decree effectively finished the studio system, as it was known up to that point.
Without the cash flow from revenues and a guaranteed outlet for their products, the studios eventually “fired their contract personnel and phased out active production, and began leasing
40 As Gomery explains, “Through widespread advertising, all the majors heralded stars, potentially interesting stories, and stunning special effects – particularly Technicolor. In so doing, these eight corporations worked to define how peoples around the globe understood what was an acceptable (natural) use of motion picture technology – and make the profits of a big business” (80). Marazi 58 their facilities for independent projects, generally providing co-financing and distribution”
(Schatz 11). Post-war political implications also contributed to the changing role of the studios.
After the war, the U.S. turned away from its isolationist policy and adopted a new foreign policy of intervention in international affairs. What is more, a decline in international trade during 1947-1948 due to “protectionist” policies of the newly reopened European markets led the studios to enter into “co-financing and co-production deals overseas” (Schatz 12). As far as production is concerned, with this new role of financer and distributor, the studios have sought out “one-film deals” or the film “package,” a process involving the co-operation of the studios with an independent producer (Schatz 11). David O. Selznick’s Duel in the Sun (1946) actually signaled the prototype New Hollywood blockbuster, namely “a pre-sold spectacle with top stars, an excessive budget, a sprawling story, and state-of-the-art production values” (Schatz 11).
Finally, the introduction of television, a new medium of mass entertainment, in combination with suburbanization and the baby-boom, effectively meant that the studios needed to diversify their product in order to meet the needs of heterogeneous audiences. Admissions fell after the dissolution of the standard family audience and Hollywood needed to find a way to compete with the rival medium of TV.41
In spite of the Paramount decree in 1948, the blockbuster syndrome reigned well across the 1950s, 1960s and into the 1970s. The studios saw the blockbuster as the vehicle guaranteeing vast profits while targeting a mass audience. Essentially, they came to rely on the A-list or blockbuster in hopes that high revenues from such productions would continue to bring in cash flow and compensate for the financial losses of the theater chains. The studios rigorously sought
41 As Kokonis points out in “Hollywood’s Major Crisis and the American Film ‘Renaissance’,” the Hollywood Studios created the so-called problem pictures to satisfy the needs of an emerging elite or art-house audience, usually with independent productions such as On the Waterfront (1954). At the same time, they went on a binge of creating big-budget spectaculars to keep their traditional, entertainment seeking audiences away from TV usually with biblical and historical epics like Ben Hur (1959) and Cleopatra (1963) (178). Marazi 59 to produce box office successes similar to the prestige films of the classic period but with oversaturated "budgets, casts, running times, and screen width" (Schatz 14). The A' class films of the period received special treatment known as the "Roadshow release," which established them as cultural events, similarly to how blockbusters are marketed and released today. It also confirms the strength found in distribution, contrary to the opinion that the studios' strength is located in their exhibition arm. The majority of these blockbusters focus on the "safe genres" of the western, the musical, the biblical epic and the family melodrama that "addressed the great silent majority of the film audience, by being bland, politically neutral movies” (Kokonis 177).
Moreover, due to co-productions in European markets overseas, these films took on a more
European and even international dimension, whilst targeting the family audience.
Despite various successes, such as The Ten Commandments (1956) with estimated profits at $43 million, Ben Hur (1959) with profits at $36 million, Dr. Zhivago (1965) and The Sound of
Music (1965) with profits at $79.9 million, the blockbuster mentality and treatment of this period in addition to a decline in admissions and the appearance of television led to Hollywood’s worst economic slump since the war. In spite of the recurring strength and prominence of the blockbuster film, the treatment it received almost led to near financial disaster. Studios such as
Fox saw the need to replicate the success of such films as The Sound of Music (1965). This, unfortunately, led to an over-exaggerated need to produce much of the same expensive and heavily promoted productions. These productions, however, proved to be flops, failing at the box-office and resulting in disastrous losses in revenue. In spite of the one-package deal and the contribution of the Independents, cinema attendance had started to decline since 1947. This would lead the Hollywood industry to new strategies, such as collaboration with TV syndicates.
The main reasons for the decline in attendance were sociological. As stated previously, Marazi 60 attendance was affected by suburbanization and the baby boom. Peter Krämer informs that attendance until 1947 had been relatively stable and high for many years, but "plummeted from
82 million in 1946 to 73 million in 1947" (20). A ten percent annual loss was observed thereafter in attendance until 1952 where "average weekly attendance was only 42 million" (20). Although a slight recovery occurred in the mid-1950s, attendance continued to fall and became relatively stable in 1966 at less than a quarter of the attendance in 1946. As a result, the Hollywood studios sought out two new ways of ensuring their survival.
One was with the formation of relationships with TV syndicates and the other was via the blockbuster. While this confirms the consistent reliance on the blockbuster, it should be noted that TV also plays a pivotal role today in the building of franchises and in some cases has begun to rival the blockbuster as a franchise driving-force. As a result, considering how TV syndicates aided in the Hollywood studios survival and contributed towards them becoming conglomerates is vital. MGM, Warner, and Fox began following the examples set by Disney and other smaller studios that had already begun dabbling in television production. More specifically, by the mid-
1950s the majors began selling or leasing their pre-194842 material to TV syndicates and by 1960
“virtually all prime-time fictional series were produced on film in Hollywood, with the traditional studio powers dominating this trend” (Schatz 12). Until the 1940s the film style was institutional, also known as the “house style.” By selling or leasing their pre-1948 material to television syndicates, audiences were becoming more aware of the classical Hollywood film
42 The main reason for selling or leasing their pre-1948 material to TV syndicates, aside from the slump in the economy after WWII and the decline in audience attendance after the war, was the Paramount decree of 1948. The decree forced the major studios to divest their theater chains. As a result, not having a distributional outlet and with the 1955 Hollywood blockbuster mentality taking hold, the majors sought alternative outlets for their material. This also provided them with a foothold in the television medium. As Schatz informs, in 1960 the studios and talent guilds “agreed on residual payments for post-1948 films, leading to another wave of movie syndication and to Hollywood movies being scheduled in regular prime time. Telefilm production was also on the rise in the late 1950s, as the studios relied increasingly on TV series to keep their facilities in constant operation since more and more feature films were shot on location. The studios also had begun to realizing sizable profits from the syndication of hit TV series, both as reruns in the U.S. and as first-run series abroad" (12). Marazi 61 narrative. The studios began decreasing their output, mainly as a result of the low audience attendance, and the gradual dissolution of the homogeneous audience. Despite popular assumption, the television medium was not responsible, at least initially, for this decline. Joel W.
Finler confirms that television ownership increased from 9 percent in 1950 to 93 percent in 1966
(qtd. in Krämer 20). While pre-1948 film material eventually became available for TV viewing, it does not initially account for the first observation in attendance decline in 1948. The majors, nevertheless, still felt the need to create a product that would target a mass audience. This low number of releases signaled a turn in the American film industry towards fewer yet more expensive productions, which had the potential to return large profits (Tzioumakis 12). The oversaturated employment of the roadshow policy, however, undermined the specialness of the blockbuster and ultimately proved self-undermining (Kokonis 181). As a result, the main economic devastation facing the Hollywood industry was consecutive roadshow flops and decline in cinema attendance. Schatz informs that around the mid-60s the “market conditions rendered the studios ripe for takeover by conglomerate corporations” (15). Two conglomerate take-overs occurred each contributing to what Hollywood is today.
The first wave of conglomerate take-overs and acquisition kept the film studios from bankruptcy and signaled the beginning of the conglomerate age of Hollywood. Considering the first wave is vital so as to understand how it led to the second wave, which will be viewed further down, of media-centered conglomerates. The fundamental characteristics of this age include:
“calculated blockbusters” of a large scale, their marketing as that of a cultural event, and their commercial character (Kokonis 200). In the mid-60s “some of the studios were taken over by extremely large and unwieldy corporations with no particular focus on the entertainment business” (King 67). More specifically, Paramount was taken over by Gulf & Western in 1966; Marazi 62
United Artists by Transamerica in 1967, while in 1969 Warner Bros. was taken over by Kinney
National Services and MGM by real-estate tycoon Kirk Kerkorian (Schatz 15). The conglomeritization of the majors brought about four significant changes to the film industry.
Yannis Tzioumakis informs that first of all, “conglomerates shielded the majors from vicissitudes of an unpredictable film market, as their extremely broad economic basis allowed them to absorb much more easily the increasingly large losses during periods of box office drought” (196). Second, “the average film budget started increasing exponentially” (Tzioumakis
196). Third, “conglomerates installed new management regimes which tried to rationalize the conduct of the film business.” Finally, “conglomerates recognized the importance of opening up to new markets and creating more outlets for the commercial exploitation of the product their subsidiaries produced and distributed” (Tzioumakis 196). The parent companies, however, did not have immediate ties or relevant connections with the filmmaking sector. In the attempt to compete with the top-rank independent films and low-rank budget films, lure a large audience and ensure even larger revenues, the new corporate empires focused once again on the production of blockbusters. In spite of the persistent attention the studios paid to the blockbuster, it was independently-produced films that contributed towards the contemporary blockbuster and the second conglomerate take-over.
Conglomerate Hollywood today is an outcome of the second conglomerate take-over that would not have been possible without the influence of the Hollywood Renaissance period. The first wave of conglomerate takeovers changed the power dynamic held until that point by the studios. The takeover absorbed the studios, ultimately saving them from imminent financial bankruptcy but also instigated the foundations for the Hollywood we know today. In spite of the studios best attempts to bring audiences back to the theater with their blockbuster ethos and Marazi 63 employing strategies that included “drive-in theaters, multiplex cinemas at the malls, bigger budgets and wider screens” (Kokonis 193), they were on the brink of economic ruin. What saved them was the “intervention” so to speak of a wave of productions signaling the Hollywood
Renaissance period. The Hollywood Renaissance was the result of a marriage between independent film production and the majors in an attempt to tackle the dissolution of the homogeneous audience, a newly-emerging cine-literate audience, and the influence of European art films. The fact that these independent productions strayed from the “classic Hollywood narrative film” was refreshing and began luring target audiences (Tzioumakis 53). What would differentiate the Hollywood products would be a focus on experimentation with new themes in order to draw the suburban audience of the 1950s away from television and back to the cinema.
Hence, in the face of such an economic slump, Independent productions ultimately managed to keep Hollywood afloat resulting in what Schatz views as a “quasi-independent rapport with
Hollywood, making films for a Euro-American market and bringing art cinema into the mainstream” (14). The blockbusters produced today are a directly influenced by the experimentation, unique aesthetic and narrative film developments of the Renaissance period.
A new generation of filmmakers including, Robert Altman, Arthur Penn, Mike Nichols, and Bob Rafelson produced many films that displayed converging points with both European art cinema as well as classical Hollywood. International auteurs, including Bergman, Fellini,
Truffaut, Bertolucci, Polanski, Kubrick," Alfred Hitchcock, Antonioni, and Claude Lelouch, firmly established the European-American film rapport. The film products were mainly a combination of “exploitation strategies, art-house filmmaking techniques and an emphasis on distinctly American themes within not always clear-cut generic frameworks” (Tzioumakis 170).
The main distinction between this period and the studio period is that the majors “allowed Marazi 64 filmmakers an unprecedented degree of creative control in the filmmaking process.” Now we are seeing “stylistically diverse and narratively challenging films that were much more tuned in to the social and political climate of the era than the films made for the majors by top-rank independents” (Tzioumakis 170). Aside from the mainstream, the “new” cinema of this period is considered to be a counterculture cinema. It caters to the social and, by extension, the political climate of the times and is fully geared towards the youth generation with productions such as
Bonnie and Clyde (1967), The Graduate (1968) and Easy Rider (1969). The Hollywood
Renaissance greatly challenged the style, aesthetics and classic mode of filmmaking during the studio and classic years. Diversification was evident with emphasis on the youth market and the films’ subject matter (mainly taboo-breakers) suitable to their taste (sex, violence, profanity), which came as a result of the decline of the Production Code and its replacement with the Rating
System in 1968.43 The success evident in this area was followed by a turning point for the blockbuster as well.
The turning point for the contemporary blockbuster and today’s franchise blockbuster came in 1975 with Jaws a film that posed as a prototype of New Hollywood and the modern blockbuster for the following reasons: it was a high-cost, high-speed, high-concept entertainment machine propelled by a nationwide ‘saturation’ release campaign” (Schatz 19). Star Wars (1977) ultimately surpassed Jaws as a top box-office hit due to the fact that it quickly evolved into the
New Hollywood model for franchises: “the blockbuster-spawning entertainment machine that exploited and expanded the original hit in an ever-widening range of entertainment products”
(Schatz 20). Both films attained “event” status, thus signaling to the parent companies the value of the blockbuster “event” film and re-instituting the mentality of the Roadshow policy. Peter
43 "The rating system, created and administered by the Motion Picture Association of American (MPAA), the successor to the MPPDA, also reasserted studio control over entry into the marketplace” (King 31). Marazi 65
Krämer remarks that during the second half of the 1970s Hollywood intently focused on blockbuster productions “to be marketed in conjunction with countless tie-in products” (90).
From 1977 to 1986 “there were countless other products derived from the films, ranging from t- shirts to toys” (Krämer 95). With this not being new or unprecedented, the arrival of films such as Jaws, Star Wars, and Superman boosted “the amount of merchandise sold on the backs of super hits” (Krämer 95). The advances in technology, such as the success of VHS similar to today’s DVD, in combination with home entertainment, appear to be the ultimate source of revenues re-affirming the significant role of television in addition to matters of distribution.44
The fact that Hollywood never lost control of distribution meant that it never lost its power, which effectively resulted from dictating the terms via which its films would be shown (Kokonis
184). According to King, this “proved to be the key to overall control of the industry” (7). The power of distribution proves to be a vital bargaining chip in a surging domestic but, more importantly, global market where Hollywood continues to maintain and develop relationships in overseas markets since the post-war period.45 The rapid development of three distinct film industry sectors –"the traditional major studios, the conglomerate-owned indie divisions, and the genuine independents"– and, most importantly, "the emergence of a new breed of blockbuster- driven franchises specifically geared to the global, digital, and conglomerate-controlled marketplace" confirm that the double mentality of both A' class films and independent productions of the Hollywood Renaissance continue to this day (Schatz 20). These contemporary transformations and effects reached culmination in 2007, a year which reaffirmed, on the one
44 “The main reasons for the success of this new digital format were, first, the unprecedented alliance between the Hollywood film industry and two adjacent industries, personal computers and consumer electronics; and second, the decision to abandon the VHS-era rental model in favor of a conglomerate-controlled ‘sell through’ strategy that returned a far greater portion of home-video revenues to the studios” (Schatz 22). 45 “The studios have all but eliminated financial risk in the high-stakes arena of blockbuster filmmaking thanks to their increasingly adept facility for franchise formulation, their parent companies’ collective control of the crucial U.S. marketplace and their overall domination of global markets as well, and an apparently insatiable worldwide appetite for Hollywood-engineered entertainment” (Schatz 37). Marazi 66 hand, that "the story of modern Hollywood is a tale of two industries," and on the other that
"conglomerate ownership has become the deciding factor in a studio's prospect for survival, let alone success" (Schatz 21). The modern conglomerate era of Hollywood is a result of the tumultuous post-war period. At the same time, it proves to be a mirror reflection of the studio era on a macro-scale, where the terms studio and film have been substituted by brands and intellectual properties. In spite of major successes, both independent and blockbuster productions, the devastating economic status remained thus leaving ample room for the second conglomerate takeover.
The second wave of conglomerate takeovers resulted in a more coherent entertainment system. The parent companies were media companies that ultimately expanded the production, distribution, and exhibition of their film studio subsidiaries.46 According to Schatz, the modern conglomerate era began to crystallize in the mid-1980s: Rupert Murdoch’s “News Corp purchased 20th Century Fox and launched Fox-TV, which then culminated with the 2003 buyout of Universal Pictures by General Electric (GE) and subsequent creation of NBC Universal” (21).
The term conglomerate denotes convergence on an industrial level pointing to synergy among sectors, divisions, subsidiary and ancillary markets. This synergy grants a larger foothold in the global entertainment industry catering to production, distribution, and exhibition. Currently, there are six major conglomerates, namely Time Warner, Disney, News Corp, Sony, Viacom, and GE. These “global media giants owned all six of the major film studios, all four of the U.S.
46 “Hollywood’s major producer-distributors have developed a deficit-financing strategy, whereby movies are expected to operate at a loss during theatrical release, ultimately recovering their production and marketing costs and turning a profit in the subsequent TV and home video markets – and via the parent company’s other media divisions as well, from books, and records to video games and theme park rides. The reasons for this deficit-financing strategy are altogether obvious. First, a movie’s theatrical release and massive ad campaign establish its value in all other media markets. Second, TV licensing and DVD are far more profitable because the production and marketing costs are largely if not completely absorbed via theatrical revenues. Third, on a more abstract level, this strategy discourages competition, since film producers outside the conglomerate realm lack the financial leverage and ensured access to the marketplace enjoyed by the studios” (Schatz 23-24). Marazi 67 broadcast TV networks, and the vast majority of the top cable networks, along with myriad other media and entertainment holdings, including print publishing, music, computer games, consumer electronics, theme parks, and resorts” (Schatz 21). Conglomerate Hollywood today is comprised of a three-tier industry sector, driven by blockbuster franchises whose ultimate aim is to increase uniformity in filmmaking operations. The distinction between studios, conglomerate divisions, intellectual properties, and franchises is attained through brand identity. The top tier, comprised of Warner Bros., Disney, Paramount, 20th Century Fox, Universal, and Columbia have a prime objective of producing blockbusters, budgeted in the area of $100-$250 million, that are targeted towards the global entertainment market. There are also indie and specialty divisions such as
Fox-Searchlight, Focus Features, and Sony Pictures Classics – which came to include Miramax,
Paramount Vantage, Sony Screen Gems, Warner Independent and Picture house – that produce more modestly budgeted films for more specialized and discriminating audiences and the bottom tier includes the truly independent producers-distributors (Schatz 25).47 The top tier, also the context this dissertation focuses on, relies on synergistic opportunities for greater control, financial safety and for multiple product outlets via the parent-company’s media and entertainment-related divisions.
Conglomerates work with an eye not only towards film-making and story-telling but on expanding their product to multiple markets, formats and enriching the consumer variety and experience as much as possible. This mentality was also evident in the 1960s and 1970s where
47 The conglomerate-owned indie-film sector handles domestic distribution but relies on its major studio counterpart for international distribution and on the parent company’s home entertainment arm for DVD release; “in a sense the conglomerate-owned subsidiaries have provided a safe haven for Hollywood’s indie auteurs, and particularly for the established writer-directors who are firmly ensconced in the indie-division sector – a privileged class including Joel and Ethan Coen, Paul Thomas Anderson, Pedro Almodovar, Alexander Payne, Ang Lee, Wes Anderson, David O. Russell, Gus Van Sant and Todd Haynes” (Schatz 28). Meanwhile, the bottom tier comprises the truly independent producers-distributors, who on the one hand, “supply over half of all theatrical releases,” but on the other hand, “compete for a pitifully small share of the motion picture market” (Schatz 25). Marazi 68
Hollywood capitalized on ancillary market products as well as the value of adaptations.48
Conglomerate Hollywood displays a tendency to favor franchises for which it has adopted a calculated formula to attain uniformity across franchise products. Branding ensures the differentiation between studios and products. “The main consequence [is] the creation of a horizontal structure where all the divisions of the conglomerate [are] in the business of distributing and promoting different formats and versions of the same product, a feature film that
[is] originally financed and distributed by the majors” (Tzioumakis 222-23). The cultural phenomenon of media convergence in combination with the viewing tendencies of the audience has led these media conglomerates to produce as much content across media as possible. As
Henry Jenkins points out, “Warner Bros. produces film, television, popular music, computer games, Web sites, toys, amusement park rides, books, newspapers, magazines and comics” (16).
The calculated blockbuster that usually drives the media-franchise of any conglomerate studio abides by specific rules that govern the development of franchises and promotes the adaptability of intellectual properties across media. What is even more important is that films and even franchises in sum are treated and marketed nowadays as brands.
The prevalence of brand identity in contemporary culture, and even more so in media entertainment culture, re-enforces two significant elements. On the one hand, it helps to distinguish Hollywood's top-tier franchises49 as well as the production studios by granting a
48 According to Peter Krämer, nine out of the Top 14 break-away hits (1967-76) were "based on recently published, often very popular novels. The films drew on the popularity of these novels, which in turn profited from the popularity of the films” (10). What is more, there were extensive tie-ins with best selling soundtracks and the Roadshow Era Top 14 and some of these hits were adaptations of Broadway musicals (23-24). Similarly, Jaws, Love Story, The Godfather, The Exorcist and other hits were adapted from best-selling novels (Schatz 17). 49 The most renowned blockbusters to date, which also have something more vital to state than their box office revenues, are Star Wars redux (1999, 2002, 2005) with $2.4 billion in worldwide box-office revenues, Harry Potter (2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2007) with $4.5 billion, Lord of the Rings (2001, 2002, 2003) with $2.9 billion, Shrek (2001, 2004, 2007) with $2.2 billion, Spider-Man (2002, 2004, 2007) with $2.5 billion and Pirates of the Caribbean (2003, 2006, 2007) with $2.7 billion (Schatz 31). Within this list one notices an original piece of work (Star Wars), a Marazi 69 sense of differentiation in an otherwise uniform production mentality. On the other hand, it grants consistency to the multiple products spread across multiple media, as well as domestic and international borders and heterogeneous audiences. As Schatz points out, “[i]n franchise filmmaking, the primary concerns are, paradoxically, the integrity of the core narrative and its viability for expansion into an intertextual, transmedia system” (33). From a brand identity perspective, this signals how the brand core identity is maintained and how it manifests as extended identities in and across media. This is mainly achieved via the blockbuster format and confirms why the blockbuster is usually the driving force of a franchise. The three top rules of the blockbuster format display the media franchise mentality:
The film should exploit or expand an established entertainment franchise, which
might exist initially in any number of forms – a classic children's story, a traditional
fairy tale, a comic book or graphic novel, a TV series, even a theme park ride or toy
line. Regardless of its original form, the narrative source should provide not only a
story property but also a piece of Intellectual Property whose copyright can be
owned by the studio (or its parent company). The story should be amenable to
continuation, with the film-to-film storyline employing serial qualities that center
on its principal character(s) rather than some external plot. (Schatz 32)
The first rule confirms Hollywood’s tendency to rely on pre-established material in general and highlights how significant adaptation has become in an age of media convergence and trans- media storytelling. Janet Wasko asserts that "[t]he prevailing wisdom is that around fifty percent of Hollywood films are adaptations” (qtd. in Ray 44). Literature has always contributed to the establishment and prevalence of Hollywood. The significance of literature lays in its “limitless
contemporary novel series (Harry Potter), a classical piece of literature (Lord of the Rings), an animation (Shrek), a comic book superhero (Spiderman) and a unique take on pirate myths and legends (Pirates of the Caribbean). Marazi 70 supply of raw material;” which Hollywood, as a “young, voracious, and financially vulnerable” at times entity needed in order to secure its hold over audiences and did so mainly by “increasing its reliance on presold products” (qtd. in Ray 43). And yet, while storytelling poses as a significant goal, it does not appear to be the main goal.
The main goal has become one of providing a total experience of an intellectual property that can now target both mass audiences and niche audiences alike. Focusing more intently on character-driven narratives grants higher audience empathy and identification but also falls in line with the personality dimension of brands. Paul Grainge re-affirms that, “[b]randing has become an instrumental part of Hollywood’s production and dissemination of filmed entertainment;” it poses as the central feature of the blockbuster economy and mentality (360).
Branding simultaneously allows the studios to market their products, create advertising space within their intellectual properties for other products and differentiate their products in an otherwise uniform blockbuster-produced policy. Surprisingly, this tendency is not a characteristic only of modern conglomerate Hollywood. In the Classical era of Hollywood, there was a tendency to leave a mark within the entertainment industry either via the “house-styles” of filming or the star system of the studio era (Grainge 344-45). Thomas Elsaesser has coined this as “situation synergy” that acknowledges the different levels of corporate/cultural referentiality that connect the film as a product to the cinema as an experience (qtd. in Grainge 359). Today this is done via branding. Branding flourished in the 1990s and has established the following mentality according to Philip Drake: “Marketing a film involves conceptualizing it as a brand"
(qtd. in Grainge 70). In a sense, the influence and impact that brand identity has rendered conglomerate Hollywood as a brand system of entertainment highly resembling and mirroring the studio system of the classical period. The unique nature of brands, being simultaneously Marazi 71 abstract and concrete allows them to be media neutral thus alleviating a medium-specificity discourse. Instead, concepts of abstract and concrete identity are introduced that will be implemented in the following chapter to re-evaluate debates of the original and content/form.
Brands, similarly to stories, can travel across multiple media and establish a presence, identity as well as ideology thus pertaining to the perspective of the fluid text. Brands have been acknowledged as more than a mere product. Their significance lies in that they signal an identity that is adaptable, malleable and capable of retaining core attributes that make it recognizable in spite of similarities and differences. Brands are also all-encompassing which means people, objects, even services can take on a brand identity, a fact that does not prompt a sole textual reading. Nevertheless, people, objects, and services cannot all take on a brand identity in the strict economic sense. They can, however, acquire a brand identity in the cultural sense of trying to negotiate and communicate a promise and meaning as to who they are, who they want be and how they want to be perceived. As a result, there are very few limitations and restrictions to the reach and expansion of any brand. This makes their subject matter of immediate interest for fields such as Popular Culture Studies, especially when that subject matter revolves around intellectual properties.
The term brand is immediately associated with the political economy, matters of production and consumption and by extension social and political issues. These are all elements of interest to the Cultural Studies and the Production of Culture perspective. This is also why brands require a focus on context, similarly to adaptation as a process of creation and reception.
In today's age of conglomerate Hollywood, there are many prominent players and contenders, such as Warner Bros., Fox, Disney and Sony, all employing virtually the same formulas for the creation of multimedia franchise experience. The only way to separate and distinguish them, and Marazi 72 their products or services from others, would be by employing and emphasizing a strong brand identity. Conglomerate Hollywood is comprised of brand companies, brand divisions, brand marketing, branded content. All cater to a unique, branded-storytelling and total branded entertainment experience where what travels, as will be examined in the following chapter, is the notion of brand identity within a franchise context.
Marazi 73
Chapter Two
Brand Identity, Superheroes and Cultural Adaptation
Chapter One focuses on context and intentionality, both areas the field of Adaptation Studies overlooks in favor of a textual comparison. Textual comparison inevitably results in examining similarities and differences between original and adaptation. This, however, can lead to discourses of medium-specificity and fidelity that fuel the debate of whether content separates from form. The relationship of original and adaptation further fuels this distinction. As a cultural practice, however, adaptation does not claim, nor is it its aim to separate content from form, but to negotiate the change in the source work’s identity. As I see it, the aim of adaptation is to negotiate the abstract concepts noticeable in the source material and in connection to the respective genre, so as to produce an adapted work. Chapter Two argues that brand identity is the theoretical tool that reveals the dialectic process of intentions between production and text, by emphasizing the context in which these negotiations take place and drawing on the identity feature of texts as indicated by Bryant in Chapter One. In so doing I further argue that adaptation as process/product displays an interchangeable content/form/context nature that assists in reconsidering debates regarding the status of the original in light of the influences of intertextuality and the content/form debate in light of intentionality.50
To achieve this, brand identity will be initially examined in relation to the circuit of culture, so as to establish adaptation as a cultural process. Emphasis is placed on the matter of
50 According to Fiske intertextuality consists of two dimensions. The “[h]orizontal relations are those between primary texts that are more or less explicitly linked, usually along the axes of genre, character or content” (219). This particular dimension will be viewed in the following section mainly via the element of Easter eggs and post- credit scenes. “Vertical intertextuality is that between primary text, such as television program or series, and other texts of a different type that refer explicitly to it" (Fiske 219). This particular dimension will also be viewed in the following section catering to the marketing and promotional strategies employed for the Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase One films.
Marazi 74 textual identities and the role genre plays in identifying and extracting the abstract concepts from a source work. This chapter also considers the converging and diverging points of the schools of
Cultural Studies in order to identify common features. This displays that brand identity, similarly to the circuit of culture, is not specific to a single cultural studies school of thought but can be implemented by all three. Finally, it argues why brand identity in contrast to the circuit of culture tool is more context-appropriate.
2.1 Identity and Branding: Adaptation as a Cultural Process of Brand
Identity Articulation
The circuit of culture, a term that encompasses the five cultural processes of representation, identity, production, consumption, and regulation, can be employed for the examination of cultural texts and artifacts. It can even be implemented to examine brands. While the circuit of culture demonstrates the need to maintain equilibrium across and between all five cultural processes, it does nevertheless always appear to resort to the matter of identity, whether that is the identity of the product, the organization or consumers but without giving it its due prominence. Instead, brand identity, as will be seen further down, encompasses the five cultural processes and places prominence on the matter of identity. Branding entails a promise of meaning between producers and consumers, a negotiation that both sides seek to establish and maintain via the production and experience of the brand product respectively.
Brand identity is not simply a marketing tool. It is not only an economic term or a consumer capitalist device for product distinction. It represents a cultural and industrial mentality, intent on forging and delineating identities. In a cultural sense, branding is applicable Marazi 75 to people, products, companies, and services. As an industrial and marketing concept this application is restricted. Brand identity theory cannot offer a full disclosure of the intentions of the entertainment industry. As a tool, however, it can redirect attention to those intentions, the context in which the production teams make decisions about adapted texts. It can also offer useful perspectives and terminology, so as to reconsider certain debates. In addition, it also draws the consumers into focus, an area Adaptation Studies has overlooked, but are now intent on investigating.51 For the purposes of this project, it demonstrates the treatment and intentions of the respective sector’s intellectual properties. Hollywood studios brand their media franchises, so as to differentiate amongst each other and between similar products.52
Brand identity as a cultural concept acts as both the means and the medium of an identity, thus displaying the abstract and concrete nature of identities. What is under examination is not a text but the identity of a text.53 This notion of abstract/concrete identity serves in
51 Drawing on neo-Gramscian theory, Storey in What is Cultural Studies: A Reader (1996) points out that the range of possible meanings cannot be read off only from the text or only from the means of production. Cultural consumption also has to be taken into consideration. Essentially, the context for “production in use,” whether it is the actual production via the industry or the ways consumers use the product is what we need to place emphasis on. To do this one also needs to be aware of a vital distinction that the political economy approach tends to conflate, namely that “the power of the culture industries and the power of their influence” are not necessarily the same (Storey 10). Hence, the reason for initially focusing on intentionality is due to the fact that the industry is responsible for producing adaptations, they initially determine an identity with a set of meanings that audiences will broadly speaking, accept or contest though varied meanings can be found across this broad spectrum. 52 In the field of Adaptation Studies, the focus is primarily on similarities and differences. Stuart Hall in “Cultural Studies: two paradigms” discusses the two paradigms of culturalism and structuralism where he notes that structuralism acknowledges the complexity of the unity of a structure and has the conceptual ability to think of unity as that “which is constructed through differences between, rather than the homology of, practices” whereas culturalism “constantly affirms the specificity of different practices, where Hall emphasizes that culture must not be absorbed into the economy but culturalism lacks an adequate way of establishing this specificity theoretically” (44, emphasis in original). Brand identity does display structure and encompasses the structuralist notion of “the whole,” but at the same time it entails different practices and their interrelationships –thus extending towards the culturalist paradigm– that allude to the matter of articulation. Influenced by Marx who saw unity of a social formation constructed not out of identity but out of difference, Hall posits that Structuralism, instead of falling into a fundamental conceptual heterogeneity could have taken a more fruitful direction, that of articulation, thus catering to relative autonomy and allowing us to view specific practices together (44, emphasis in original). Brand identity exhibits characteristics from both paradigms; hence it can be argued that it effectively bridges the two paradigms. 53 In What is Cultural Studies: A Reader (1996) John Frow and Meaghan Morris posit that a text displays interleaving levels involving practices, institutional structures, complex forms of agency that entail legal, political and financial conditions of existence as well as flows of power and knowledge, a particular multilayered semantic organization resulting in an ontologically mixed entity for which there is not one “correct” reading (255). Rather Marazi 76 reconsidering the content/form debate, but it further extends to the original versus adaptation debate as well. Branding is a process intent on establishing the core features of an identity and negotiating the extended concrete manifestations of that identity. This corresponds to the three vital concepts upon which this project’s definition of adaptation lies: i) the sense of an on-going dialogue pertaining to relative and relational continuity along the horizontal axis of adaptation across media; ii) the specific instances of brands that cater to distinction and differentiation of identity along the vertical axis which points to the matter of intentions; iii) the context in which the interrelationships between cultural production, product and consumption negotiate the promise and meaning(s) of a brand. What follows is a cross-referencing account of the circuit of culture and the brand identity components. The aim is to highlight the predominant aspects of identity, context, and intentionality that the circuit of culture alone does not cover sufficiently.
As seen in Chapter One, du Gay et. al’s Doing Cultural Studies: The Story of the Sony
Walkman (1997), employs the circuit of culture to examine the subject matter of listening to music via the case study of the Sony Walkman brand. Marieke de Mooij, from a marketing perspective, informs that the Sony Walkman is considered a prime example of the existence of
"global products, developed for global consumers with global needs, who would use it with similar motives" (3). What de Mooij’s comment points out is that the western motive is completely different from what Masaru Ibuka and Akio Morita, cofounders of the Sony
Corporation, propose. Ibuka and Morita focus on “listen[ing] to music without disturbing others,” while Western culture seeks the “enjoyment of music without being disturbed by others”
(3). Automatically, one product used to listen to music and whose identity is branded with a
texts exist within a network of intertextual relations and to study it from a cultural studies perspective means maintaining equilibrium between and across the different moments of production that include: material production, symbolic production, textual production, and the ‘production in use’ of consumption (255). While this demonstrates that even a text-based approach will cater to all the processes of cultural production, it further exhibits that texts can also pose as entities complete with their own distinct identity. Marazi 77 specific promise takes on different meanings from a cultural consumption perspective. Given the abstract/concrete nature of brands, Sony can cater to both types of consumer use via the Sony
Walkman identity. Similarly, in the case of superhero brands the production initially establishes a promise towards the consumers but, depending on the cultural background and mentality of the consumers, more meanings can be attributed to the respective superheroes.
According to Celia Lury, brands are both abstract and concrete which reflects the abstract nature of relations in connection to the concrete manifestation of products in space and time (3-
4). The identity of the brand poses as a neutral identity concept such as that of “listening to music” or “superhero” that acquires a charged political, economic and social meaning, when taking the aspects of relationality and relativity into consideration. More specifically, the brand is
“both a means of establishing relativity and the abstract equivalence of products in space and time and it is a medium of relationality able to support differentiation of objects and subjects, products and consumers” (Lury 8). For the purposes of this project, adopting brand identity as the tool of examination, rather than the circuit of culture, delineates the institutionally-charged dialogue pertaining to intellectual property adaptations within the Hollywood entertainment industry’s media franchise culture. It reveals the power play and continuous struggle producers and consumers engage in to negotiate the brand promise and meaning(s). Hollywood initially brands its products but the interrelationships between products and consumers filter back to the production team who then negotiates how to adjust the product identity given consumer expectations and demands. This can also account for why certain works are continuously being adapted over and over again. Trends, audience expectations, and demands to a certain extent influence what the industry produces. Of course, the industry also takes initiative in what it chooses to produce. What this indicates is that any dialogue pertaining to relations, similarities Marazi 78 and differences regarding adaptations is already institutionally-charged. The process leading to the end-product is comprised of various intentions exhibited by both producers and expectations displayed by consumers.
Both brand and adaptation as notions entail a process and an action. Brands and adaptations are the information, content, and object of examination but also a process that shapes and forms the aforementioned from a specific viewpoint and in a specific context. Lury claims that brands are both an object of information and an agent that objectifies information (1). More specifically, brands are “totalizing and incomplete social facts,” displaying the relations between products, and services in time, simultaneously “virtual and actual, abstract and concrete, a means of relativity and a medium of relationality" (12). To view brands solely as objects would be equivalent to the comparative examination Adaptation Studies conducts between texts.
Moreover, the issue under negotiation is that of identity, both as being and as becoming, as object and subject, content and form, terms which are essentially inseparable and yet interchangeable. A brand's core identity is abstract but has the capacity to acquire concrete content/form. As a cultural phenomenon, brand identity encompasses the notion of identity, the process of forging an identity, the negotiation of the meaning of identity, and exhibits the dynamics that sustain and change an identity, all resulting in a multiplicity of meanings that affect its brand value. Brand identity encompasses the five cultural processes of the circuit of culture (representation, identity, production, consumption, and regulation).
Similarly to the circuit's notion of identity, brand identity consists of two components, the core, and the extended identity, where the latter is comprised of four perspectives. While this identity is attuned to the brand itself, it also connects with the social identities the brand targets.
Marazi 79
Brand Core Extended
• Core • Abstract • Concrete • Extended • Constant • 4 perspectives • Similarity/Continuity • Differences
Figure 2 Brand Identity
For example, a Batman action figure targets children and teenagers, while a Batman film, depending on its rating, may only target adult audiences. According to David A. Aaker, "[t]he core identity –the central, timeless essence of the brand– is most likely to remain constant, as the brand travels to new markets and products. The core identity contains the abstract concepts that pose the central meaning of the brand and offer continuity by ensuring constant associations between the core and extended identities of the brand. Similarly, when examining adaptations what sustains continuity between the source material and the adapted work is a core identity aspect. The brand's core identity needs to be easily decipherable. In the case of superheroes, their core identity constitutes a basic and common element, as denoted by the use of the super-prefix indicating their super-qualities, the good versus evil conflict that establishes their raison-d’être and their dual or secret identity. The core, however, by consisting of abstract characteristics, cannot solely function as the brand’s identity. It requires textures that fill out the picture and attribute concrete meanings and dimensions through the extended identity to the brand. For example, all superheroes share the same core identity but each superhero differs concretely in Marazi 80 how the abstract core identity is manifested with regard to the super-prefix, the good versus evil conflict and the matter of secret or dual identity. The extended identity includes brand identity elements organized into cohesive and meaningful groups that provide texture and completeness"
(68-69).
The four perspectives of the extended identity include that of product, organization, personality, and symbol which are equivalent to the circuit of culture's representation, production, consumption and regulation processes.
•Scope •Production •Attributes •Distribution •Uses/Users •Copyright •Origin
Product Organization
Personality Symbol
•Functional and •Logo Emotional benefits •Advertising •Ideology •Cultural heritage
Figure 3 Brand Extended Identity
With the intention of any brand being to secure a strong and viable position in the market, the establishment of a strong and unique identity very much depends on fostering a brand Marazi 81 community, as well as establishing and maintaining value above all else. Monetary, functional and emotional value is dependent on the brand loyalty of consumers and their relationship with the products and producers. The extended identities of a brand initially correspond to the circuit's process of representation, while posing as responses to the brand's core identity. Extended identities act as, manifestations of, and as responses to their core identity. Superheroes, for instance, are represented as illustrations in comic books and graphic novels, two-dimensional figures portrayed by actors in a film or television series, computer-generated images in video and computer games, animated figures, tangible objects, symbols, and insignia, cos-players54, and theme park rides. The discourse surrounding superheroes enriches their representation and interpretation through edited collections, journals, workshops, curricula, product placement, and social media. Similarly, if adaptations are considered responses to their source material, then each adaptation adds meaning to a core identity premise, established by the initial source material. Suffice it to say that, deciphering exactly where the core identity premise originates from may prove difficult, if not impossible since all texts display intertextual features.55 In the case of superheroes, intertextuality is evident due to the existence of the hero category of which superheroes are a subcategory.
Superheroes and their narratives are actually responding to both prior and current superhero texts, as well as to past heroic narratives. Batman, for instance, draws inspiration and poses as a response to Sherlock Holmes, Zorro, and Dracula, in addition to all contemporary
54 The term cos-player is a contraction of the words costume player. Costume play or cosplay is a hobby usually fans engage in where they wear costumes and fashion accessories to represent a specific character. Cosplay as a hobby is most noticeable at Comic-Con (Comic Convention) events. 55 With regard to Cultural Studies, Hall has commented that “there are no ‘absolute beginnings’ and few unbroken continuities […]. What is important are the significant breaks – where old lines of thought are disrupted, older constellations displaced, and elements, old and new, are regrouped around a different set of premises and themes” (qtd. in Storey 4, emphasis in original). While this accommodates the practices and approaches to Cultural Studies, it clearly appears in the cultural products as well; continuity and breaks are evident for instance in adaptations and given the influence of intertextuality, it can be quite difficult, perhaps nearly impossible to decipher the influences of an original work. Marazi 82 superheroes and past versions of the Batman brand.56 The extended identity provides and ensures differentiation of a particular brand identity from other brand identities. For the purposes of
Adaptation Studies, the concept of genre is the most compliant with the abstract and concrete nature of brand identity. It is also not medium-specific and ministers the notion of intentionality with regard to style, purpose, and use. It poses as the most arable locale from which to extract the core identity of an intellectual property with a story-telling dimension. The superhero genre provides the central meaning, as well as continuity and consistency to any superhero branded intellectual property. The actual superhero products, ranging from comic books, films, television series, animation, video games and merchandise, are the extended identities of the superhero core identity.
Nevertheless, one must not view brands solely as products, for they are ultimately more than that. Brand products are the cause or motivation to engage in meaning-making and value propositions. It is by means of the brand products that one enters both a community and a relationship with other consumers and the producers. Similarly, adaptations are more than texts.
Literary adaptations provide a context for audiences to discuss, analyze and critique the choices and intentions of the production team, as they appear in the end products. Derek Johnson, in discussing paratexts pertaining to the Marvel Cinematic Universe films, notes:
Although paratextuality is often considered in relation to how popular media
audiences receive meaning, trade stories ask us to consider how production
personnel are themselves audiences of a kind for whom deep texts, as paratexts,
offer branded meaning and identity to the media firms in relation to which they
labor. In this sense, the text on which paratexts operate would be the Marvel brand,
56 For more information on the influences of Batman see Geoff Klock’s How to Read Superhero Comics and Why (2006); Richard Reynold’s Super Heroes: A Modern Mythology (1992); Danny Fingeroth’s Superman on the Couch: What Superheroes Really Tell Us about Ourselves and Our Society (2006). Marazi 83
not Marvel films. Through self-reflexive discourses such as these, institutions,
structures, and practices acquire meaning in industrial contexts and spaces. Marvel's
self-reflexive production of industry lore held the paratextual power to manage and
inflect the imaginative orientation of those within Hollywood who encountered and
made sense of the company as a brand. (16, emphasis added)
The fact that adaptation practices are undertaken in this industrial context calls attention to the need to take such matters into consideration. The main distinction between brand communities and adaptation audiences is that the latter is divided between those who are aware of the source material and those who are not and may never be. Brand communities do not dictate the degree of membership based on quantity or quality, but rather by the engagement that results in the identification, as well as functional and emotional benefits. Unlike adaptations, which may not prompt audience members to engage with the source material, brands seek to develop communities of dialogue and exchange of knowledge. The more one is aware of and engages with extended brand identities, the stronger the feeling of belonging becomes. This type of mentality would actually prompt consumers to experience the range of adaptations available, thus enriching their experience and understanding through the exposure to various text-identities.
The production team actually relies on this when marketing its brands, a fact that is evident in the elevated sales of a book for which the production has produced an adaptation.
As an industry, the Hollywood entertainment sector has always treated its products as more than stories or texts. The misconception that brands are only products is reminiscent of adaptations viewed as simply "copies," "duplicates" or "retellings" of stories. The dimensions of the brand product display how a branded intellectual property is more than a product by extending beyond the idea of a text. In a very narrow sense, a brand is a product but in a broader Marazi 84 sense, it can even pose as a mentality and way of life. The product dimension of brands consists of scope, attributes, quality value associated with price, uses and users and country of origin. The scope of superhero products, for instance, is to offer a multitude of experiences, while simultaneously connecting that experience to the core identity of superheroes. The scope is twofold since it appeases both the industry, which seeks profit and creative control and consumers, who quench functional and emotional benefits through the purchase of our engagement with the aforesaid products. Superhero films, television series, animation, comic books and graphic novels –whether adaptations or not – offer a superhero narrative experience that can be coupled with a superhero gaming experience via computer or video games.
Additionally, superhero merchandise, theme park rides, even exhibitions all carry the core meaning of superheroes, while simultaneously gratifying different target audiences, functions, uses, and tastes. This leads to product attributes that determine product-use and provide certain functional and emotional benefits to the consumers.
What drives the motivation of engagement and purchase, however, is the type of entertainment and ambiance provided by the products. The quality of a product in connection to its price range will either hinder or entice consumers to purchase and experience it. The purchasing of a movie ticket, the viewing of a television series, or the reading of a comic book, is more economical than buying a console set and video games. Superhero brands and products display an array of types and usage. Until recently these types of products have not been given much attention, particularly by universities and academic disciplines. Nevertheless, they remain popular and have been so since the 1930s, thus displaying that, as both genre and brands, they still have something to offer and various purposes to serve. Marazi 85
The supply and demand of the market have drawn attention to their dominating influence resulting in superhero subject matter for academic curricula, conferences, and academic publications. The types of consumer superhero brands attract are both heterogeneous and continuously growing. Depending on gender, age, social status, economic status, educational background, sexuality, ethnic background and political affiliations, one could claim that superhero products have something to offer to everyone. The country of origin of these brand products, nonetheless, may determine their popularity, credibility, success, and acceptance in other countries and cultures. The brand management of these products can also affect the brand loyalty of consumers, as well as determine their success or failure. Seeing how all mainstream superheroes are ultimately American creations, one could argue that their Americanized treatment may pose as a benefit or liability. Despite the minimal diversity of superhero characters' ethnic backgrounds, sexuality, gender and symbolic meanings they, for the most part, reflect and represent American perspectives and ideologies. What is more, as brands they initiate a specific context of exchange and communication that results in dialogic meaning-making and value for producers and consumers alike. Consequently, a brand identity product examination cannot be sufficient without taking the respective organization into account.
The core identity of a brand is influenced and enriched by the very identity of its organization. The brand organization is responsible for upholding and maintaining the core identity of the brand, managing the extended identities and preserving a relationship with consumers, so as to ensure value. David A. Aaker points out:
Organizational attributes are more enduring and more resistant to competitive
claims than are product attributes. First, it is much easier to copy a product than to
duplicate an organization with unique people, values, and programs. Second, Marazi 86
organizational attributes usually apply to a set of product classes, and a competitor
in only one product class may find it difficult to compete. Third, because
organizational attributes such as being innovative are hard to evaluate and
communicate, it is difficult for competitors to demonstrate that they have
overcome any perceived gap. (83)
The Marvel brand organization is not the only one creating superhero characters, printing superhero comic books and graphic novels, producing superhero films, television series, animation, video games or merchandise. Rival company DC also deals with the same subject matter, narrative media and products. Both employ the blockbuster format to their films and both are in a neck-to-neck competition regarding their films and television series. Currently, Marvel is ahead of the game with the cinematic universe, while DC is showing progress in establishing its television universe. Marvel, even in this area, is not far behind with television series such as
Daredevil (2015), Jessica Jones (2015) and Luke Cage (2016). The criteria that distinguish such organizations are their brand names and attributes, their intellectual properties and their brand management. In addition, the aims, intentions, and stature of the organization may also affect the output of products, as well as their characteristics.
In its attempts to establish a Marvel Cinematic Universe, Marvel is currently in a difficult position regarding some of its intellectual properties, whose film rights are in the hands of other rival organizations. For example, Sony until recently held full film rights to Marvel’s Spider-
Man, while Fox still holds the film rights to Marvel’s X-Men and the Fantastic Four. The story arc Marvel’s Phase Two follows culminates in the film Captain America: Civil War (2016). The respective graphic novel story contains characters from the X-Men and Fantastic Four, who will not appear in the film adaptation, due to matters pertaining to film rights and legal issues. Marazi 87
Furthermore, the difference in house-style characteristics between Marvel and DC has split audience preferences. The limited creative control given to Marvel figure-heads, such as Stan
Lee, who occasionally consult on films produced by other studios, has drawn even greater attention to the difference in film style between a purely Marvel Studios' production and a purely
Sony or Fox production of a Marvel character. Fan petitions avidly expressing their desire for these film rights to be reverted back to Marvel have gone viral. This demonstrates the preference fans display towards the way Marvel produces and treats its products because it imbues them with the respective Marvel brand personality.
Brands have the potential to display a personality that enriches the brand, makes it stronger, creates self-expressive benefits and can pose as the basis for a relationship between consumers, brands, and producers. Aaker explains that “brand personality can be defined as the set of human characteristics associated with a given brand” that attributes a distinctive and enduring quality to the brand and allows consumers to interact with it as if it were human (141-
42). If a distinct personality is displayed, there is a high probability that consumers will identify with the brand and use it to express certain aspects and characteristics of themselves. This raises the emotional and functional value of the brand. Superhero brands, like all character brands, have a distinct advantage, as they already display their own unique personality with which audiences can identify, develop a deep emotional attachment to, or even employ as a personal statement.
The addition of the organization’s personality can only elevate and raise the bar for identification, brand loyalty and value when it comes to brands and how consumers engage with them. Aaker clarifies that brand personality can “serve as the foundation for meaningful differentiation, especially in contexts where brands are similar with respect to product attributes”
(150-51). A prime example of both brand identity and adaptation that displays brand personality Marazi 88 and audience identification is that of The Handmaid’s Tale (2017). Margaret Atwood’s novel
The Handmaid’s Tale (1985) premiered as a television series adaptation on April 26th, 2017, and has sparked female protest around the world. The visual representation employed in the TV series adaptation to brand the handmaids has been taken up by female populations, protesting for women’s rights and literally branding themselves with the respective outfit seen in the series. In the series character Commander Fred Waterford refers to how his totalitarian and Christian theonomic government of Gilead brands the handmaids. Similarly, the way female protestors have identified with the handmaids and have appropriated the meanings assigned to them in the series is telling of how personality and identity can be negotiated to produce additional meanings. The distinct Marvel personality flowing through the Marvel Cinematic Universe productions is important enough to matter significantly to various target audiences. Consumer anthropologist, Grant McCracken, considers the brand’s personality to be part of its cultural meaning capable of corresponding with consumer needs for self-expression, as well as constructing and maintaining their social profile (qtd. in Aaker 153). What this indicates is a strong relationship not only between consumers and brands but also between consumers and the
Marvel organization the latter being deemed so meaningful that it has acquired the status of a symbol.
Symbols and their meanings, while culturally significant, are also context-specific and even more so in the case of brands. Various objects can acquire symbolic use and functions; some based on a general knowledge that is handed down through narrative stories, others by the personal intention of authors, and there is even the case of personal interpretation by audiences.
When a brand, however, becomes a symbol, the function is different. For brands, a symbolic dimension provides amongst consumers “cohesion and structure to an identity and make[s] it Marazi 89 much easier to gain recognition and recall” (Aaker 84). A brand’s symbolic meaning is predetermined by the organization but it is not absolute and not fixed by any means. While the extended identities can and will exhibit change, the core does not change. According to Paul
Grainge,
[i]f intellectual property has a cultural life, the meaning of a brand is not simply
determined by those who circulate and co-ordinate mass media representations
but is also forged in cultural instances where texts, symbols, and images are used
by social agents, interpreted by audiences and taken up by fan groups in
potentially unforeseen ways. (12)
The symbol aspect of brands may appear as either visual imagery or drawing on the brand’s heritage as a statement or slogan. Most superheroes, or at least the most renowned ones such as
Superman, Batman, Iron Man, and Captain America, display visual imagery such as the “S,” the bat-signal, the arc reactor, and the shield respectively. For the most part, due to their avid visual nature, superheroes are usually recognizable on sight particularly due to their costumes. Some also reference their heritage via slogans such as “Truth, Justice and the American way” for
Superman, "With great power comes great responsibility" for Spider-Man, and "the man without fear" for Daredevil. Both Marvel and DC organizations have come to stand for superhero entertainment, despite the fact that both produce other types of genres, characters, and stories.
Superheroes, in general, have stood as symbols of good over evil. Of course, even the notions of good and evil are time sensitive and context specific. Certain symbols, such as the patriotic Captain America, may appear, if not irrelevant after a certain point, then out of place and time. With the introduction of the revisionary superhero narrative, examples of which are
Frank Miller's Batman: The Dark Knight Returns (1986) and Alan Moore’s Watchmen (1986), Marazi 90 the symbolic meaning of superheroes and the concepts of good and evil have acquired a more complex and ambiguous stature constantly open to debate. Suffice it to say the relevance and strength of a brand, whether it clearly exhibits a symbolic perspective or not, is to always be in a state of becoming57 so as to remain current, meaningful and valuable. Certainly, that is highly connected to brand management, which brings the relationship between producers and consumers to the fore.
The scope of total entertainment is to build communities of interaction and meaning- making within a specific brand context. The phenomenon of “total entertainment” is predicated on the following logic. According to Steve Marrs, CEO of Brand Entertainment Studios, “If you can create an environment that is entertaining to your desired consumers and allows them to be entertained in the context of the brand, then you have an ideal form of communication with your consumer that is relevant, original, and impactful” (qtd. in Grainge 37). Within the Marvel superhero brand context, and more specifically the Marvel Cinematic Universe, audiences engage with different product lines, discuss the impact of a superhero team-up, and delve into a more holistic, albeit diverse, Marvel superhero experience. This context, however, is managed by the producers. Lury points out that the brand “pre-structures the action” where “brand owners own a particular predetermined frame of action” that they see as guaranteeing them use-value, and profit-value (qtd. in Arvidsson 8, emphasis in original). The context of the brand is initially set and governed by the producers.
Consumers officially enter the community by purchasing and engaging with the respective products. Adam Arvidsson, however, stresses that “brands do not so much stand for products, as much as they provide a part of the context in which products are used” (8). By
57 With regard to the objectivity of the brand, Lury highlights: “The ‘is’ of the brand is also its ‘may-be’; in its being –its objectivity– it has the potential to be otherwise, to become. Such an object does not tend towards full determination or closure; rather, it exists in a state of indetermination, a situation of (un)control” (127). Marazi 91 moderating the context, brand management builds associations and meanings, or in other words
“what the organization wants the brand to stand for in customer’s mind” (Aaker 25). This echoes the logic of modern or Fordist marketing, where brand management sought to impose how customers should think about, use and behave towards the brand (Arvidsson 68). Initially, the meaning of the brand was predetermined and imposed on customers, effectively deeming them passive recipients of any meanings producers wished to pass. The ultimate value of the brand now resides in how consumers think and feel about a brand.
Consumers will determine the duration of superhero popularity, value, and meaning. As a result, brand management is highly indicative of the notion of regulation and exhibits the complex relationship between producers and consumers. Therefore, while the purpose of brand management has remained the same, the logic governing it has changed. "The purpose of brand management is to transform brands into ‘popular ideas that people live by,' to create ‘enduring relations' with customers, to make the brand into one of the many significant others that anchor people to reality,” thus alluding to the idea of the brand as “a response to the existential insecurity of ‘late’ or ‘post’ modern societies” that emerged in the 1990s (Arvidsson 82-83). In light of this type of brand management, this purpose is predicated on offering “branded goods as tools, or building blocks whereby consumers can create their own meanings” and, more importantly, add to or reproduce the already existing qualities of the brand (Arvidsson 67-68).
Brands offer a context of action and communication that grants consumers a means towards self- expression, identification and, more importantly, a shared community.
The notion of regulation works on two levels by displaying the various power plays and complex relationships between producers and consumers and within the industry of production.
Business franchise operations have been in existence for many years. According to Derek Marazi 92
Johnson, “the emerging media franchise culture was conceptualized as a network of content constituted across multiple industrial sites” (5), where “[w]hat is networked in a franchise culture is neither the delivery apparatus nor the sites of distribution but the serialized cultural content and it’s dispersed sites of production” (11). This is an immediate result of neo-Fordism "that creates a demand for content; meeting that demand poses a challenge for the media institutions
[which are] no longer able to rely upon their infrastructure alone. The problem is one of supply and the media franchise steps in as a solution to this dilemma beginning in the 1980s" (Johnson
109). Before synergies and Hollywood conglomerates, content has been treated intra-industrially.
Each industry sector focused on the production, distribution, and exhibition of its own content; the film industry focused on films, the comic book industry on comic books and television on
TV series. The media franchises that appear in the 1980s introduced an inter-industrial treatment.
This means that parallel corporate interests concerning content begin to align. For instance, it is in the interest of both the film and comic book industry to produce a comic book film adaptation because both media industries benefit from this.
Acquisition of intellectual property libraries, as well as licensing, provided the opportunity to all these industries to treat properties that they had no rights to before, thus leading to an inter-industrial treatment whilst continuing to focus on intra-industrial production of content.58 Johnson argues that “producers in shared franchise networks must negotiate a tension between what [he] terms difference and deference” (17). More specifically,
[d]ifference emerges when producers in the same institutional structure seek to
distinguish their parallel uses of the shared world asserting autonomy by creating
58 Johnson clarifies that intra-industrial treatment entails the production of content within a single medium and shared institutional structure, such as “television shows networked with other television shows” while inter- industrial treatment occurs when franchises “move across technological, textual, or industrial boundaries (such as television property networked with comics and games)” (177). Marazi 93
distinct iterations. Deference results when producers from unequal institutional
positions sit in subordinate relationships to other more privileged nodes in the creative
network. In sharing the same world, they must defer to these more powerful interests
by remaining within given narrative parameters. (17-18)
For creators working with shared worlds but within the same medium, the difference is paramount for distinguishing products and content. Indicative examples include the series Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1997-2003) and its spin-off Angel (1999-2004), or Grey’s Anatomy (2005- today) and its spin-off Private Practice (2007-2013) (177). When creators are involved in shared worlds across media then, according to Johnson, deference, the consistency and coherence of a brand character or world, is paramount (177). An illustrative example is Johnson’s article “Will the Real Wolverine Please Stand Up? Marvel’s Mutation from Monthlies into Movies” focusing on the Hugh Jackman/Wolverine character.
In particular, Marvel has sought to tighten the Wolverine brand’s representation due to the multiplicity of character manifestations within comics, resulting from alternating artists and writers in addition to the multiple animations, film, television and video game character versions.
Influenced by the widely accepted Hugh Jackman/Wolverine version, attempts were made to make the Wolverine brand consistent and cohesive by eliminating the multitude of versions that could confuse readers/viewers/players/consumers. This is an indication of the similarity the industry wishes to bestow upon content that is dispersed across media so as to tighten the brand's representation. The fact that this uniformity was not entirely successful, as other versions of the
Wolverine character remain, allows audiences to make distinctions that posit the brand either of the comic book, the film or of the video game (Johnson 77-85). What can be deduced from an industrial perspective is that Marvel acts within an industry where there are constant dialogue Marazi 94 and tense negotiations pertaining to the intra and inter-industrial extended identity manifestations of its brands. Each sector, seeking to acquire control over creation and production, draws on legal actions, copyrights, trademarks and financial interests. They are also simultaneously faced with an active audience who determines the success, popularity, and value of brands and products.
In sum, the ontological state of brands deems them a cultural phenomenon of identity, dialogue, and interrelations. Brands are both products and processes dependent on actions, intentions, and communication for survival. Their dynamics are dependent on continuity and change, public and private domains, as well as space and time. As products, brands acquire the status of brand content, or as Arvidsson claims, intertextual commodities, capable of traveling across different media and formats (75). What is marketed is not a book or film, but the content brand complete with a core that ensures similarities across different product lines and extended identities that guarantee distinction between products. The following section will recontextualize and reassess long-held debates displaying how, similarly to brand identity, the components of adaptation, namely product, process, and reception are inseparable and yet interchangeable. In essence, adaptation is about identity and therein lays its cultural value.
2.2 Re-evaluating the Original: Brand Characters, the Role of Identity and the
Superhero-Adaptation Analogy
The examination of any identity must commence with the core or given identity, that aspect which is almost impossible or unlikely to change, thus ensuring continuity in the case of adaptations. To identify the core identity one must peel away the concrete aspects and textures of Marazi 95 the extended identity until one reaches the abstract aspects of the core. This, for instance, is equivalent to identifying the abstract aspects that allow us to recognize all superheroes as superheroes in spite of concrete differences they exhibit. More importantly, the extended identity aspects that complete the picture and offer texture to the brand must be peeled away, so as not to be mistaken for the core. The extended identity, characterized by its unique nature and the practice of choice, ensures the distinction between adaptation and source material. Nevertheless, both pose as extended identities of a particular core identity.
This section argues that genre poses as the area where the abstract core identity can be deciphered.59 To assist in this attempt, I draw on the notion of genre as that of a rules system demonstrating those identity characteristics that can assist in extracting the abstract elements of the core identity. At this point, I would like to clarify that this project is not conducting a genre theory analysis of the case studies brought forth, even though genre theory has been overlooked in the field of adaptation and would actually pose as a fruitful area for future research.
Nevertheless, it is the emphasis on medium-specificity that has led to the creation of adaptation category types, such as Geoffrey Wagner's transposition, commentary, and analogy.
Transposition is viewed as "a novel ‘given directly on screen'" (qtd. in Whelehan 8) and demonstrates the highest fidelity an adaptation can have with its source material. From a genre theory perspective, however, this is not the case, as will be seen in the following sections of this chapter. A shift from one medium to another alone indicates a different genre. For instance, a superhero comic book is not the same as a superhero film or television series due to different
59 Philip Drake informs that “[i]n the decades of the classical Hollywood studio system between approximately 1920 and 1960, the studios also became associated with particular genres –most famously MGM musicals and Warner Bros. gangster pictures– which gave them brand identity” (66). Jason Mittell suggests “by regarding genre as a property and function of discourse, we can examine the ways in which various forms of communication work to constitute generic definitions, meanings and values within particular historical contexts” (qtd. in Johnson 26). Derek Johnson takes Mittell’s suggestion a step further and while he does not advocate equalizing franchise to genres, he does see franchises “as a cultural category short of genre” which needs to be understood “not just as a function of textuality, but as a dynamic site of external historical processes and discourses” (26). Marazi 96 narrative media characteristics. Instead, this dissertation draws on John Fiske’s critical essay
“Intertextuality,” to provide the perspective from which it views and implements genre, more specifically one that connects to intertextuality and takes into account the industrial aspect of production and consumption. This rather dense theoretical point will be clarified in the next paragraph.
According to Fiske, the genre "serves the dual needs of a commodity: on the one hand standardization and familiarity, and on the other, product differentiation. But the work of genre is more than economic, it is cultural as well. […] Genre spells out to the audience the range of pleasures it might expect and thus regulates and activates memory of similar texts and the expectations of this one" (Fiske 223-24). Genre pertains to the intentions that prompt the concrete manifestation of extended identities and how those identities re-create their core identity. Genre caters to the area in between the abstract and concrete. This connects it to intertextuality which Fiske argues exists "in the space between texts" (219, emphasis in original).
This provides the arable ground from which to bring together genre, brand identity and intertextuality for the examination of types of adaptations that exhibit announced intertextuality.
What is more, it is a first step towards considering the role of genre more forcefully. That is to say, by demonstrating that as an approach for future research, genre theory poses as a promise base area from which we can start to examine types of adaptations, the degree of influence genre has on the production of adaptations and how it influences the role of medium-specificity discourses pertaining to adaptations.
Genres were initially constructed to assist in categorizing types of content, form, and style. However, a genre in this sense poses as a relatively broad category, where one can decipher the identity of a story, artifact or product in general. The characteristics of genres can be Marazi 97 viewed as abstract concepts that may or may not appear as concrete features in a text. In the case of the western, while the myth of the Wild West is an abstract concept characterizing all westerns, the material manifestation of the myth in a particular genre film, say in Shane (1953) for example, assists in considering the core identity of the film as a typical western and its hero as the typical westerner. In spite of this, they assist in extracting the abstract core identity of a given work. What is more, a genre in this respect offers itself as a promising site in which to consider the notion of intertexuality, an element that is vital in the examination of texts and is currently an area that is gaining prominence in the field of Adaptation Studies. Fiske points out that genres, in addition to being a cultural practice that grant structure and conventions (220),
“are intertextual or even pre-textual, for they form the network of industrial, ideological, and institutional conventions that are common to both producer and audiences out of which arise both the producer’s program and the audiences’ readings” (221). The main reason for this is because while all texts can exhibit and trigger intertextual associations in consumers, adaptations as announced retellings of a source work display intentional intertextual associations.60 This, of course, depends on whether the audience is familiar with the source work or not. If both original source material and adaptation are viewed in light of genre they are both accountable to it. This renders the idea of an original in adaptation studies a moot point. Even though it has been argued that genre is different from narrative medium to narrative medium, it continues to encompass abstract elements that are not determined –or defined– by novel, film, comic book or video game.
60 As Fiske explains, there is a difficulty in providing a purely textual definition of a genre in "that it tends to fix characteristics within genre boundaries in a way that rarely fits any specific instance" (221). While a superhero film does fall within the superhero genre, this does not mean that it cannot also belong to the action/adventure genre. Therefore, I concur with Fiske who suggests that “[a] genre seen textually should be defined as a shifting provisional set of characteristics which is modified as each new example is produced. Any one program will bear the main characteristics of its genre, but is likely to include some from others: ascribing it to one genre or another involves deciding which set of characteristics are the most important” (Fiske 222). Marazi 98
The analogy this section employs to re-evaluate the notion of the original in Adaptation
Studies follows the syllogism that: superhero is to hero what adaptation is to the original. What this analogy highlights is an intertextual relationship of associations between its two components, where superhero and adaptation are re-creations and re-interpretations of what a hero and an original are respectively. What is more, this analogy demonstrates that both original and adaptation are identity versions of the core. This allows us to view them on equal grounds rather than from a hierarchical novel/film perspective. From a brand identity perspective, all components are viewed as extended identities, each responding to one another, but all responding to a core identity tentatively governed by the respective genre. The logic behind this analogy is inspired by Richard Reynolds account of the superhero costume, which constitutes “a system of langue and parole;” more specifically, “[t]he langue is the structure of costume conventions, the rules that dictate the kind of costumes characters may wear” while “an individual costume is an example of parole – a specific utterance within this structured language of signs” (26, emphasis in original). In light of Reynold’s account, I would like to offer the following account. Genre constitutes a system of langue and parole, where the langue is understood as the abstract characteristics of the genre, the rules that dictate the kind, while individual samples pose as instances of parole, that concretely manifest the genre’s abstract core elements. If we view genre in this way, then all works, original and adaptations, pose as parole instances accountable to genre(s)-langues. The rules of a genre-langue may differ from narrative medium to narrative medium, thus determining plot development, aesthetics and modes of representation and semiotic systems. This, however, is evident only in the concrete extended identity. By extension, superheroes are parole instances or utterances of the notion hero and Marazi 99 adaptations are parole instances of an original, with the latter posing as the long-held issue in
Adaptation Studies.
Following the logic of brand identity, it becomes clear that hero is also accountable to a genre. Similarly, the original is accountable to its source of inspiration, namely characteristics of a respective genre(s). Derek Johnson asserts that the "franchise system thus lends itself not so much to generic types of products or services, but to those that can be developed as recognizable, unique coherent brands with qualities that motivate consumers to seek [them] out" (47). Generic can be viewed in two ways: one, it implies a generic product as opposed to a brand product of the same category (e.g. generic superhero category versus specific Batman brand); two, it can be understood as the genre of the product. The second view pertains to the similarity in a product, in the case of the example in question, DC's Batman and Marvel's Ironman are both superheroes, but the brand identity acts as the differentiating marker. Genre, while not equated to franchises, can be viewed as the abstract starting point that provides both recognition via similar, continuous forms and rules, while the extended identity is what distinguishes each product type. Both hero and original pose as instances of parole to an overarching abstract notion of genre and by extension are equated with superhero and adaptation as utterance responses. The aspect of continuity positions genre as the core, or constant abstract element, to which heroes and superheroes, originals and adaptations are accountable.
Thomas Schatz has characterized genre as a “value-laden narrative system” depicting a privileged story form based on formulas that have been refined over the years based on unique social or aesthetic characteristics and have been deemed as such through commercial selection and repetition into “familiar, meaningful systems which can be named as such” (qtd. in Coogan
22, emphasis in original). Thus we have a variety of genres which display their own unique Marazi 100 guidelines and structures such as the western, the musical, melodrama, science fiction, horror, and comedy. The unique element of superheroes is two-fold: on the one hand, the superhero genre derives from the definition of superheroes; on the other hand, the hybrid nature of the superhero genre displays the open potential for creativity and development, similar to the logic behind extended brand identities. In addition, it reflects the common elements as well as distinct differences between genres, similar to the relationship between an adaptation and its source material, an area that has not been sufficiently examined in the field of Adaptation.
The definition of superheroes sets the value-laden system of this particular genre, reflects its interconnection with the hero genre and displays its hybrid stature. Peter Coogan's superhero definition, while accurate, is extracted from the respective genre, when in fact it is the definition of the superhero and the hero genre that ultimately set the superhero genre system. The main reason for this is the hybrid potential of all genres. Contemporary culture and the Hollywood entertainment industry (especially so, ever since its conglomerate phase) continue to display that genres have a tendency to overlap. Certain characteristics become similar or are adopted and/or appropriated, hence leading to hybrid genres that can usher in the formation of new genres.
Henry Jenkins in "‘Just Men in Tights': Rewriting the Silver Age Comics in an Era of
Multiplicity" states that "genre emerges from the interaction between standardization and differentiation as competing forces shaping the production, distribution, marketing, and consumption of popular entertainment" (17). If an intellectual property falls neatly into a specific genre category, then that genre poses as the respective core identity.
On the other hand, if an intellectual property falls under a hybrid genre category, then the interrelation of those genres must be examined, so as to pinpoint the aspects that make up the respective core identity. Rick Altman supports that genre mixing is necessary and essential to the Marazi 101 creation of new genres or new extended identities in general. Altman clarifies that "even when a genre already exists in other media, the film genre of the same name cannot simply borrow from non-film sources, it must be recreated" (qtd. in Jenkins 26). What this can shed light on with regard to adaptations is that, even if an original exists, the adaptation cannot simply borrow elements or display fidelity, because it is recreated. While Adaptation Studies has focused on adaptations as recreations, it has done so by emphasizing the shift in medium and not the shift in genre-medium. Coogan is correct in emphasizing the necessity to locate the genre, or even genres from whence a hero and superhero emerge, as they will display the story formula and, more importantly, the meaning system that is in need of the aforesaid characters/heroes/superheroes. However, in the case of superheroes, that genre is already set by the hero genre, while the definition of superhero simply readjusts certain aspects of that genre system.
In The Power of Myth, Joseph Campbell sees "the hero story as being so ancient that it is found in all of the earliest mythologies, as well as in religious stories of Moses, Christ, the
Buddha, and Mohammed" ( qtd. in Ndalianis 2). We are all familiar with one type of hero or another, from Hercules to Robin Hood to Rambo and from Othello to Ichabod Crane to Blade, all cultures are overflowing with heroes. While every story has a protagonist, not all stories can be said to have heroes. What is even more intriguing is the fact that heroes are not restricted to any one narrative, medium or genre. One can see heroic figures in tragedy, romances, westerns, horror, science fiction, in serial narratives or in holistic narratives, in novels, films, television and even video games. Heroes are identifiable in different narratives, media, and genres due to a common core identity. Nevertheless, the same hero type is not manifested by the same individual figure across narratives, media, and genres. The core identity grants continuity but the extended Marazi 102 identities offer different versions and variations. Heroes are characters that have emerged from myths and, according to John Girling, such characters are especially evident in turbulent times
(qtd. in Ndalianis 4). Generally speaking “the super/hero is a concrete manifestation of an abstract concept that speaks of the struggle of civilization to survive and maintain order in a world that threatens to be overcome with chaos” (Ndalianis 3). Heroes and superheroes have never operated in a vacuum. As Ndalianis supports both they and their actions are fundamentally linked to the welfare of the society from which they come and they respond dynamically to challenges, all the while serving the needs of that society, and essentially give substance to various cultural ideologies while the overall aim is to preserve the status quo (3). Super/Heroes are the cultural figures through which any culture can examine its ideologies in respective times, as they are reflected within the super/hero in its attempt to assess and find balance.
In spite of a shared common core identity, superheroes cannot neatly fit into hero category types and this is why they pose as a subcategory of the concept hero. Northrop Frye in his Anatomy of Criticism (1957) classifies five types of fictive heroes, also referred to as archetypes.61 This classification displays that not all heroes are the same. Some heroes do not fall neatly into certain categories. For instance, Batman could belong to the second archetype category, as could the majority of DC characters, due to their source of inspiration. According to
Jason Bainbridge, DC superheroes belong to the heroic tradition and can be considered heroic
61 Frye’s five fictive hero archetypes consist of: type 1: “If superior in kind both to other men and to the environment of other men, the hero is a divine being, and the story about him will be a myth in the common sense of a story about a god” (33, emphasis in original); type II: “If superior in degree to other men and to his environment, the hero is the typical hero of romance, whose actions are marvelous but who is himself identified as a human being. The hero of romance moves in a world in which the ordinary laws of nature are slightly suspended” (33, emphasis in original); type III: “If superior in degree to other men but not to his natural environment, the hero is a leader. He has authority, passions, and powers of expression far greater than ours but […] is subject both to social criticism and to the order of nature” (33-34, emphasis in original); type IV: the hero is “superior neither to other men nor to his environment” (34); type V: the hero is “inferior in power or intelligence to ourselves” (34). Roger B. Rollins in “Beowulf to Batman: The Epic Hero and Pop Culture” notes that the pop hero that best illustrates the first type is Superman whereas Batman is a familiar example of type II (435). Marazi 103 archetypes similar to Hercules. In regards to action, these superheroes can be assigned the terms
"premodern" or "sacred" and they "promote themselves as divine figures of retribution" (66-67)
Marvel's superheroes, on the other hand, due their origin in the pulps, are based on melodrama, with its heroes being part of and affected by modernity (73). The term hero is quite flexible in relation to the socio-cultural context it emerges from. This becomes evident when superheroes are referred to as "vigilantes," a term that demonstrates controversy about the nature, methods, and rights such an individual has to take matters into their own hands. There are also instances such as the Hulk, an ambivalent character who oscillates between super/hero and monster and could thus be deemed both superhero and anti-hero. Moreover, the notion hero has subjective implications, as it depends on issues such as the admiration of various skills and characteristics that may be considered ambiguous depending on any respective culture and even the portrayal of the fictional character or the intentions of the creator. Evidently, a plethora of examples are necessary for arriving at an objective definition of the term hero and even this may not be conclusive.
By adding the prefix super to the word hero a new dimension is added to the definition of the hero. According to the definition employed by Coogan in his article "The Definition of the
Superhero," a superhero is:
[a] heroic character with a selfless, pro-social mission; with superpowers –
extraordinary abilities, highly developed physical, mental, or mystical skills, or
advanced technology; who has a superhero identity embodied in a codename and
iconic costume, which typically express his biography or character, powers, or origin
(transformation from ordinary person to superhero); and is generally distinct, i.e. can
be distinguished from characters of related genres (fantasy, science fiction, detective, Marazi 104
etc.) by a preponderance of generic conventions. Often superheroes have dual
identities, the ordinary one of which is usually a closely guarded secret. (21)
The similarities between hero and superhero are that both can be conceived as the main character of a story. Moreover, both display actions of admiration and as well as abilities, skills or characteristics. The main differences, on the other hand, lie in the prefix super- and its associations. Superheroes are hero-like but with the added characteristic of superpowers whether physical, mental, mystical; or they display an over-abundance of various other factors, such as technology or money. Their identity, in opposition to some types of heroes, is embedded in their codenames and bodily attire. Their recognition and recollection are easier and faster. Finally, they always display the aspect of duality, a notion either evident within the superhero, or/and in connection with an adversary. Coogan asserts that he was able to reach this definition based on the process of genre establishment. What I consider to be problematic with the establishment of the definition, and not the definition in itself, is the fact that aside from the prefix super-, the good and evil conflict, as well as the matter of a secret or dual identity, is evident in other narrative-media samples of the hero genre.
All heroes, whether they are simply the protagonists of a story, epic or modern, all have a mission and their actions always focus on maintaining the status quo and engaging in the battle of good versus evil. What is more, both heroes and superheroes may exhibit a secret identity.
Henry Jenkins in his article “Just Men in Tights: Rewriting Silver Age Comics in an Era of
Multiplicity” confirms that “masked heroes from the pulp magazines, including the Shadow, the
Phantom, the Spider, and Zorro, modeled the capes and masks iconography and the secret identity thematic of the subsequent superhero comics” (27). Contrary to what most believe, superheroes are not the first to sport selective attire, logos, have their codename associated with Marazi 105 their costume or have a secret identity. The characteristics Coogan presents in his superhero definition essentially confirm that superheroes are just like heroes. The only difference is that their power may be more extreme than those of heroes. The following paragraphs examine the characteristics of super- prefix, good versus evil and the dual identity or doppelgänger in more depth.
The super- prefix posing as the main element that distinguishes superheroes from heroes is also an ambivalent notion. The superlative degree through which heroes are defined (super) has not been definitively set in addition to how certain characters are treated by their creators, thus leaving ample room for negotiation whether a character falls under the hero or superhero category. This has to do with how the notion of “super” is understood in connection to whether a character is coined a hero or superhero. When comparing Batman and Sherlock Holmes, it is easy to understand why some may consider Sherlock Holmes to be a superhero of sorts, even though he does not fall into the superhero category. First, both characters have a basis in the detective genre. Sherlock Holmes actually poses as one of many inspirations for Batman. Both exemplify superiority of skill, either physical or mental. Both have at their disposal elements, such as money or a brother in a high-ranking position that allows one or the other to achieve things a normal person/character could not. And yet, while both are human characters, it is
Batman who has been called and been known as a superhero. The intentions of DC to introduce a human character exhibiting no extreme or otherworldly powers a superhero has contributed to recognizing and referring to Batman as a superhero.
Similarly, the Hulk character occasionally falls under the superhero category, depending on the plotline as, for instance in such a case, as in The Avengers (2012). In his stand-alone film
The Incredible Hulk (2008), he has been deemed an anti-hero, since his affiliations and position Marazi 106 in the fight between good and evil either oscillate or are simply unpredictable and unclear. The
Thor character poses as an interesting case in point that directly reverts back to the logic of brand identity. Thor, in both Norse mythology and the Marvel universe, is exactly the same character but, when referencing the latter, the Marvel name is always prominent, because the company has adapted and appropriated or rather has branded the character for their specific narrative purposes.
Thus, if one were to examine the core identity of the Thor brand, in both of the cases of mythology and American pop culture; it would be defined exactly by the same characteristics, namely super attributes, the fight between good and evil and the notion of the doppelgänger.62
When the examination proceeds to the actual narrative samples available, then distinctions between hero and superhero appear as elements of each respectively extended identity. Parallel to this, Hercules could easily be considered a superhero respectively for ancient
Greek culture and yet he has not been appointed to that category unless one considers the respective Marvel-branded Hercules. The super prefix, as an element of the core identity, does not act as a criterion for categorizing heroes and superheroes under character archetypes or genres based on the type, or degree, of their super attributes. Instead, it postulates that any superhero brand needs to display super attributes where the exact definition of super is relatively open and abstract, thus not dictating the exact type or degree of these attributes.
Another common point of the hero and superhero genres that poses as part of their core identity is the battle of good versus evil. Both heroes and superheroes enter into a battle of good versus evil. This battle advances the plot of a superhero film or television series. It reaffirms the raison d'être of heroes and superheroes. Most importantly, as a core identity aspect of heroes and
62 For more information on the doppelgänger theme see John Herman’s The Double in Nineteenth-Century Fiction (1990); Robert Roger’s A Psychoanalytic Study of the Double in Literature (1970); Dani Cavallaro’s The Gothic Vision: Three Centuries of Horror, Terror and Fear (2002); C. F. Keppler’s The Literature of the Second Self 1972); Danny Fingeroth’s Superman on the Couch: What Superheroes Really Tell Us about Ourselves and Our Society (2006). Marazi 107 superheroes the theme of good versus evil will be present in all narrative media manifestation.
The form it takes, however, in the extended identity manifestation of a film or television series varies thus reflecting other themes, motifs, and meanings. A simplified action of a hero is their assistance and help in times of need. Those times of need may be of a personal, individual or collective nature. The Robin Hood character is considered a hero because he fights against the injustice and greed of the monarchy that has oppressed the poor. Hercules is considered a hero on the basis of his accomplishment of various impossible feats usually against forces that have been threatening towards humanity. Similarly, superheroes battle against superior threatening forces towards humanity; however, in my opinion, the respective culture is ambivalent towards them. For example, the X-men fight other mutants who believe it is their right, due to their mutation, to overtake and even govern humanity. This mirrors the issues of race and minority groups as well as foreign and domestic policies within American culture. Batman is a character who fights crime of any kind and of any level. His existence confirms the nature of crime on a local and global scale whilst also perpetuating it. Spiderman fights crime as does Batman.
However, in Spiderman’s case emphasis is placed on the responsibility of the individual when witnessing a crime or an injustice against an innocent victim, thus raising the issue of individuality and collectiveness in society. Iron Man as a character embodies the possibilities of technology. At the same time, he demonstrates what happens when that technology winds up in the wrong hands or is used for the wrong purposes. The Hulk character similarly embodies the possibilities of science and demonstrates how science too can become a weapon in the wrong hands. Finally, Thor battles entities of a mythical proportion suggesting either issue such as religion in opposition to the secular, or even that of unexplained natural or supernatural phenomena and human kind's inability to grasp or deal with such issues. The raison d'être of Marazi 108 heroes and superheroes is to fight evil, restore the balance and reinstate the status quo. This battle of good versus evil encompasses an issue of the respective American culture.
The final common characteristic of both the hero and superhero core identity is the notion of dual identity or doppelgänger. Similarly to the super- prefix and the battle of good versus evil, the doppelgänger poses as a core identity aspect that can manifest in various ways. It confirms the inner struggle heroes and superheroes face when fighting evil and trying to do the right thing.
In other words, it allows for the hero's and superhero's morality to emerge in the narrative. The doppelgänger can also manifest as a physical aspect of the hero or superhero displaying their double nature (whether secret or not) which they acquire either by choice or is bestowed upon them. Thor's double or alter ego is that of Dr. Donald Blake, which is bestowed upon him for the purpose of venturing and surviving among humans according to Norse mythology when he was cast down to earth by his father Odin. Bruce Wayne's double/alter ego that of Batman, is a personal choice of an adopted identity which was made based on the fear he wanted to instill in the criminals he fought. Peter Parker's double/alter ego that of Spiderman, is the result of the radioactive spider that bit him and granted him the respective abilities and characteristics. Tony
Stark's double/alter ego as that of Iron Man, is inspired by the suit he has created to save his life.
Bruce Banner’s double/alter ego, the Hulk, in a way is forced upon him due to his exposure to gamma rays but it is also implied that it is a force residing within him, which explains why he survived the particular accident. Finally, James Logan’s double/alter ego, Wolverine, is the mutant name he has chosen that reflects not only his mutant abilities but the ones he has acquired during a military experiment.
All heroes and superheroes face an adversary. In this instance, the hero/superhero represents good and the right moral stance while the adversary represents evil and the wrong Marazi 109 moral stance. They pose as two sides of the same coin. When certain heroes or superheroes have a double identity (whether secret or not), like Batman or Spiderman The fact that automatically makes them more complex as characters. This happens because characters like Batman and
Spiderman are split into their superhero persona and their regular persona; two personas that may be in conflict between what they have to do as superheroes and what they want to do as Bruce
Wayne and Peter Parker respectively. Adaptations of these characters can shed light on various aspects of their complexity and provide more extended identities. This dual nature is tightly connected to matters such as personality, physical or mental capabilities, and motivation. More importantly, the dual nature of superheroes seems to serve two functions: on the one hand to display an esoteric, inner conflict deriving from their double identity, and on the other, to further mirror this conflict in the external battle they must face. Various and multiple Manichean divisions are displayed and represented symbolically in the dramatic confrontations between the superheroes and their adversaries which are also highly indicative of issues concerning Western society.
The issue of identity reveals that as time goes on the neat binaries of good and evil are not clear-cut but nonetheless still present albeit in an ambiguous state. The Batman film franchise dating back to Tim Burton’s Batman (1989) up to Christopher Nolan’s The Dark
Knight Rises (2012) has not only had three different directors working on the Batman brand but the Batman character has been portrayed by four different actors, Michael Keaton, Val Kilmer,
George Clooney and Christian Bale; five when currently counting Ben Affleck in the Batman V
Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016). Despite the numerous actors who have incarnated the character what remains constant is the Batman character brand. The actor portraying or voicing the Batman character contributes to the continuation of the Batman brand and provides a unique Marazi 110 extended identity aspect to the Batman brand. For instance, each actor portraying Batman portrays him differently and this can reveal new or alternative characteristics of the Batman character.
The matter of neat binary distinctions of good and evil, where good and evil are presented as black and white, existed in the Golden Age (1938 – mid-1950s) and to an extent in the Silver
Age (mid-1950s – early 1970s) of superhero comic books. The revisionism of superhero comic books which commenced in the 1980s with Frank Miller's graphic novel The Dark Knight
Returns began to present Manichean divisions associated with good and evil as ambiguous and complex. This is also noticeable in the treatment of the superhero origin stories in Marvel
Cinematic Universe Phase One where
[t]he retelling of the origin will bring some new aspect of the character to light.
The new creative team will use the stamp of its own creative style as a governing
element in the reinterpretation of the character. Whatever new material is created
and whatever new circumstances are made between existing plot-lines, continuity
will be seen to be preserved. (Reynolds 48)63
How the origin story is retold in addition to how it is preserved will display not only the continuity of the core within the extended identity perspective of personality and symbol of a brand but will also present how malleable that personality can be. Jim Collins further points out that "[t]he pronounced cultural dispersal of the superhero, as it has historically veered from comics into other cross-media productions, means that superheroes end up working more along
63 Richard Reynolds informs that continuity is an expected and integral part of the superhero narrative and he notes three types: serial, hierarchical and structural. Serial continuity is reminiscent of that observed in TV soaps where the backbone established needs to remain consistent. In my opinion, this type of continuity which according to Reynolds is diachronic and develops over time consistently echoes the core identity of the superhero. Hierarchical continuity is dependent on intertextual readings of several superheroes and is synchronic indicating the state of affairs at a given moment. Structural continuity is a result of the previous two and consists of the entire contents of either Marvel or DC. “It also embraces those elements of the real world which are contained within the fictional universes of the superheroes” (41). Marazi 111 the lines of a generic ‘encyclopedia rather than a dictionary, as an assemblage of intertextual
[and transmedia] representations rather than a set definition" (qtd. in Walton 97). By not being a stable and constant part of the core, the elements that make-up the extended identity do not act as a definition but more as one of many encyclopedic references that build up the plethora of meanings the term superhero can accumulate. Intertextuality is noticeable amongst superhero manifestations and extended identities. This intertextuality can extend to include the influences of creation for various superheroes. As a result, a more intricate web of associations amongst heroes and superheroes is created.
Saige Walton argues that the superhero genre is considered to be "one of the most historically hybrid of all, embracing and redeploying conventions derived from other genres as well as other media" (88). This restructuring and re-interpretation are exactly what is taking place in the creation of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) and across adaptations in general.
The films that comprise the first phase of the MCU display a re-working of the superhero origins, while also taking into consideration the medium used due to the cross-media and trans- media adaptations taking place nowadays. Ndalianis states that "the real success of current cross- media entertainment synergies lies in drawing on a pool of common images, characters, and narrative situations while differentiating each product as a virtuoso performance, one that asserts the precedence of its own articulation" (qtd. in Walton 97). Brands can spawn different types of products that display commonalities, chief amongst them the manifestation of the brand's core aspects. However, each product type at the extended identity needs to display difference with products of the same brand. More importantly, it needs to differentiate from other competing brands and assert the precedence of its own articulation. Hutcheon suggests that adaptations must be seen first, as a "formal entity or product" whereby a shift of medium may occur, and "as a Marazi 112 process of creation" which involves the processes of (re-)interpretation and (re-)creation" (8).
This affirms that adaptations revolve around similarities and differences by way of stable agents that are reinterpreted and recreated, thus pointing more towards the aspect of encyclopedic reference than a set definition. If one observes the creative processes of the Marvel organization, everything is indeed happening simultaneously, thus including the continuation of comic book series as well as the creation of mini-arcs between films and the rebooting of a superhero character based on appearances in the film. This is displayed in the film and video game adaptations or appropriations by blending the narrative plots of comic books and films as well as the inclusion of superhero adversaries taken out of sequential plot lines. This process that includes but in fact has gone beyond the confines of adaptation is a cultural event. In this cultural phenomenon and cultural experience, the constant and stable albeit abstract concepts of a core identity are constantly drawing on past conventions while pointing toward differences and alterations. As Walton confirms, the cultural event is achieved by "includ[ing] us in the production of meaning" and establishing an "intergeneric dialogue" (103). This dialogue is instigated each time by distinct extended identities along the horizontal/vertical axes where extended brand identities demonstrate the interrelationship that exists between content, form, and context.
The following section delves into the investigation and discussion of the notion of the core identity and its extended identity manifestations. By taking the four perspectives of extended identities into consideration the following section argues that content/form are inseparable and yet interchangeable thus highlighting the dual nature of the extended identity as concrete content and form accountable to the abstract core identity.
Marazi 113
2.3 Extended Brand Identity and the Blending of Marketing and Narrative:
Establishing the Content/Form/Context Triptych
The second long-held debate of Adaptation Studies has to do with whether content and form can be separated or, if not, what is adapted. From the standpoint of marketing, Marieke de Mooij in
Global Marketing and Advertising: Understanding Cultural Paradoxes (1998) argues that content cannot be separated from form any more than the execution can be seen in a vacuum, in other words, irrespective of the cultural context to which it belongs and which it addresses (12).
This section argues that content and form are an inseparable yet interchangeable unit of identity the production and consumption of which is dependent on the cultural context in which they are being viewed and promoted. All texts, including adaptations, cannot be examined without taking into account the vertical dimension of intertextuality. According to Fiske, “[v]ertical intertextuality consists of a primary text’s relations with other texts which refer to it specifically.
These secondary texts, such as criticism or publicity, work to promote the circulation of selected meanings of the primary text” (Fiske 227). In light of this, I would like to interweave the three ways Hutcheon views adaptations with Mooij’s comment on content and form being inseparable from context. First, adaptation can be seen as a product that exhibits a transcoding or shift in medium, genre, and, by extension, interior chronotope context. It is also a process of reinterpretation and renegotiation driven by the aforementioned in addition to the external, real, and cultural chronotope that has undertaken the process. Finally, it is a process of reception particularly influenced by the communities and individuals present in the external chronotope in and across cultures (Mooij 7-8). The fundamental basis of the content/form/context triptych is that of identity. This identity includes the identity of the agent and organization that sends the Marazi 114 information or initiates the communication, the identity of the actual information and the identity of the receiver.
Adaptation Studies has been accused of separating content from form. Drawing on the
"hollow pipeline" and "conduit metaphor" as well as the nature of brand identity, I argue that content, form, and context are inseparable and that content and form are interchangeable. The matter of content and form in adaptation has become one of distinguishing between narratives as content on the one hand and medium as form on the other. The critical examinations resulting from this are intent on determining which medium is more appropriate or capable of showing, telling or doing what the source material's narrative medium has already established. To me, it appears that Adaptation Studies, in an attempt to disprove the alleged heresy of separating content and form, seeks out semiotic, narrative and aesthetic equivalents, in other words, what is not affected by form. Based on what the equivalents are Adaptation Studies then determines what requires adaptation, in other words, what needs to change based on the form. Both cases bring to my mind the "hollow pipeline" and "conduit metaphor".
Walter Ong in his Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word (1988) informs that “the hollow pipeline” views the media of communication as pipelines through which we send information to one another and that information is not affected or changed in any way by the respective medium whether it is a book, film, television series or social media (176). In adaptation, this is equivalent to the idea that content separates from form and as a result, the content of the original source material can be transferred with essentially no changes to another medium. The conduit metaphor, on the other hand, as Marie Laure-Ryan explains, argues in favor of the opposite, namely that the information communicated through a particular medium cannot be extracted from that medium and communicated through another (17). In adaptation, Marazi 115 again this points to the matter of content being inseparable from form. Instead of equivalents, here the focus is on what requires adaptation in the new narrative medium. To understand the misconception of the content and form paradox in Adaptation Studies, however, is not to side with either the “hollow pipeline” or conduit metaphor perspective.
All information and communication are instigated by an identity (that of the sender) and received by another identity (that of the recipient). Moreover, the information as such is affected to a certain degree by the identity of the sender as well as by the identity of the recipient and yet holds its own neutral and objective ontology as information, if one attempts to find a balance between the "hollow pipeline" and the conduit metaphor. What is more, the content to a degree is not affected by the medium of communication. On the other hand, however, the medium does influence features of the content. Therefore, neither the "hollow pipeline" nor the conduit metaphor individually fully applies. Instead, I argue that they both apply but interchangeably depending on what the focus is. In the case of brand identity, this is even clearer. Brand identity is both abstract and concrete, thus these aspects are interchangeable. What assists with this kind of examination is the context. For brands, this includes the brand organization, the actual core and extended identities of the brand and the context set by the brand for its consumers. For
Adaptation Studies, content and form is inseparable yet interchangeable, due to the fact that narrative, like brand identity, is both content and form. Similarly to Adaptation Studies, marketing, and advertising also come to face the content/form paradox, and try to overcome the problem by assuming that a concept can easily cross borders of different countries or cultures, and it is only the execution and form that need to be adapted and appropriated.
Clearly, content and form cannot be seen separately mainly because they pose a unity that is always in dialogue with cultural contexts. Mooij explains: "Markets are people, not products. Marazi 116
There may be global products, but there are no global people or global motivations for buying those brands" (3). For example, Superman and Captain America can be viewed as intellectual property brands that have infiltrated a global market. As for character brands and symbols, however, they are not viewed or understood the same across markets and people. Content and form should not be divided, as they are both mutually influenced by their respective cultural context. Content and form rely on the context that produces them and needs to be understood and examined in that context. Brand identity offers a solution to this content/form debate when theorizing issues in the areas of marketing and adaptation. By posing as the context, content, and form, brand identity confirms the inseparability but also the interchangeability of these components. What is more, it offers other components that adaptation theory ought to consider, such as the organization and the personality of the brand adaptation.
The previous section established via the hero/superhero and original/adaptation analogy that the core of intellectual property brands is to be viewed in terms of a genre rather than narrative or story. The reason for this is twofold: firstly, the genre does not connote storytelling but is applicable as a rules system for musical, artistic and even product categorization.
Secondly, storytelling is one possible intention or purpose catered to within the context of genre and by extension it poses as a possible extended identity feature, thus accounting for other intellectual property brand manifestations, such as varied merchandise and theme parks.
Arvidsson maintains that in the case of intertextual commodities, or the promotion of a particular media product or content, "what is marketed is not so much films or books, as ‘content brands' that can travel between and provide a context for the consumption of a number of good or media products" (75). This promotion is indicative of the vertical dimension of intertextuality. The act of storytelling may pose as a chosen intent by a respective industry or organization. Marazi 117
Nevertheless, the purpose that accompanies it can prove debatable. Brands are not immediately associated with a storytelling capacity, or at least they were not until recently. Marketing and advertising departments, however, have relied on this extended identity aspect in order to raise awareness and promote the brand identity as both content and form of information, communication, and context. The content/form/context triptych under examination is the Marvel
Cinematic Universe Phase One, beginning with the marketing strategies that signal the inseparability of content/form and the importance of context for their promotion.
Promotion via merchandise, home video, soundtracks as well as events, exhibitions and competitions are all means to attract an even wider audience, while the niche audiences of comic books readers, films viewers and gamers were taken into consideration. The variety of marketing techniques displays the variety of markets and people that Marvel is hoping to reach and convince them to see the film and/or play the game, buy the collectibles/toys, or read the comic books. The goal of marketing is to display by way of advertising the content/form as a unit in a particular way that will intrigue niche markets/people. While neither marketing nor the extended identities –comic books, film, video games and others– are part of the superhero brand core, marketing manages to position them within a culture and make markets/people aware of their availability.
Beginning with Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase One, the Iron Man brand spawned off into two twenty-first century blockbusters directed by Jon Favreau, Iron Man (2008) and Iron
Man 2 (2010). The first film was produced by Marvel Studios and Fairview Entertainment and was distributed by Paramount Pictures. Iron Man (2008) is the first self-financed film produced by Marvel Studios after re-acquiring the film rights to the character in 2006. The Iron Man brand initially was created within the realm of Marvel Comics by Stan Lee, Larry Lieber, Don Heck, Marazi 118 and Jack Kirby. The marketing campaign for the film contained a video game based on the film, which was released by Sega in May 2008, and a 30-second spot that was released during the
Super Bowl XLVII break (Graser n.pag.). Both the video game and the television spots during the Super Bowl connect this brand to cultural events such as playing games, picking a team to support (hence battling opponents) and also guarantee an element of interaction and spectacle. 7-
Eleven stores, Burger King and Audi helped to promote the film, as did Oracle Corporation on their website (Graser n.pag.). These particular financers/advertisers not only achieved brand placement with their products and essentially tied the film more to reality, but also their products gained a certain status via being seen or being used by the Tony Stark/Iron Man character.
Furthermore, aside from the promotion of various trailers on websites such as imdb.com, or yahoomovies.com or even on the marvel.com websites having an additional party to promote the film online guaranteed further exposure to consumers.
The second film was produced and distributed by the same studios in 2010. As far as marketing campaigns are concerned, a five-minute teaser trailer was shown at the 2009 San
Diego Comic-Con and a website for Stark Industries also went online (Scrietta n.pag.). The San
Diego Comic-Con, as was mentioned previously, grants status to any projects promoted via its exhibitions and gave fans a chance to hear and converse not only with other fans but also with members of the cast and the industry. The status of the film, the comic book, the game and the brand, in general, were taken to a higher level of consideration via Comic-Con and positioned the Iron Man Brand within a cultural event. In addition, the first theatrical trailer was set to premiere before another film that Robert Downey Jr. was starring in, that of Sherlock Holmes
(2009). As a result, the star of both films was employed to mutually promote them and create associations between them. The promotional partners for the second film included 7 Eleven, Marazi 119
Audi, Burger King, LG Electronics, Dr. Pepper, Symantec, and Hershey. Here again, we have advertisers that benefit via brand placement and brand associations (Graser n.pag.). What is more, Alexander C. Irvine adapted the script of the film into a novel that was released in 2010 and a video game based on the film was released by Sega in 2010 (Kaye n.pag.). The Iron Man brand triggered a dialogic relation with other brands that transcended the boundaries of the film and the comic book in an effort to cross over into the game format. It even became a topic for a discussion panel and was viewed during another American Pop Culture event of a high magnitude that of the Super Bowl. The Iron Man brand explicitly displays its promoters, thus indicating a dialogic relation where not only are the promoter brands made evident in the film for advertising purposes but also the Iron Man brand respectively brands these products as well. The appearance of the character Tony Stark, aka Iron Man, eating a Burger King cheeseburger or driving an Audi R8, for example, is not only good advertising for Audi but also directly brands the automobile by the fictional character that owns and drives it in the film. Moreover, the employment of songs by rock band ACDC in the Iron Man films introduce the character's entrance scene in the Avengers and act as another strategy of mutual branding between the character brand and the music type as does the Black Sabbath song “Iron Man.” Another interesting brand to examine, marketing-wise, is the Hulk brand.
Unlike Iron Man, the Hulk brand as far as blockbusters are concerned, does not display coherence in regards to certain marketing elements. The film Hulk came out in 2003 and was directed by Ang Lee. Universal Pictures, Marvel Enterprises, Good Machine and Valhalla
Motion Pictures produced the film, which was distributed by Universal Pictures. While the film is an adaptation of the Marvel Comics character Hulk, Ang Lee also drew inspiration from King
Kong, Frankenstein, Jekyll and Hyde, Beauty and the Beast, Faust and Greek mythology for the Marazi 120 interpretation of the story ("An Interview with Ang Lee"). The marketing campaign for the film was not as strong as that of Iron Man; a thirty-second television spot aired during the Super Bowl
XXXVII and a video game of the same name, albeit loosely based on the film, came out in the same year (Linder n.pag.). While one sees the Super Bowl and video game context of promotion, this alone was apparently not enough to strengthen the presence of the particular brand and the choice to produce a game more influenced by the comic books than the film apparently created an inconsistency for the film viewers that chose to purchase it.
The second Hulk film to appear was The Incredible Hulk, only five years after Lee’s
Hulk, which is not considered a sequel to Ang Lee’s film but more of a tie-in to the Avengers project. This Hulk film is the second to be released in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The film was directed by Louis Leterrier, starring Edward Norton as Dr. Bruce Banner, whereas in Lee’s film Eric Bana starred. The main distinction between the Hulk films is the fact that Lee's production was more of an independent one when compared to the second film which was treated as a full-blown blockbuster. Stylistically, Lee implemented influences from the comic book format by employing split or multiple screens which allude to comic book panels. The marketing campaigns for The Incredible Hulk were also more extensive. The title of the film was used as promotional puns for 7-Eleven's "Incredible Gulp" Slurpees, "Incredible Dad" themed
Father's Day gifts from K-Mart; Burger King was another one of the promoters as was General
Nutrition Centers that incorporated the Hulk character in association with strength training
(Stanley n.pag.). Hasbro created a toy line –a tactic that clearly targets a younger audience– that came out in 2008 and Sega released a video game of the same name also in 2008 (Douglas n.pag.). While this particular video game does refer to elements of the comic book storyline by implementing various characters and villains, it does manage to procure the voice of Edward Marazi 121
Norton, another important promotional tactic, in its attempt to strengthen its association to the film.
Captain America: The First Avenger, directed by Joe Johnston, produced by Marvel
Studios and distributed by Paramount Pictures, was released in 2011. The sequel, Captain
America: The Winter Soldier was released in 2014 and belongs to Marvel Cinematic Universe
Phase Two. Captain America as a brand may not be that difficult to market within the U.S. but it must be mentioned that, as a full-blown American patriotic symbol, marketing this character abroad is definitely difficult, especially if one considers the time-frame employed within the film, namely that of Nazi Germany. Director Joe Johnston comments on how he wanted the audience in general to perceive this character:
[Captain America] wants to serve his country, but he's not this sort of jingoistic
American flag-waver. He's just a good person. We make a point of that in the script:
Don't change who you are once you go from Steve Rogers to this super-soldier; you
have to stay who you are inside, that's really what's important more than your strength
and everything... It's also the idea that this is not about America so much as it is about
the spirit of doing the right thing. It's an international cast and an international story.
It's about what makes America great and what makes the rest of the world great too.
(Boucher n.pag.)
Having given an indication of the difficulty of marketing this particular brand, the actual marketing techniques will provide further insight into the brand’s treatment.
A soundtrack was produced that also included the song "Star-Spangled Man" sung by protagonist Chris Evans in the film; the album also includes the original score by Alan Silvestri.
The film was screened at the San Diego Comic-Con July 2011 and, what is more, Paramount Marazi 122 gave foreign markets the choice of displaying the "American-centric" title –Captain America– or opting for a more neutral one – the First Avenger ("Captain America: The First Avenger Early at
Comic-Con"). The first television advertisement was again aired during the Super Bowl XLV and in May 2011, and the USO girls from the film performed aboard the USS Intrepid at the
Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum as part of a 2011 Fleet Week celebration in New York (Storm n.pag.). Moreover, Dunkin' Donuts and Baskin Robins teamed with Marvel to search for real-life super soldiers by hosting a contest that would nominate veterans or active soldiers that made a difference where they lived or served (Reuters n.pag.). Paramount further promoted the film during an Independence Day celebration hosted by the Chicago White Sox (mlb.com). Another promotional partner was Harley-Davidson. Evidently, with the time context employed in the story, promotional partners could not so easily benefit from brand placement within the film narrative, so promotions became more explicit such as the contest mentioned earlier.
Marvel also produced an eight-issue digital comic Captain America: First Vengeance
(2011) that came out the same day as the first film trailer, where each issue focuses on the characters and provides that storyline that leads to the beginning of the respective film. Sega announced the video game tie-in Captain America: Super Soldier and a toy line was released as well (Truitt n.pag.). The Blu-Ray DVD includes, aside from an hour of bonus material, a short film titled A Funny Thing Happened on the way to Thor’s Hammer and a sneak-peak at The
Avengers (marvel.com). Aside from these associations with both Thor and the Avengers, the presence of Howard Stark –Tony Stark’s father– in the film directly creates an association between the two characters. While certain promotional partners are similar to those of the previous cases, as is the Super Bowl TV spot and the Comic-Con presentation, one notices that for this particular brand caution had to be taken, as far as foreign reception is concerned, and Marazi 123 specifically for the promotion of Captain America in the U.S. by establishing its connection with
American history through associations and strengthening its bond with soldiers, veterans, national holidays, and militaristic celebrations.
In Thor’s case, there are again similarities and differences. Thor was directed by Kenneth
Branagh, produced by Marvel Studios and distributed by Paramount Pictures in 2011. It is the fourth film released as part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, the others being the two Iron Man films, The Incredible Hulk, and Captain America. In order to promote the film, a Thor panel was held at the 2010 San Diego Comic-Con (deadline.com). The first television advertisement was broadcast during Super Bowl XLV on the Fox Network (McClintock n.pag.). Marvel Studios and
Acura launched a joint marketing promotion at the 2011 Chicago Comic & Entertainment Expo.
Promoters of the film included Burger King, Dr. Pepper, 7 Eleven and Visa. As one can imagine, even the brand placement of these promoters was restricted to the scenes of the film that takes place on Earth and not in Asgard (Graser n.pag.). Thor's demigod characteristics fall away when we see him eating a traditional American breakfast complete with coffee and pancakes or having his picture taken by a secondary character with an iPhone who plans to upload it to Twitter.
Marvel Animation announced a twenty-six-episode animated series in 2008 that would air in late
2010 before the release of the film (Harvey n.pag.). The company also released a direct-to-video film titled Thor: Tales of Asgard that would coincide with the film's premiere and a video game titled Thor: God of Thunder based on the film that was released in 2011 by Sega (Marshall n.pag.). After the end credits of Iron Man, a short scene depicts a S.H.I.E.L.D64 agent, discovering a large hammer in the desert, thus pertaining to the Thor film and acting as a tie-in to the Avengers project. Similarly, the post-credits scene in the Thor film where character Erik
64 S.H.I.E.L.D. stands for Strategic Homeland Intervention, Enforcement and Logistics Division. It is a fictional, espionage special law-enforcement, and counter-terrorism agency. Marazi 124
Selvig comes face-to-face with character Nick Fury, director of S.H.I.E.L.D, unaware of Loki in the background, hints at the Avengers film. The Thor sequel premiered in 2014. The soundtrack including the original score by Patrick Doyle, as well as the song “Walk” by Foo Fighters which was distributed by Buena Vista Records (filmmusicreporter.com). Including a song by rock band
Foo Fighters within the soundtrack, aside from instrumental music, also helps to situate this mythological now deemed American pop culture superhero in the narrative context of the film.
Finally, the Avengers marketing tactics need to be viewed, although all the aforementioned so far also act as hype-build up and promotion towards the team-up of the superhero characters.
The Avengers was directed by Joss Whedon, produced by Marvel Studios and distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures in 2012. Music-wise the score for the film would again be produced by Alan Silvestri, while songs from rock band ACDC and alternative rock band Soundgarden would also be included in the film. The film was promoted at the 2010
San Diego Comic-Con, although a panel was not held in 2011, due to the film still being in production (Weintraub n.pag.). Walt Disney Pictures, Pixar Animation Studios, and Marvel
Studios presented Disney's upcoming film slate, including the Avengers, at the D23 Expo in
Anaheim (Disney.com), California and Marvel Studios held a presentation at the New York
Comic-Con, complete with a panel and new footage (marvel.com). The first official trailer was released in late 2011. This trailer debuted exclusively on iTunes Movie Trailers and was downloaded ten million times in the first twenty-four hours (Ford n.pag.). A second full-length trailer was again released in 2012 and the theatrical trailer appeared with many films such as
Mission Impossible - Ghost Protocol (2011), 21 Jump Street (2012) and The Hunger Games
(2012). In January 2012, Marvel Studios held a live 30-minute Twitter chat with director Joss
Whedon, Samuel Jackson, Tom Hiddleston and Clark Gregg and displayed a ten-second tease of Marazi 125 the thirty-second spot set to air at the Super Bowl XLVI (marvel.com; comicbookresources.com). Moreover, on May 1st, 2012, Marvel Studios with Tom Hiddleston and Clark Gregg rang the opening bell for the New York Stock Exchange, in honor of the film’s theatrical release. Marvel announced that an eight-issue prelude to the film would be released in
2012, as well as a second limited series comic book tie-in titled Black Widow Strikes, a story that is set between Iron Man 2 and The Avengers, that follows character Black Widow (marvel.com).
In addition, a line titled Avengers Assemble was launched in 2012, following the team-up of the film against the supervillain team Zodiac, mainly as a result of the film team not existing as is in the comic books.
As for promotional partners, Marvel teamed up with fragrance company JADS to promote The Avengers with character-based fragrances (ereleases.com). A new Acura model is sported via actor Robert Downey Jr. in the film –even though this concept car is fictional, employed for use in the Marvel Universe by S.H.I.E.L.D now extended to the Avengers– and as it turns out Acura announced that a new NSX styled along the lines of the fictional concept car in the film would be unveiled at the 2012 North American International Auto Show (Numez n.pag.). Here we have a case in point of mutual branding, one in the case of fragrances branded by the respective superheroes and the second regarding a fictional model car now actually created due to its association with the Marvel Universe, S.H.I.E.L.D, and the Tony Stark character. Other promotional partners include Harley-Davidson, Dr. Pepper, Farmers Insurance, bracelet-maker Colantotte, Hershey, Land O'Frost lunchmeats, Oracle, Red Baron Pizza,
Symantec, Visa and Wyndham Hotels, and Resorts. Exclusions to this list are Baskin Robbins,
Burger King, and Dunkin' Donuts –who Marvel partnered with when the films were released by
Paramount– due to Disney's non-affiliation with fast-food outlets (Graser n.pag.). The scheduled Marazi 126 tie-in video game was canceled due to game publisher THQ closing down two of its studios that would head up the project. Marvel is said to be exploring potential licensing opportunities. While a video game may still be in the works, the Avengers sequel of Marvel Cinematic Universe
Phase Two was released in 2015.
The advertising tactics may be different depending on the market, but they all essentially market for example the superhero film adaptation tie-in as a film. Marvel in accordance with the
Entertainment Industry's business mentality seeks out licensing deals and partnerships in order to create adaptation tie-ins and extend the networking process of its intellectual property brands.
This strategy of collaborations and promotional partners is highly characteristic of the age of
Conglomerate Hollywood. Furthermore, the current state of Western culture, more specifically media convergence, transmedia storytelling, and media franchise culture, influences the types of extended identity manifestations. It attempts through marketing to promote them accordingly by employing evident niche advertising so as to reach as many markets and consumers as possible.
The extended identity of the Avengers film was promoted with a thirty-second television spot aimed to air at the Super Bowl. The choice of airing this television spot during the Super
Bowl relies on the cultural context of games, spectacle, and winning thus emphasizing the respective characteristics of the respective film. Similarly, the spots that were chosen to air at
Comic-Con events usually highlight aspects of narrative and media so as to promote a context of an informative discussion. The title employed to promote the Captain America film – domestically or abroad– is not dictated by its content or form but by the respective country/culture where it will be viewed. The comic book miniseries which connects the films is not dictated by its content or for, but by the transmedia storytelling culture which seeks out to bridge the experience of films through a choice of additional storylines provided by comic Marazi 127 books. The video game tie-ins are a direct result of gaming culture which by extension offers consumers the opportunity to interactively engage, depending on the type of game, whether first- person or third-person shooter or Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game (MMORPG) with a respective brand character. Finally, the choice of blockbuster film manifestations of the superhero brands are an immediate result of a culture of spectacle, Computer Generated Images
(CGI) and event films which are not to say that superheroes cannot be treated in a different artistic manner as Lee's Hulk displays. Even the profit-seeking tactics of the Entertainment
Industry are influenced by current cultural standings, thus leading them to make use of particular film formats or produce various products for ancillary markets.
The extended identity of any brand core is a direct result of cultural influences available at any respective time. Marketing seeks to position the same extended identity within different cultural contexts, so as to reach multiple markets. To overcome the content and form paradox, one must acknowledge that these two aspects cannot be seen separately, but as a unit in connection to cultural contexts. More importantly for branded intellectual property franchises, whether consisting of adaptations or not, this content/form/context triptych needs to be taken into consideration, particularly when the organization and industry as such explicitly confirm the nature and treatment of their intellectual properties. The final section of this chapter focuses on the Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase One and examines the interrelationship of the content/form/context triptych via the respective franchise extended identity.
Marazi 128
2.4 Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase One: An Extended Identity Brand
This section argues that what sets Marvel and the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) apart in today's plethora of superhero entertainment productions is the brand treatment of their character- centered stories and interconnected universe. In other words, not the adaptation per se of their intellectual properties but the strong, complex and intentional intertextuality that connects the
MCU films with each other, with prior superhero works such as comic books whilst raising expectations by hinting at future projects. Marvel has taken the horizontal dimension of intertextuality to a new level. Fiske informs that the horizontal dimension is that of genre, character, and content (219) and this section examines and emphasizes how Marvel has achieved all three by demonstrating their production intentions, adapting their characters and promoting the MCU shared universe. This is further achieved by the infusion of the Marvel brand personality into the superhero films that comprise the MCU and the adherence to a brand management logic that exhibits a merging of storytelling and marketing ultimately aiming at total branded entertainment experience. The MCU sets a shared universe precedent in the cinematic production of superhero franchises that inevitably places Marvel ahead of the game in comparison to other companies. Marvel's brand organization and house-style are clearly outlined and established reflectively within the fictional universe with the implementation of S.H.I.E.L.D. and the cameos of Stan Lee. What is more, the numerous easter eggs65 scattered across the MCU films pay homage to previous Marvel superhero projects by acting as intertextual references that satisfy knowing audiences.
The term easter egg is not academically coined but it has been implemented via discourses in popular culture such as reviews that surround superhero productions. An easter
65 For more information see: “A movie easter egg hunt: the best-hidden messages and inside jokes in film" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/movie-easter-eggs-hunt-best-hidden-messages-inside-jokes-film/ Marazi 129 egg is an intentional inside joke, a hidden message, or a secret feature of an interactive work. The name is used to evoke the idea of a traditional Easter egg hunt and in the context of the superhero franchises easter eggs act as intentional intertextual markers that pay tribute to prior superhero productions such as comic books, connect the MCU films by alluding to other MCU productions and prompt an intertextual viewing. The easter egg tendency is meant to involve audiences, mainly fan audiences, in uncovering the intertextual web of associations between various productions, while also working as a marketing tool that hints at future projects in some cases.
Aside from the intertextual associations, general audiences can make, the easter eggs identifiable by fan audiences in connection with the easter egg discourse observable in reviews raises awareness towards intentional intertextuality and marketing implemented by the production team. At the same time, the post-credits scenes bridge the MCU films narrative-wise, while also posing as marketing comic book cliff-hanger devices that trigger audience curiosity, thus making the next installment a must-see. Finally, the MCU superhero film adaptations, despite similarities and differences with the comic book source material, offer cinematic versions of Marvel superheroes and their storylines. While these films can be viewed in the traditional stand-alone superhero franchise sense, audiences are prompted to engage in and even expect the unifying logic of a shared universe.
The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) Phase One can be considered one of Marvel’s foremost cinematic achievements in the history of superhero franchise productions. It sets a precedent for a shared cinematic universe while simultaneously distinguishing itself, and the
Marvel brand, from other productions of Marvel superheroes by other studios. Over the decades,
Marvel has accumulated a vast equitable library of intellectual properties due to the nature of the comic book medium which has offered a serial-nature of storytelling from the 1930s. While Marazi 130 continuing to this day to fill that library, Marvel has the privilege of also using it as a network of choice for the adaptation tie-ins of its characters in alternate media. This library is enriched with new and ever-expanding content which further raises its equity status. In the case of licenses, this library also benefits other studios that have undertaken Marvel superhero film, television, and video game productions. DC Comics similarly displays such a content library with the main difference being that DC Comics is in a more privileged position as an entertainment brand due to its horizontal integration and synergistic relation with Time Warner. By comparison, however,
DC may have been more structurally and corporately sound but Marvel's intentions appear more creatively ambitious. Unlike Marvel, DC has not produced a similar shared universe project of this magnitude nor a Justice League team-up to rival The Avengers (2012). Until 2008 the norm, in general, has been to produce stand-alone superhero franchises that are complemented with a sequel, turned into a trilogy, or simply rebooted. While Marvel had been licensing out its superhero characters with the intent of film production, as a brand its corporate control was fragmented. Other companies had the final say on the product which by extension limited
Marvel's creative control.
The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) project's scope initially appears as an attempt to retrieve full creative control and establish production control while distinguishing official Marvel productions from those of other studios. According to David Aaker, the extended identity of all brands consists of the brand as product, organization, person, and symbol (79). The significance of the MCU for the Marvel brand is that it establishes Marvel as the main organization behind its creation in full control of its film production, character treatment, symbolic significance and in a good position to account for changes, alterations and updates made either to characters or plot- lines in the cinematic universe. By reacquiring film rights to certain superheroes and taking Marazi 131 advantage of Marvel Studios, the Marvel brand is finally in a position to offer its personal take on the superheroes it initially created in the comic books without interference or interjections regarding the products. In order to reach that state, however, a rebranding at the organization level is necessary which is not an easy feat given the trajectory of Marvel organization.
The 1990's and the beginning of the twenty-first century have proven to be a time of significant changes for the Marvel brand on an industrial level, thus leading to a re-evaluation of the Marvel brand's organization and content. Starting out as a commendable comic book publishing house in the late 1930s and gaining momentum under Editor-in-chief Stan Lee in the
1960s, Marvel Comics lacks the safety and benefits of DC Comics horizontal integration with
Warner Bros. Derek Johnson informs, upon purchasing Marvel in 1989 Ron Perelman "set upon the dream of turning Marvel into a major conglomerate. The goal of Perelman's Marvel, in transitioning (and overextending) itself into the role of the conglomerate, was to become a kind of ‘mini-Disney'" or at least achieve the synergy granted to rival DC Comics (70). Being a subsidiary under parent companies with arms to film and television, it could expand its comic book output by dabbling in other media as well. Matthew McAllister confirms that synergy "cuts down on developmental time (one license can provide content for several subsidiaries), allows internal control of licensing use, and maximizes potential profits from licenses" (qtd. in Johnson
70). The establishment of Marvel Studios came about in mid-1996. According to Nancy Haas, this provided Marvel with the opportunity to actively pursue film productions based on Marvel characters. Nevertheless, as Ben Fritz informs, becoming a conglomerate in accordance to
Perelman's view did not pan out for Marvel which eventually filed for bankruptcy in December of 1996 (Fritz 2009). Marazi 132
In an attempt to bring Marvel out of bankruptcy, Toy Biz and Marvel Entertainment
Group merged under the name of Marvel Enterprises in 1998 (Johnson 71). This, in turn, would also benefit both parties with the output of various toy products based on Marvel characters. In order to stay afloat, Marvel also proceeded to sell the film rights of various characters to other studios. In 2005, according to Roger Vincent, Marvel Enterprises was renamed Marvel
Entertainment. The buy-out by Disney, according to Fritz, came along in 2009 and Marvel
Entertainment has been a limited liability company (LLC) since then. Despite its efforts, Marvel was at the mercy of and dependant on other studios to which they had sold film rights of certain characters for the cross-media production of their superhero stories. The duplication of the corporate structure of players such as Disney or Time Warner was not working for Marvel. In an age where the popularity and status of the comic book are waning, Marvel realizes that it has to become something more than a comic book publishing house. It has to become another contender in the superhero entertainment sector to be reckoned with.
The twenty-first century Marvel re-branding strategy is an attempt to reposition the
Marvel brand as a significant Hollywood contender in the superhero entertainment sector, refurbish the brand in the current media franchise context and distinguish it from rival players.
Johnson informs that “Marvel’s new approach settled for the creative structure of a ‘mini-
Disney'" where "every emphasis was placed on the character" (71, emphasis in original). Marvel has avidly sought out the creative control of its intellectual properties. As Janet Wasko confirms,
Disney's synergistic strategies are based upon its characters, where "each character is a wheel whose spokes each represent a product revolving around that brand" (71). Similarly, Marvel superheroes have become the center of individual creative wheels with potential for various products. Over the years various Marvel heroes, such as the Blade trilogy (1998, 2002, 2004), the Marazi 133
Spider-Man trilogy (2002, 2004, 2007), Fantastic Four (2005), Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver
Surfer (2007) and the X-Men trilogy (2002, 2003, 2006), in addition to X-Men Origins:
Wolverine (2009) and X-Men: First Class (2011) have been brought to the big screen but under the production control of other studios.
Marvel has always been creatively involved in the production of superhero films, video games, television and animated series, merchandise that accompanies every blockbuster while continuing to publish comic books and graphic novels. However, by transitioning "from the production of comic books to the creation of characters" Marvel's "primary product was no longer printed volumes of superhero adventures, but the intellectual property of the superhero itself" (Johnson 72). This shift is significant as it signals Marvel's control over the source material that is produced in the form of comic books and graphic novels for its superheroes. At the same time, it maximizes Marvel's stake in the creative control of its characters across other media in general. As a result, Marvel poses as a significant Hollywood player who is always guaranteed some percentage of involvement and creative input while being spared, as Johnson explains, from having to risk massive capital investments for the actual products (72). The main disadvantage is that Marvel is still dependant on other studios. By not having the product rights, it does not have complete creative control over the end product, even though it benefits from character-licensing and the synergy between licenses. This is where the significance of Marvel
Studios and the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) project comes in and begins distinguishing
Marvel from its competitors. The establishment of Marvel Studios has provided a foothold in the production of films and television series. That, in connection with the re-acquired film rights to certain superhero characters, has allowed Marvel to take advantage of its complete creative and productive control and commence the MCU project. This project rallies competing studio Marazi 134 productions of Marvel characters because it infuses the film narratives with something these other studios like Fox or Sony lack, namely the Marvel organization attributes.
The prominent appearance of one's organization in one's products is an advantage, according to Aaker, due to the fact that products can easily be copied, whereas an organization's attributes are "more enduring and resistant to competitive claims" (83). Numerous studios have dealt with superhero productions and, when it comes to film, superheroes feature in the same blockbuster format. While there is no mistaking a Marvel superhero with a DC superhero the same cannot be said for who is actually responsible for the end-product. As Aaker informs, it is relatively more difficult to copy the innovation of an organization and at this point, the Marvel
Cinematic Universe poses as something innovative and unique (83).
The narrative implementation of S.H.I.E.L.D. has a two-fold symbolic function in Marvel
Cinematic Universe (MCU) Phase One: it initially reflects the Marvel organization behind the
MCU project as being in full control and it also mirrors the shared universe of the MCU across the superhero narratives. By strategically situating S.H.I.E.L.D. in the MCU narrative as a prominent and unifying organization behind its superheroes, Marvel Studios, and by extension the Marvel brand in general, pose as the unifying organization behind the superhero films of the
MCU. In the first post-credits scene in Iron Man (2008), Director Nick Fury emphatically asks and informs Tony Stark: "You think you're the only superhero in the world? Mr. Stark, you've become part of a bigger universe. You just don't know it yet." The placement of this scene holds a two-fold significance as it informs audiences of the Avenger's team-up, Marvel's innovative and long-term plan product-wise, that also works as a marketing tactic. At the same time, it expands the superhero narrative of the MCU beyond Iron Man, who is not the only superhero but Marazi 135 actually part of a bigger universe. This also alludes to Marvel's intention to not only produce superhero films but also unite them in a shared universe.
Another significant element is that no superhero crosses over into another superhero’s film. The only two characters that make cross-overs, at least in Phase One, are Director Fury and
Agent Coulson both representing S.H.I.E.L.D. and reflecting the omnipresence of Marvel across the Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase One films. Marvel gains an advantageous position in the superhero entertainment sector by setting the interconnected superhero films of the MCU apart and distinguishing them from any other Marvel superhero under the production of a different studio. Hollywood has moved away from a "Fordist mode of production, consisting of a vertical organization of the assembly line factory of studios, to a post-Fordist mode of production reliant upon horizontal organization" (Ndalianis 39). What this demonstrates is either a synergistic relationship, such as that of DC Comics and Time Warner or one of licensing such as that of
Marvel with companies such as Sony and Fox. The cultural phenomenon of media convergence defines many industrial practices including advances in technology, particularly digital technology, multiple voices –hence multiple texts– and the interrelationship amongst media
(Jenkins 2006). Both the entertainment industry and consumer audiences see the need for more information dispersed across multiple media.
Currently, popular entertainment can be seen as one of excess and spectacle, interactive audiences, intertextual and by extension self-referential but also of open-ended structures. The superhero films of the first decade of the twenty-first century have contributed their fair share of blockbuster excess and spectacle. Cross-media distribution of numerous superhero products has seen to consumer audience needs to expand their experience of superheroes. The advantageous driving forces both economically and creatively for Marvel and the Marvel Cinematic Universe Marazi 136 are the notion of intertextuality and open-ended structures. While the notion of intertextuality is not a new technique, Marvel is the first to implement it so forcefully in its films. By taking into consideration Marvel’s licensing relationships with other companies the effect of intertextuality in combination with open-ended structures takes on a whole new significance.
The element of intertextuality is initially manifested in the cameos of Stan Lee, thus achieving a self-referential quality, as well as establishing and grounding the Marvel personality in the Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase One. By appearing in the MCU Phase One films, Stan
Lee becomes the prominent face of the Marvel personality that can further aid in engaging the audience. The fact that brands can display personality makes them “both distinctive and enduring,” hence allowing consumers to interact with them “as if they were people” (Aaker 141-
42). A unique sense of humor has been adopted and implemented in the Stan Lee cameo appearances, which not only act as a stamp of approval but offer a tongue-in-cheek association between the characters and their creators, thus allowing these narratives to remain more realistic, down-to-earth and entertaining. That humor is further enforced by double entendres, such as in the post-credits scene of The Incredible Hulk (2008) where Tony Stark “reprimands” General
Ross about the super-soldier program which was “put on ice” for a reason, while General Ross’ comeback is to comment on how Stark always wears “such nice suits.”
In addition, the Stan Lee cameo appearances re-affirm the desired communication the creators wish to maintain with film audiences, as they did with comic book readers through the letters page. According to Chris Ryall and Scott Tipton, the Letters page pose as a great resource for building reader loyalty, granted the opportunity for direct communication between readers and editors or even creators and, finally, is an additional means of promotion. For Marvel
Comics under the editorship of Stan Lee, “all three things were accomplished on a monthly basis Marazi 137
[and] Stan’s conversational manner of speaking to fans” actually “brought them closer to the company” (53-54). Similarly, his appearance in various, but curiously not all, Marvel films displays his dedication to these characters and serves as a “wink-wink” gesture to the audience, thus re-affirming his conversational manner. Surprisingly though, Stan Lee does not make appearances in all Marvel films.
Examining those that were produced by other studios and do not belong to the Marvel
Cinematic Universe Phase One, Stan Lee only appears in films to which he is the creator of the character in question. This appears more as a tribute or homage to the film production studio in question towards Stan Lee. In the MCU Phase One, Stan Lee makes a cameo appearance in all the films, even in those to which he is not the creator of the superhero character. Stan Lee's significance and contribution to Marvel, in general, is reaffirmed and acknowledged, while simultaneously making him the face of the Marvel personality across MCU Phase One, which offers a further distinction between MCU films and Marvel film productions from other studios.
The popularity of the Stan Lee cameos has elevated current audience expectations, however, and has led to a "where is Waldo?" effect where audience segments anxiously await if Stan Lee will make an appearance even in films, not by the MCU. The Stan Lee cameos honor fans, the
Marvel organization, as well as the superhero characters of different creators, thus unifying and strengthening the MCU.
Another element that helps to distinguish the Marvel personality is the house-style that was initially established in the comic book and connects with the superhero origin stories of
Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase One. The plethora of superhero movies to date may, in connection with the definition of the superhero, give rise to the notion that all superheroes, and by extension the films, are the same. Drawing on Coogan’s superhero definition, whether it is Marazi 138
DC’s Superman and Batman or Marvel’s Thor and Iron Man, all superheroes can fall under this definition that accounts for their similarities. Of course, each superhero profile, complete with specific powers and skills set, symbolic associations, and a roster of villains, helps in distinguishing one from the other, as does the name of the organization but also the character treatment. For Marvel, both the treatment and style their characters would acquire were initially established in the comic books. Ryall and Tipton inform that Stan Lee, Jack Kirby and Steve
Ditko "pioneered a new and different house style [that] combined realism with an almost soap- opera-like emphasis on the personal lives of their heroes" (20). Whereas DC's superheroes are considered to be, according to Jason Bainbridge, heroic archetypes residing in archetypal cities and divine figures of retribution, Marvel characters are "real" people living in "real" cities and affected by modernity, or, in other words, "the need to work through their heroism" (70). What is at the center of attention in Marvel comic books and film narratives is the superhero character in question and not so much the action. This is not to be confused with spectacle in which the superhero engages.
The respectful editorial voice of the Marvel personality, one which, as Ryall and Tipton highlight, is not condescending (20), is actually re-enforced by the melodramatic type of storytelling, whose purpose, according to Bainbridge, is to provide instruction for people […] and offer audiences “alternative models of behavior,” where the reader/viewer/consumer is left to decide “which, if any, are appropriate” (70). How a superhero character will tackle a situation becomes more important, or at least more engaging than the situation itself. Marvel offers highly entertaining character-centered narratives which, in combination with the Marvel personality, engage the audience, are grounded in realism due to their melodramatic origins in combination with humoristic elements, and respectfully leave room to draw one’s own meanings. What Marazi 139 further aids audience engagement and promotes both the product and the Marvel organization is the context within which the Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase One is set.
The context set by Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase One is that of an intertextually- enhanced shared cinematic universe with a consistent timeline that has the potential of open- ended structures. Intertextuality is evident in the films through the implementation of easter eggs, which can also account for timeline consistency, as do the post-credits scenes whereas the treatment of the origin stories in connection with the idea of Phase One elevate audience expectations for open-ended structures. This is actually a prominent feature of the comic books that have been implemented in the films to enforce the idea of a shared universe and highlight the potential for open-ended structures. The idea of multiple and alternate timelines, such as The
Amazing Spider-Man, Spider-Man 2099, The Sensational Spider-Man, and Ultimate Spider-Man, to name but a few, already exist in the comic books. The MCU Phase One poses another film timeline for multiple characters.
The films that make up Phase One of the MCU display a re-working of the superhero origins. As Richard Reynolds accounts, "[t]he retelling of the origin will bring some new aspect of the character to light. The new creative team will use the stamp of its own creative style as a governing element in the reinterpretation of the character. Whatever new material is created and whatever new circumstances are made between existing plot-lines, continuity will be seen to be preserved" (48). The notions of renewal, rebooting and even cross-media adaptations are not triggered by Marvel's current expansion of its characters and narratives across media. It can be traced back to the nature of the comic book medium itself. The origin stories of Phase One do repeat fundamental elements pertaining to the superhero's origin but simultaneously introduce updated features and alterations, so as to account for a shared universe and consistent timeline. Marazi 140
This can account for why Stark's origin re-telling is conceived in the era of War against
Terrorism with the Afghanistan backdrop instead of the 1960's Vietnam War. Continuity is upheld because the character is situated in war-zone but the difference is apparent because of the alternate historical and cultural significance of the war zone.
In contrast, the Captain America origin account adheres more strictly to the 1940’s storyline due to its predetermined historical inspiration and influence. The difference is that in the cinematic universe Captain America awakens many years later which affects certain aspects of the character such as his involvement in the Vietnam War when compared to the comic books.
The Hulk’s origin, which is more well-known, did not have to be re-told especially when taking into consideration the fact that Ang Lee’s Hulk (2003) origin account had come out only five years prior to The Incredible Hulk (2008). Instead, it was presented more akin to a newsreel. As for Thor's case, it does not focus on the element of suspense and surprise following the mystery around the Donald Blake character in the comic book origin story. Instead, it focuses on establishing Thor's divine nature as well as the setting of Asgard, so as to establish the relative dynamics between the Avengers' Earth and the Chitauri adversaries. The choice to alter, update or maintain aspects of a story from one source material to the adaptation are more a matter of relevance and cultural significance, than a matter of narrative or semiotic and aesthetic equivalents. Both comic book and film origin stories pose as extended identity response possibilities that enrich the abstract meaning of each specific superhero character and offer additional cultural viewpoints from which they can be observed and understood.
When it comes to adaptations, Hutcheon proposes that they should be seen as instances of intertextuality. The hierarchical continuity of the comic book medium alludes to the notion of intertextuality which is further enhanced in the films via easter eggs. The easter eggs scattered Marazi 141 across the Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase One films initially act as intertextual markers that pay tribute to prior superhero productions. They also enforce the notion of hierarchical continuity of the comic books. Hierarchical continuity is predicated on intertextual readings of superhero comics and making comparisons amongst superheroes but also between a specific superhero and prior material pertaining to that character (Reynolds 40-41). This is unavoidable when one engages in reading multiple series of a specific superhero character. The Iron Man films pay tribute to the comics by incorporating the Ten Rings logo, which alludes to one of Stark's arch- nemesis Mandarin. The jazzy mix in the casino, as well as Lt. Colonel James Rhodes' ringtone, allude to the 1966 Iron Man cartoon, while Obadiah Stane's chess set can be associated with the
Evil Chessmen in the comics. Other allusions include Kristin Everhart, a character from Iron
Man volume 3 #75, the Roxxon Corporation that repeatedly tries to kill Tony Stark in the comics, and Stark's humoristic reference to Secretary of Defense which resorts back to the comics. The S.H.I.E.L.D. documents in the opening scene of The Incredible Hulk (2008) point to
Ang Lee’s Hulk (2003) as well as Rick Jones's name pays tribute to the comic book origins of the superhero. There are various nods to the Hulk TV show that include a clip of Bill Bixby as
David Banner, Lou Ferrigno as a security guard, the "Lonely Man" TV show theme song by composer Craig Armstrong, and even Paul Soles, owner of the pizzeria, who voices Bruce
Banner in the Hulk cartoon. The town of Puente Antigua in Thor (2011), which means “old bridge,” alludes to Asgaard’s Bi-frost. The billboard “Journey into Mystery” is a direct reference to the title of the comics where Thor makes his first appearance. The major tribute in Captain
America: The First Avenger (2011) is the recreation of the comic book cover where Captain
America punches Hitler, while The Avengers (2012) pays tribute to the “Earth’s mightiest Marazi 142 heroes” slogan of the comic books. Other easter eggs establish current connections between the films of the Marvel Cinematic Universe thus re-enforcing the idea of a shared universe.
Certain easter eggs of the Marvel Cinematic Universe draw connections between the films themselves and further promote the notion of a shared cinematic universe. In Iron Man
(2008), one of the pilots chasing Tony Stark is named Whiplash which hints at Stark’s enemy,
Whiplash, in Iron Man 2 (2010). The fact that Lt. Colonel James Rhodes’ glance lingers over one of Stark’s suits foreshadows his appearance as War Machine in the sequel. A replica of
Captain America’s shield draws a direct connection with the relevant film, as do the clips of
Howard Stark and his keepsakes such as a Captain America comic book. Howard Stark’s drawing of the cosmic cube or tesseract offers associations with the Avengers, while Agent
Coulson’s announcement of being needed in New Mexico in combination to the film’s post- credits scene points to Thor (2011). The news report segment in The Incredible Hulk (2008) is of great significance, as it also features in Iron Man 2 (2010), thus chronologically aligning the second Iron Man with the events of the Hulk film. In Thor (2011), Dr. Erik Selvig offers a connection to the Hulk by referring to gamma radiation that immediately connects with Bruce
Banner. In Captain America: The First Avenger (2011), Howard Stark’s hover technology will feature prominently in The Avengers (2012) in the Helicarrier aircraft. In addition to creating connections between the films, the easter eggs can also become marketing tools for intertextual commodities. According to Arvidsson, due to the changing media landscape in the 1990's, the emerging strategy focuses on marketing “intertextual commodities” that could be promoted across various media channels and sold in numerous formats but which can also be found in the same medium across different films as in the MCU case (74-75). The easter eggs, in combination Marazi 143 with the post-credits scenes, can promote films, while also raise new expectations as regards their open-ended structures.
Marvel does not simply rely on traditional models of advertising and promotion such as film trailers, TV spots, production announcements, casting decisions and press releases to advertise the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Instead, it employs certain easter eggs and post-credits scenes that promote the narrative, while simultaneously acting as marketing tools that promote upcoming films. By merging storytelling and marketing techniques, Marvel not only seeks to heighten audience engagement but also ensures the ongoing dialogue around the MCU until the next film. The post-credits scene in the first Iron Man film clearly announces the Avengers project, while Tony Stark is more elusive in this reference in the Hulk film's post-credits scene.
The main object of interest, namely the tesseract, features in both the Captain America film and in the post-credits scene of Thor (2011), where Director Fury reveals it to Dr. Erik Selvig. In addition, we are formally informed of Thor returning in The Avengers (2012), prior to the post- credits scene where it also becomes clear that Loki will be the main villain. Natasha Romanoff, aka Black Widow, and Clint Barton, aka Hawkeye, who appear as supporting characters in the
Iron Man and Thor films respectively foreshadow the additional members of the Avengers team.
Finally, Captain America: The First Avenger (2011) not only announces that Captain America will return in the Avengers, but also the post-credits scene offers audiences a visual treat in the form of an Avengers promo trailer.
Both easter eggs and post-credits scenes establish a particular ambiance of seriality, hierarchy, and intertextuality for the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Drawing on Jim Collins'
"Batman: The Movie, Narrative: The Hyperconsciousness," Ndalianis notes that "the serial logic of contemporary media is reliant on a rampant self-reflexivity" and the "layering of intertexts" Marazi 144 are "just as integral to the [consumer's] involvement and interpretation" (72). Marvel extends an invitation to consumer audiences to engage with and enjoy a full-on Marvel organization project, distinguish the MCU Phase One characters and their stories from productions by other studios, and prompt the audience to experience the holistic nature of the shared cinematic universe as a total entertainment experience.
The notion of open-ended structures is enhanced by the employment of particular easter eggs and occurs as a result of serial and hierarchical continuity. It is also possible, however, to view this relationship in connection with an economic rationale that centers on the future potentials of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and how Marvel is re-assuring its popularity and success. Intertextuality, open-ended structures, and revisionism results in what Saige Walton characterizes as "hastening backwards and forwards to reiterate the past while moving in unforeseen directions through regulated variance and media renewal" where everything is happening simultaneously (89-90). The notion of simultaneity appears in the form of certain easter eggs that also contribute to the idea of open-ended structures due to their foreshadowing capabilities.
By alluding to the past, re-affirming present connections but also foreshadowing the future, Marvel clearly intends on acting on what Hans Robert Jauss in his Toward an Aesthetic of
Reception (1982) has termed “the horizon of expectations,” a notion that “links generic production to its outside effect on the viewer” (qtd. in Walton 91). Walton clarifies that “the continual founding/alteration of our subjective horizons occurs through ‘the relationship of the individual text to the succession of texts that forms the genre’” (88). The audience’s horizon of expectations occurs through the relationship of each individual film of the Marvel Cinematic
Universe in order to understand it holistically. In the case of the Avengers team-up, the roster Marazi 145 displays changes to that of the initial in the comic books. While that is practically based on which characters Marvel Studios have re-acquired the films rights to, it does not hinder fans from wishing or expecting to see other characters joining the Avengers. What appears intriguing in the
MCU Phase One films is that the films closer to The Avengers (2012), pay tribute to past productions which results in elevated audience expectations.
The Ten Rings, as well as the implicit reference to the Mandarin in Iron Man (2008), could foreshadow a future confrontation. The appearance of Dr. Samuel Sterns and the establishment of the Leader's origins in The Incredible Hulk (2008) pose as a future possibility of yet another villain and storyline. Odin’s vault is an easter egg repository of possibilities consists of the orb of Agamato, the tablet of life and time, the Eternal Flame, the Warlock’s Eye and the
Infinity Gauntlet. The life model decoy reference in The Avengers (2012) may hint at a new repository of Iron Man suits. Finally, elements such as Project 42 and PEGASUS allude to the
Civil War storyline of the comics which immediately probes the question of the X-Men, the
Fantastic Four and Spider-Man film rights in addition to numerous other similar cases. Easter eggs and post-credit scenes have the capacity of emphasizing relationships of Marvel Cinematic
Universe texts with past, present and possible future media texts whose production rights may or may not belong to Marvel, thus signaling the issue of power play between producers and consumers and indicating the institutional forces that charge matters pertaining to fidelity, brand loyalty, and value.
The Marvel brand personality established the Marvel Cinematic Universe as a sample of total branded entertainment through the implementation of intertextual elements that reference the past and the present and result in a shared universe. The MCU grants superhero entertainment via a clear, identifiable Marvel brand triptych of content, form, and context, now capable of Marazi 146 distinguishing itself more effectively from other productions. Marvel's marketing tactics within the film narratives initiate a conversation around the MCU, and assist in maintaining audience engagement in a common cultural world of that brand, whilst creating future expectations. The value of any brand is to a high degree dependent on consumers; what they think and how they feel about the brand is where the value truly resides. Their loyalty is a significant governing factor of the brand's trajectory, strength, success, and value.
Marvel through the Marvel Cinematic Universe achieves what Arvidsson sees as the purpose of brand management: brands, in this case, superheroes, are transformed and maintained as popular ideas that people live by or engage with (82-83). Marvel and the MCU brands provide audiences with brand tools that help construct identity, social relations, and shared experiences by catering to audience expectations as well as emotional benefits while seeking to satisfy a wide array of preferences. The Marvel and MCU brand(s) ultimately become a medium for the construction of a common social world (3). The idea of coming together is the central theme of
The Avengers (2012) and what Phase One has been building up to. While the degree of audience engagement is not and cannot be dictated in this brand context, Marvel can see to maintaining and raising audience expectations that prompt audiences to not experience these films separately but holistically.
Engaging with the Marvel Cinematic Universe holistically, audiences ultimately begin exhibiting pressure in a bottom-up fashion, so as to see particular characters enter the MCU.
Brands enable consumers to express themselves through the personality of the brand and communicate within a brand context. The dialogue taking place in that context aims at “either add[ing] to or reproduc[ing] the particular qualities that the brand embodies" (Arvidsson 67, emphasis in original). The treatment of serial and hierarchical continuity greatly affects the Marazi 147 structural continuity evident in the MCU, which is indicative of future intentions towards the idea of open-ended structures, audience expectations, and Marvel's strategic power-play. The vital factor that cannot be overlooked, however, is that agents engaging in this context are constantly caught up in a power play, regarding production, consumption, and by extension meaning-making. The issue of fidelity plays a large part in the case of adaptations and poses as the final long-held and perhaps most significant debate in the field of Adaptation Studies.
The third and final chapter of the current dissertation focuses on fidelity. The objective is to reassess its meaning and significance by renegotiating it in connection with cultural adaptations and the element of brand identity value. It will take current cultural phenomena such as media convergence, transmedia storytelling, fan culture, brand loyalty and the power plays between producers and consumers into consideration. Due to alternative adaptation practices, fidelity needs to be reassessed as a concept in relation to value. As a cultural practice, the notion of value in the process of adaptation is dependent on and even determined by the institutionally- driven negotiation of intent and the top-down as well as bottom-up dialogic meaning-making of continuity and difference.
Marazi 148
Chapter Three
Fidelity or Value? Power Play in the Brand Context
“The case of Marvel Studios forces us, in sum, to consider what the convergence of comics and film has meant for industrial identities and production contexts – as well as to consider how the discursive figure of the comic book fan might play a role in making Marvel meaningful within Hollywood” -Derek Johnson, “Cinematic Destiny: Marvel Studios and the Trade Stories of Industrial Convergence” (2012)
The notion of fidelity, that is, being faithful to an original, is one of the three central debates and the most problematic element in Adaptation Studies. This is mainly due to the prejudices critical analyses of adaptations are based on concerning the authenticity of the original and the capabilities, or suitability, of different media in their attempt to adapt its spirit faithfully. Chapter
Three advocates that fidelity is a prominent notion within the sphere of pop and media franchise culture because it provides a context or ambiance of value to a branded intellectual property.
Fidelity exhibits persuasive power and this prompts and maintains a dialogue around adaptations, where producers and consumers negotiate the meaning(s) and more importantly the value of an adaptation. This explains why fidelity discourses continue to accompany the release of adaptations; the intent is to establish and assign value. By implementing the concept of brand equity value, fidelity can be viewed as an asset/liability characteristic that can grant value to an intellectual property.
The sections in this chapter display that fidelity persists in the area of popular culture because it poses as the element that dictates value but does not essentially determine it. By juxtaposing adaptations with trans-media stories, this project will further argue that fidelity in a traditional sense does not conform to the logic of the latter and by extension with adaptations in this context. The search for meaning and value of an intellectual property will not be dictated by the very notion of fidelity itself but ultimately via discourses regarding fidelity within the context Marazi 149 of the brand. The main case study under examination is The Avengers (2012), a film that is the end product of Marvel’s Phase One cinematic universe. This will be complemented by reference to Joss Whedon’s Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1997-2003), so as to demonstrate how certain storytelling and brand practices today were evident even before the case of Marvel’s MCU Phase
One, thus inviting a retrospective look at past franchises in light of new cultural practices.
3.1 Brand Management and Fandom: the Value of Power Play in the Brand
Context
Fidelity continues to pose an issue, due to this notion of persuasive power where the value is attached to a particular meaning or range of meanings. If these meanings are accepted by the audience, this then awards both creator and product with value. Thomas Leitch in his “Twelve
Fallacies in Contemporary Adaptation Theory” has deemed the notion of fidelity, among numerous other notions, a fallacy. More specifically, he sees fidelity as “a hopelessly fallacious measure of a given adaptation’s value, because it is unattainable, undesirable, and theoretically possible only in a trivial sense” (161). Part of this argument is that the degree of fidelity resides in the successful transference of an agreed-upon meaning of the text. However, to what an adaptation ought to display fidelity on a practical level in order to achieve this still remains debatable and has not been answered definitively. It appears somewhat naïve to assume that an adaptation will manage to capture the one meaning that audiences will unanimously agree upon, even in the hypothetical case that heterogeneous audiences are in a position to actually agree on a unanimous definitive meaning. According to Deborah Cartmell and Imelda Whelehan, fidelity may now reside in the fringes of Adaptation Studies, “but it dominates popular reviews and fan Marazi 150 sites alike’” (qtd. in Brooker 45). I believe that this is true to a certain extent. Adaptation Studies may realize the fallacy of fidelity –that it does not pose as the end in itself anymore– but it continues to appear in academic publications all the same. What is more, medium-specificity discourses fall back on fidelity as well. Robert Stam emphasizes that the notion of fidelity “gains its persuasive power from our sense that (a) some adaptations are indeed better than others, and
(b) some adaptations fail to ‘realize’ or substantiate what we most appreciated in the source novels” (14). The two reasons Stam provides, however, confirm that fidelity exhibits power as well as preference, thus in both an academic environment as well as in pop culture fidelity in my view acts more as the means or tool to argue and establish those features. As a result, I do not view the fidelity debate even in Adaptation Studies as fully resolved. This is the main reason why this chapter suggests viewing it in light of the notion of value that is introduced via brand identity theory.
The cultural value of an adaptation, as seen through brand identity, lies in being hyperconscious of the relationship that exists between the abstract core and concrete extended identities. That relationship is relational and relative and can be seen as such when also taking the context of production and consumption into consideration. Value is not found in content, form or context alone, but in the interrelationship of all three. In this section, I argue that the persuasive power of fidelity triggers the debate of value surrounding an adaptation. There is a misconception that adaptations allegedly gain value by displaying a high degree of fidelity towards their source text where fidelity and value focus on either content or form. Yet no common ground has been reached on what exactly an adaptation ought to be faithful to regarding its source material. Fidelity is relative and dependant on point of view. The degree of fidelity is a subjective and relative factor that can be viewed from either the perspective of the industry or the Marazi 151 audience. On the basis of the point of view and what each side is basing the degree of faithfulness on, both sides may concur on the degree of fidelity or disagree on its successful manifestation. There is even the possibility of the degree and notion of fidelity to be imposed on the minds of consumer audiences, or it may be a direct result from their fan loyalty towards a franchise or intellectual property.
Media franchises display storylines that are adapted to semiotically different, albeit converging, narrative systems. They exhibit different aesthetics that are dictated by technological advances, media convergence, director styles and production studio choices. The identities of a text are governed by numerous factors resulting from various cultural production practices described in Henry Jenkins’ Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide (2006) as follows:
By convergence, I mean the flow of content across multiple media platforms, the
cooperation between multiple media industries, and the migratory behavior of
media audiences who will go almost anywhere in search of the kinds of
entertainment experiences they want. In the world of media convergence, every
important story gets told, every brand gets sold, and every consumer gets courted
across multiple media platforms. Convergence represents a cultural shift as
consumers are encouraged to seek out new information and make connections
among dispersed media content. (2-3)
The practices of transmedia storytelling offer additional concrete instances of how media interact together, so as to develop a story across different formats and platforms. This is not considered by some adaptation per se. Nevertheless, it demonstrates that a story can travel across media because its content and form are malleable elements of an extended identity. Transmedia Marazi 152 storytelling will be examined in more depth in the following sections of this chapter. What is more, fidelity does not appear to be the dominant issue for trans-media stories, because their ultimate goal is to engage audience members with aspects, elements or versions of the story through as many outlets as possible. In addition, heterogeneous consumer audiences display a variety of expectations and demands towards media franchises, intellectual properties, and the actual industry. Within the sphere of media franchise culture, both industry and consumer audiences attribute meaning and value to intellectual properties, franchises, brands, and adaptations. Stuart Elliot's premise that "‘the marketing of an entertainment property is becoming the story instead of the property itself'" (qtd. in Maxwell 157) may be viewed as a harbinger of meaningless, commercialized, and profitable Hollywood practices that, nevertheless, contains a grain of truth. The fusion of marketing and storytelling, as well as the hyperawareness towards marketing, raise the value of not only the work in question but also the context within which it is produced and consumed. The important components to consider here that can shed light on the cultural value of adaptations is the idea of a culturally branded community, touched upon in
Chapter Two of the present dissertation, in connection to the practices of contemporary entertainment that result in open-ended structures and transmedia storytelling.
Due to convergence culture practices and transmedia storytelling, contemporary entertainment exhibits tendencies that result in open-ended and intertextual structures. The interesting point to consider is how or why fidelity still poses as an issue, in spite of practices that indicate that fidelity is indeed a fallacy. Angela Ndalianis in her Neo-Baroque Aesthetics and Contemporary Entertainment (2004) argues in favor of mainstream cinema and other entertainment media as being imbued with a neo-baroque poetics (5).66 While the neo-baroque is
66 In this book, Ndalianis is concerned with the emergence of a new order in the entertainment industry, one where the classical still persists but with a new twist by using the term of neo-baroque. More specifically, Ndalianis argues Marazi 153 not a perspective or a tool this dissertation adopts, I would like to draw on Ndalianis’ observations of the practices contemporary entertainment employs, in an effort to expand its polycentrism and intertextual character. In particular, Ndalianis notes:
Closed forms are replaced by open structures that favor a dynamic and expanding
polycentrism. Stories refuse to be contained within a single structure, expanding their
narrative universes into further sequels and serials. Distinct media cross over into
other media, merging with, influencing, or being influenced by other media forms.
Film companies seek to expand their markets by collapsing the traditional boundaries
and engaging in multimedia conglomerate operations. […] Horizontal integration
increasingly became one of the successful strategies of the revitalized film industry,
and formal polycentrism was supported by a conglomerate structure that functioned
according to similar polycentric logic: Investments were dispersed across multiple
industry interests that also intersected where financially appropriate. (25-26)
The notion of open structures and expanding narrative universes mentioned above is highly evident in the case of superhero narratives. The stories of individual superheroes refuse to be contained in a single structure but travel across media which often results in film and television series cross-overs. The polycentric logic of Marvel Studios and Disney becomes evident in their effort to expand their superhero productions, either through collaborations with Sony and Fox, or through the production of television series on ABC and Netflix, or even with the production of
that “contemporary entertainment media reflect a dominant neo-baroque logic. The neo-baroque shares a baroque delight in spectacle and sensory experiences. Neo-baroque entertainments, however –which are the product of conglomerate entertainment industries, multimedia interests, and spectacle that is often reliant upon computer technology– present contemporary audiences with new baroque forms of expression that are aligned with late- twentieth and early twenty-first-century concerns" (5). Ndalianis’ argumentation attempts to compare and examine the entertainment industry by viewing the classical practices of production against those used nowadays by contemporary entertainment which she terms as neo-baroque traits. The current dissertation does not adopt the notion of the neo-baroque, instead, it draws on Ndalianis’ observations and insights with regard to the role contemporary industry plays so as to shed light on the practices that are currently used in contemporary entertainment. Marazi 154 video games with partners such as Square Enix (Todd Spangler n.pag.). What I would like to focus on is the intertextual logic that emerges from the aforesaid actions and allows audiences as
Ndalianis states “to make order out of chaos” (27). Ndalianis observes that this kind of polycentric logic facilitates the dialogue between economics and production, eventually leading to a transformation in audience reception, where “a rampant media literacy result[s] in the production of works that rel[y] heavily on an intertextual logic. […] ‘[M]eaning’ becom[es] reliant upon an audience that [is] capable of traversing multiple ‘texts’ to give coherence to a specific work riddled with intertextual references and allusions” (26). Audiences can certainly make their own intertextual associations. However, the practice of the intentional implementation of intertextual markers that audiences are expected to identify currently poses as a fruitful area of research that requires further investigation.
Similarly to Ndalianis, scholars such as Omar Calabrese, Gilles Deleuze, Umberto Eco and Penelope Doob have employed the model of the labyrinth as a formal tool of analysis.67
More specifically, Doob sees two possible labyrinth types: the unicursal and the multicursal, both designs of planned chaos but with a different structural logic. “The unicursal (or one- directional),” Doob suggests, “follows a series of intricate linear paths that remain singular in structure, and ‘confusion results from inherent disorientation rather than repeated need for choice’” (qtd. in Ndalianis 82). Any novel, film, television series, comic book, theatrical play, even video game that has not been adapted or expanded transmedially into a different medium could be considered unicursal or one-directional. The planned chaos, in this case, relates to the unlimited intertextual associations any one consumer can make, both within a single medium, as
67 Calabrese touches upon the neo-baroque in his Neo-Baroque: A Sign of the Times (1992); Deleuze incorporates the notion of the neo-baroque fold in his The Fold: Leibniz and the Baroque (1993); Umberto Eco in his The Open Work (1989) examines how serial thought is intent on producing new signs and highlights that what is important is the aesthetic equivalent, in other words, its “poetic meaning” (59); finally, Doob in her The Idea of the Labyrinth from Classical Antiquity through the Middle Ages (1990) presents the two possible forms of the labyrinth. Marazi 155 well as across media. Nevertheless, the idea of even planned chaos, in this case, highlights how difficult it would be for producers to even claim that a work exhibits fidelity with its source material. “Alternatively, the multicursal (or multi-directional) model ‘suggests a series of choices between paths.' Adaptations and transmedia stories are products that initiate a multicursal, or multidirectional series. Unlike the unicursal model, the multicursal model does not consist of a single prolonged path. Instead, mimicking the compossible and incompossible paths, it
‘incorporates an extended series of bivia, an array of choices’” (Ndalianis 82). As a result, the choices are actually provided to audiences in addition to any references and associations they are capable of making on their own.
Instead of adopting the neo-baroque or the labyrinth model, I view brand identity as capable of providing consistency to its array of product lines and providing a basis that explains why fidelity discourses around adaptations remain prominent. Intellectual properties such as superhero narratives can resemble a chaotic labyrinth of texts, intertexts, and choices for audience engagement. The core of the brand, however, poses as the center from which a multitude of product lines can emerge, thus acting as an overarching point of reference. More importantly, brand identity is dependent on the notion of brand management and by extension the intentions of the production team, more specifically their desire to achieve brand equity.
Brand equity as a concept used to decipher and determine the value of a brand, its products and/or services is highly conducive to re-evaluating the matter of fidelity and determining the cultural value of adaptation. It is mainly employed in the field of brand management, brand identity, marketing, and economics. Brand equity is “a set of assets (and liabilities) linked to a brand’s name and symbol that adds to (or subtracts from) the value provided by a product or service to a firm and/or that firm’s customers (Aaker 7-8). For literary adaptations, the value is Marazi 156 believed to be determined by the degree of fidelity between an adaptation and the original. The notions of faithfulness and loyalty are both evident and accompany value in the case of brands and adaptations alike, they are understood differently, mainly because brand management is more aware of heterogeneous audiences. Fidelity cannot definitively appoint the aspect(s) an adaptation needs, so as to be loyal in order to ensure faithfulness, unlike brands that have a distinct core brand identity to which their extended identities display a degree of faithfulness.
What is more, brand identity appears more practical in its assessment of acquiring and maintaining brand value. Literary adaptations do not appear to take various cultural factors into account when employing the element of fidelity in order to assess an adaptation's value. The examination of the significance of value in the context of brands can display just how complex and convoluted the idea of value and by extension fidelity as value can be. The major asset categories that determine the degree of value include (1) brand name awareness, (2) brand loyalty, (3) perceived quality, (4) brand associations (Aaker 8). These categories should be seen in comparison with the features of fidelity and adaptation in an attempt to heighten the fact that value for adaptation is primarily cultural.
What distinguishes adaptations from other works, as Chapter One has already shown, is their announced stature as an adaptation. Adaptations raise awareness to the fact that they are adaptations. This notion of awareness from a brand identity perspective grants strength and value to a brand. Awareness for brands "refers to the strength of a brand's presence in the consumer's mind" and is dependent on recognition, in other words, the "familiarity gained from past exposure" (Aaker 10-11). While awareness is a feature that can be found in all texts via intertextuality, for adaptations it poses as a more prominent feature. For instance, in order to ensure or heighten audience awareness towards the Avengers brand, it was necessary for each Marazi 157 individual superhero film to refer to it, connect with it and, more importantly, set a contextual dialogue for it. This has contributed to tightening the brand associations the audience makes between the films comprising Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase One, even though there is no restriction to the associations audience members can make. In fact, adaptation theory from the aspect of fidelity fails to account for the associations that consumers make. When viewing an adaptation there is no guarantee that audiences will only identify intertextual associations with the original source material.
The notion of intertextuality has opened up this field of associations, thus not restricting the comparison of an adaptation to its original. By mentioning the superhero genre or product class, consumers immediately bring to mind some superhero, depending on preference and past exposure. The superhero genre resides within the sphere of pop culture, thus, the chances of being exposed at some point to particular brand characters are higher. Both aspects are considered to be assets, as they are believed to grant positive feelings in consumers towards the brand and the company in the case of awareness and recognition (Aaker 10-11). All adaptations raise awareness to the fact that they are adaptations, whether audience members choose to experience the source work and all adaptation versions or not. Perceived quality is a characteristic that is employed on the part of the industry regarding its brands in order to accumulate profits, market share values and investors (Aaker 17). It points to a significant factor that needs to be taken into consideration, namely, the conditions and possible restrictions the production undergoes when developing a brand adaptation. At this point, I would like to emphasize that perceived quality appears to be what some critics and academics claim, when they base their critique and evaluation of adaptations on their perspective which can be of a specific discipline such as Semiotics, Literary or Films Studies, or in the case of critics, if they Marazi 158 are more keen on blockbuster or independent productions. These perspectives, however, cannot provide a fully definitive account of the adaptations' quality, the degree of fidelity or more importantly how others come to perceive it, thus demonstrating how value is negotiable, malleable and relative.
Brand loyalty is a characteristic that pertains to the consumer audience where discourses of fidelity may be employed, so as to ensure audience loyalty. Accumulating or maintaining value through brand loyalty entails segmenting consumer audiences into the following groups:
“noncustomers (those who buy competitor brands or are not product class users), price switchers
(those who are price-sensitive), the passively loyal (those who buy out of habit rather than reason), fence sitters (those who are indifferent between two or more brands), and the committed” or, in other words, the fans (Aaker 22). This categorization of consumers is useful and mostly applicable to brands that offer tangible products and services. When it comes to branded content, such as intellectual properties, a differentiation may be necessary in order to comprehend the respective segmentation within consumer audiences. The range of consumer audiences displays the heterogeneity of the audience, the variety of expectations and the difficulty in satisfying any subjective notions of fidelity consumers may have in mind. It is necessary for brand management to have a clear brand treatment in mind, so as to ensure brand loyalty and possibly attract new consumers. In the case of superheroes, non-customers would include those audience consumers who do not engage at all with superhero brands. The dominating presence of superheroes in pop culture today may pose as an incentive for these audience segments to ultimately engage with respective intellectual properties. Price switchers include audience consumers who engage with superhero brands and products depending on their financial statements and the cost of engagement or purchase of narrative media and ancillary Marazi 159 market products. Audience consumers who are passively loyal generally display a positive feeling towards the brand and its meanings in spite of any liabilities, malfunctions, poor quality, and extremely high prices. The choices of the passively loyal basically lack in reason because they simply wish to identify with and be identified through the brand and what it stands for.
Fence sitters, on the other hand, appear to be more active and dynamic among the audience consumers. They exhibit brand preferences from numerous aspects that may range from superhero to production studios, directors and cast, type of film or narrative/interactive medium.
Their choices may be dependent on age, gender, financial, social, educational and even ethnic standing. Finally, the committed obviously point towards consumer audience fans, who are the most dynamic and active, but simultaneously the most demanding in preferences and expectations, as well as most vocal in their critiques.68
Fans are by far the most exposed to branded entertainment in all its manifestations ranging from comic books to films and video games, to animation, collectibles, and attendance at
Comic-Con events. The passively loyal may also be engaged with said branded entertainment to the same extent but following a different logic. This, however, does not prohibit either from exacting demands or critique, although fans may display more knowledge and logical reasoning in preferences, demands, and criticism of a brand product and its treatment. The fence-sitters and price switchers represent those audience segments that for varying reasons have not been exposed to the full gestalt of total branded entertainment experiences of a particular brand, and, are thought of as maybe lacking somewhat in knowledge when compared to the fan segment. In order to cater to such a vast and heterogeneous audience, the industry resorts to brand associations and marketing to develop brand value. Value as a cultural concept is malleable,
68 Henry Jenkins, in Fans, Bloggers, and Gamers: Exploring Participatory Culture (2006) argues that Robert Kuzinets has “pioneered an entire field of marketing research focused on the cultures of committed consumers, whether understood as brand cultures or fan cultures” (3). Marazi 160 ambiguous and subject to reassessment, in spite of categorization of consumers and strategic tactics employed to maintain or raise equity value. Fidelity continues to resonate in the broader sphere of pop culture discussions. This is because the industry employs it, either by means of paratextual features or intertextual references, so as to engage the audience in a discussion of similarities and differences. The main goal is value ensured by the production’s confirmation that their version is faithful to what the audience expects.
The industry cannot accommodate all consumers, but it can make allowances for heterogeneous audiences and the vast variety of preferences and taste by offering sub-brands, range brands, brand extensions and ancillary market products. However, the audience finds itself in a conflicting position due to how the notion of faithfulness is used by the industry. This could account for cases where audience members are influenced into directly deeming the book better than the film. When it comes to the branded environment, audiences are somewhat guided in how they view, perceive and possibly discuss the brand. Nowadays, the industry cannot definitively dictate the ways goods are used or how consumers should think of and behave towards a brand. The plethora of information available on the internet, as well as in fan communities, enables consumers to be more aware of and vocal about various matters. The industry is not always behind and in connection with consumers about the nature, stature or treatment of a branded intellectual property. Arvidsson insightfully explains that an important task for brand management is to “ensure the ongoing production of a common social world on the part of consumers [and] proceeds in ways that reproduce a distinctive brand image, that strengthens the brand equity –the productive potential that the brand has in the minds of consumers– which is understood as the most important factor behind brand value” (74, emphasis in original). In order to achieve this, brand management employs what Michél Foucault has Marazi 161 referred to as government. What this entails is that brand management “is achieved through the provision of particular ambiences that frame and partially anticipate the agency of consumers”
(qtd. in Arvidsson 74).
The context of brands is initially set and governed by the company or industry inviting consumers and audiences to engage with, purchase and experience the brands. Celia Lury highlights that in this producer/consumer relationship the brand becomes a
“platform for action" that is inserted into the social and works to "program" the
freedom of consumers to evolve in particular directions. It is not impossible for
consumers to break with the expectations inscribed in these ambiances. However, the
task of brand management is to create a number of resistances that make it difficult,
or unlikely, for consumers to experience their freedom, or indeed their goals, in ways
different from those prescribed by the particular ambiance. (qtd. in Arvidsson 74)
This control or manipulation of the audience may still be an aim of the producers as Nolan’s first two Batman films demonstrate. Nevertheless, with the internet, the plethora of information and the expansive fan communities that exist, consumers are not as easy to control. Brand systems and brand identity can be employed, so as to negotiate the value of an adaptation via discourses of fidelity. There are four clear differences beginning with the reversal of cultural hierarchies.
Traditional Adaptation Studies would view any medium in relation to literature as being subordinate. Luca Somigli counter-argues that "when the source is a work of ‘popular culture,' the integrity of the original is not an issue" (qtd. in Brooker 48). What is more, even though it is possible for any, for example, Batman film to adapt a single specific text, "none of the ten
Batman movies released in theatres since 1943 have done so" (Brooker 49). This is the case for most superhero productions given the plethora of comic book issues the adaptations in question Marazi 162 pose. Batman Begins (2005) is not a “rearticulation of any single comic […] Rather, it recycles from a wealth of existing material [and] invents new scenes and characters of its own” (Brooker
50). The notion of fidelity continues to be an issue residing in paratextual discourses, because the industry contributes to the creation of this particular ambiance. The industry kindles the dialogue that focuses on similarities and differences that grant value to the relative branded intellectual property and its treatment by the industry. In addition, Brooker confirms that the process of adapting from medium to medium presents its own set of difficulties, due to the visual ontologies present in spite of media convergence (52). Until it was used for textual readings, intertextuality was not a paratextual praxis dominant in media franchise culture.
The dynamic relation between old and new, similar and different, brings to mind the words of Alan Moore when praising Frank Miller’s Batman: The Dark Knight Returns:
“‘Everything is exactly the same, except for the fact that it’s all totally different’” (qtd. in
Brooker 66). Brooker’s conclusion which can also be applied to the various superhero adaptations currently dominating media franchise culture states:
[E]very new Batman story is always already an adaptation of existing elements and
earlier stories, combined in a new order with a twist and a handful of innovations.
Authorial expression and the pleasure of these texts for the reader lies neither in the
reassuring repetition of entirely familiar patterns and motifs or in the surprise of
entirely new inventions, but in the dynamic between the two. (66)
This dynamic relation guides the components of brand systems in their attempt to achieve, maintain or strengthen their equity value. Brand systems cater to a holistic strategy seeking to guarantee equity value, as Brooker’s case study highlights. This poses as a resourceful way of viewing and re-evaluating the notion of fidelity. Fidelity cannot be accounted for based on single Marazi 163 or isolated components of aesthetics, semiotics, or narratology. Similarly, it cannot ignore aspects such as paratexts and the marketability appointed to intellectual properties by the industry or even consumer audience preferences, expectations and reception. If replaced by the notion of value, then it can account for more than a single text. The notion of value entails examining assets and liabilities of the single in relation to the whole. For example, the value of the Iron Man brand is not solely determined by one text, even in the event that a film may prove to be a failure at the box office. Instead, it poses as an example that demonstrates liabilities the production team needs to rectify and avoid in the future. The examination is relative rather than absolute, malleable and dynamic rather than static and restricting. Another means by which to view this premise which further proves that the industry in its own way cultivates the ambiance of fidelity is through the notion of marketing.
Richard Maxwell advocates in Global Hollywood (2001) that marketing does not aim at protecting consumers but instead focuses on the issues of positioning and playability. Positioning is about “what marketers want to ‘do to the mind of the prospect,’ how they segment the audience” and “how they manipulate what’s already up there in the [consumer’s] mind, [so as] to retie the connections that already exist” with new and different ones (152-53). When it comes to adaptations, this approach ensures consumer awareness towards the product and creates ties with the source material. “Whereas positioning is about finding the right place to put a film in an audience’s collective mind, playability is about predicting how satisfied that audience will be with said positioning (Maxwell 154). A distinction, however, needs to be made between playability and marketability where the latter focuses on the film’s commercial potential thus taking into account “all the elements of the film that can be used in promotion and advertising” through various media outlets (Maxwell 155). Unlike positioning and playability, marketability Marazi 164 is a process that ensues at the pre-production, final and future stature of the film with an eye on tie-ins, cross promotions and ancillary markets (155). Branded intertextual commodities display high marketability as audience awareness is relatively high. When it comes to branded entertainment the marketers’ job of ensuring the trinity of marketability, playability and positioning is fairly easy due to audience awareness, especially for fans who display high brand associations and recognition. This appears in Christopher Nolan’s first two Batman films.
Specifically, upon the success of Batman Begins (2005), Nolan’s brand also “rose to prominence” as viewed in the second installment The Dark Knight (2008) (Brooker 25).
Meanwhile, what was at stake for Batman Begins (2005) was distinguishing it from previous
Batman films and particularly differentiating it from the Joel Schumacher versions. This was achieved, according to Brooker, because the studio claimed the film versions are faithful to particular comic books they saw as displaying the “true” and “original” Batman as being dark, masculine, noir-esque, violent, rational, and authentic and not as campy, homoerotic and silly
(119). These comics include O’Neil’s “Daughter of the Demon” (1971) and “The Man who
Falls” (1989), Frank Miller’s Dark Knight Returns (1986), Miller and Mazzucchelli’s Year One
(1987), Loeb and Sale’s The Long Halloween (1996) (Brooker 110-11). Nolan’s productions have sought to position this version of Batman as the correct one in the consumer’s mind by establishing a contextual dialogue centering on the films’ fidelity to specific texts that reflect the truthful and original Batman version (Brooker 108-10). Similarly, the Marvel Cinematic
Universe (MCU) is a tactic that differentiates purely Marvel film productions from that of other studios who continue to hold the film rights to certain Marvel characters. In the case of Nolan’s
Batman films, this was further achieved and enhanced by implementing realistic aesthetics that offer further associations and points of comparison with Tim Burton’s films, thus providing even Marazi 165 more distinctions (103). If the issue of fidelity appears as significant and prominent with regard to Nolan’s Batman films, it has initially become so from the side of the industry and continues to be so due to audience engagement.
Audience segments are prompted to delve into discussions regarding the brand due to the fact that they testify their knowledge and awareness of the source texts. The marketing tactics of the industry as regards Nolan’s Batman films are crucial because they cater to those segments of the audience that are aware of the source material and can view the films as a type of adaptation.
At the same time, through fidelity, the industry has sought to elevate marketability of specific source material and distinguish it from earlier versions, albeit characterizing it in a relatively negative way but advertising it nonetheless, thus expanding audience awareness and associations. While this particular case demonstrates that the films display some fidelity towards source texts, audiences can be distinguished into segments that are or are not aware of this fact.
This point ties up with Hutcheon’s view, where she explains that the knowing audience is the one who experiences the work as an adaptation and is aware of its stature, while the non- knowing one experiences it as any other work/text, because they do not know whether it is an adaptation or not, since they are not familiar with the source material (120). For segments of the audience to experience Nolan's films, or any Batman film for that matter, as an adaptation they need to recognize it as such. This creates connections in their minds with memories of other
Batman texts in juxtaposition with the current product under experience, where any gaps pertaining to changes, updates, similarities, and differences become the focal point of discussion in connection with audience expectations (Hutcheon 121). If, however, certain audience segments are not familiar with the source material but display some general awareness of the character due to its pop culture exposition, then the product must conform to other types of Marazi 166 expectations. These could include expectations regarding genre, film medium, blockbuster format, casting, special effects and ancillary market products. The satisfaction of such expectations would leave audience segments with more knowledge and possibly prompt them to seek out the source material, so as to broaden their experience. Knowing audiences or fans appear to be the consumers with the highest expectations and demands. Fidelity becomes an issue only if one is aware of the status of a product as an adaptation, otherwise, the discussion essentially revolves around the quality value of the film per se. Hutcheon makes it clear that the reason why the industry adapts texts and may seek to turn them into branded franchises is because “[t]he goal is to have the child watching a Batman video while wearing a Batman cape, eating a fast-food meal with a Batman promotional wrapper, and playing with a Batman toy. The goal is literally to engage all the child’s senses” (88). These tactics may not always work the way the industry intends. For instance, fans may not necessarily be fans of the actual brand, but knowledgeable of other components of the brand. They could be fans of a director or actor/actress, of the genre or blockbusters in general. Consequently, “[d]ifferent knowing audiences bring different information to their interpretations of adaptations”, while at the same time they also form expectations and demands based on the aforementioned factors to differing degrees (Hutcheon 125). Brands and adaptations cannot absolutely cater to every type of preference, demand, expectation or audience member. The very aspect of fidelity becomes subjective, when considered by the consumer audience point of view. At this point, I turn my attention to fans and the type of relationship they have with branded franchises, so as to consider how the issue of fidelity can be viewed as setting an ambiance for a productive dialogue that ultimately grants value to both brands and their products. Marazi 167
The notion of fandom is more than a group of active individuals who achieve various functional and emotional benefits from their engagement with products, services or brands.
Instead, their committed stance displays an engagement and interaction in a form of social community which is governed by various power plays. Henry Jenkins in his Fans, Bloggers, and
Gamers: Exploring Participatory Culture (2006) writes about the social dimensions of fan communities: that “[f]andom is one of those spaces where people are learning how to live and collaborate within a knowledge community” (134). What connects fans and brands in this sense of community is the “knowledge space” or “cosmopedia” that connects back to the loyal and committed consumers due to the knowledge they possess in relation to a brand. The notion of cosmopedia is of course enhanced by the new media environment, online communities and the internet in general. Jenkins advocates that “online fan communities might well be some of the most fully realized versions of Pierre Lévy’s cosmopedia, expansive self-organizing groups focused around the collective production, debate and circulation of meanings and interpretations, and fantasies in response to various artifacts of contemporary popular culture” (137). The factor of power play is still evident. Interactive audiences, “still operate […] alongside powerful media industries,” hence their social relationships are governed by a brand identity logic that seeks to pose boundaries to the actions of said consumers and maintain control over said commodities
(Jenkins 135). Given the matter of ownership with regard to these commodities as intellectual properties, it is logical that the production team would want to control their use and meaning.
While this is still a fact, the tension between producers and consumers in light of online culture today is far more intense and results in power play shifts.
Brand consumers are given more freedom when it comes to how they engage with brand commodities, as well as the functional and emotional benefits they extract from them. Lévy’s Marazi 168 distinction between the “collective intelligence” and the “hive mind, where individual voices are suppressed” (qtd. in Jenkins 140), mirrors this transition from the complete control of the production to the power and freedom of the consumers. Fans actively contribute to the circulation, advertisement, and negotiation of both value and meaning of a brand commodity.
They also pose as a knowledgeable community, now more than ever, capable of exerting its own influences and control over various aspects of the production of brand commodities. This is evident in fan art, fan fiction, as well as polls, gallops and various means of exhibiting preference or disapproval, such as for example in casting choices, future projects, and film trailers.
Engagement with a brand grants access to a social community where interaction, communication, shared knowledge and opportunities become part of the production of a brand.
Current advertising and brand management have altered the power relations between production and consumption, where production sets a context of choices for audience consumers, while consumers display their power by engaging or abstaining from these choices. These audiences exert their means of power by choosing or not to follow and engage with said commodities. The industry's power is re-enforced when they successfully manage to attract audiences to experience all extended identities. Control over territory, from the industry's perspective, has been minimized due to the internet. The internet grants consumers a wider base of outlets and tools via which to gain knowledge in order to communicate and even produce their own brand-related fan products. This leads to the aspect of ownership that is undisputable in relation to the industry due to copyright, trademark and patent laws. However, the internet and illegal practices of pirating, viral campaigning, Adbusters and culture jammers69 displays an opposition towards the use of
69 Henry Jenkins in his Fans, Bloggers, and Gamers: Exploring Participatory Culture (2006) touches on the matter of culture jamming. He draws on Mark Dery’s 1993 essay "Culture Jamming: Hacking, Slashing and Sniping in the Empire of Signs" to explain the term. Culture jamming, according to both, entails introducing noise or jamming a signal of communication or dominant message as it passes from the transmitter to receiver. The strategy in question Marazi 169 commodities and more importantly the control over ownership. The industry has inside knowledge over the creation and production process. Fans, however, appear more emotionally invested in the final product and can strongly influence and affect the value of a brand commodity depending on their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with it. As a result, these knowledge cultures will never fully escape the influence and control of commodity culture.
Commodity culture can never function outside the constraints of territoriality. Copyright will always designate the owner and producer of a commodity or intellectual property. More importantly, the owner and producer of an intellectual property are responsible for managing the brand system and context consumers choose to experience. How commodities are used, however, and more importantly the meaning they have for consumers, goes beyond copyright and legal matters. Fandom will, as Lévy predicts, alter the ways that commodity culture operates, because
“[t]he distinctions between authors and readers, producers and spectators, creators and interpretations will blend to form a reading-writing continuum, which will extend from the machine and network designers to the ultimate recipient, each helping to sustain the activities of the others” (qtd. in Jenkins 144). Though some media producers may view fandom as representing a “potential loss of control over their intellectual property” (Jenkins 146), current brand management practices demonstrate a different potential for brands, as well as for the relationship between producers and consumers. The above analysis of fandom and commodity culture in addition to what will be discussed in the following section invite a reiteration of certain cardinal premises discussed in earlier parts of the thesis. This dissertation emphasizes the importance of context and reception in adaptation studies, the hierarchical values of adaptation as a process, and the dialogue taking place between producers and their intentions and audiences
is usually taken up by cultural activists. Christine Harold also discusses this in her article "Pranking rhetoric: ‘Culture jamming’ as media activism” (2004). Marazi 170 and their expectations in media franchise culture. The following section examines how Marvel managed the brand system of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase One and how this brand system offers via brands a context of action and communication that grants consumers a means towards self-expression, identification and more importantly a shared community. By extension, this is what caters to brand equity, in other words, the source of a brand's value which is highly dependent on the interrelationship between producers/consumers.
3.2 The Brand System of The Avengers: Leveraging and Creating the
Megabrand
The undisputed success of Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) Phase One is due to the careful management of its individual superhero brands. This section argues that the value appointed to
MCU’s Phase One is its ability to offer strong brand superheroes stories while making the very process of production and the managing of the brand system, an integral part of those stories.70
By raising audience awareness towards their long-term goal, Marvel equates the process of creating the shared universe with the products that comprise the shared universe and ensures the value of both the brand system and the individual brand components. Marvel’s brand system strategy reaffirms that branding, in a cultural and economic sense, has become central to entertainment: “[the] function of branding is to pattern activities across time and space” and the selling of entertainment strongly relies on “deepening audience involvement in the immersive brand worlds” (Grainge 175). Branding gives identity and value to intellectual properties and entertainment commodities. It further helps to distinguish between corporations that deal with
70 Such a tactic led to the film receiving $623,357,910 domestic grosses and $895,237,000 foreign grosses with a total worldwide amount of $1,518,594,910 thus becoming the most financially successful superhero film to date. Marazi 171 similar product classes. More importantly, brands allow “social groups and consumption communities [to] engage with commodified texts in active ways, using them as a potential resource for the construction of identity and collective allegiance” (Grainge 177). By revealing its long-term goal of an Avengers range brand Marvel invites audience consumers to experience and entertain themselves with the respective brand products, as well as witness and live within the brand system creation process.
Within the context of media franchise culture, the respective brand environment is comprised of various practices, such as adaptation, transmedia storytelling, media convergence, cross-media distribution. All are governed by a branding logic which entails a brand medium through which one can identify. One can also express their identity and even become part of a collective of shared knowledge that can assume the role of cultural labor. More importantly, audiences witness the equivalent value of both the end products and the process of production and creation. The marketing, advertising and brand practices employed nowadays grant freedom to consumer audiences to negotiate the value and meanings of the process, the end product, and the context to which they are invited to become an integral member. Audience exposure to the superhero genre, respective superhero brands and their manifestations has multiplied due to extended identities across media technologies. These extended identities can amplify one's engagement, understanding, and experience of an intellectual property. Audiences nowadays could be considered as being hyper-aware of superhero brands. According to Ndalianis, these hyperconscious viewers
become engrossed in the narration in a more conventional sense, with the story and
themes unraveling along syntagmatic lines; but they’re also encouraged to
participate with the work on the paradigmatic level through the multilayered, Marazi 172
intertextual references, in the process watching and unpicking the creative process
that has and is creating an alternative Superman [or other superhero] universe. In
other words, a mythology that is both already said and which is in the process of
being said. (284, emphasis in original)
Consumer audiences appear to be in an equally powerful position in comparison to the industry.
Perhaps in an even stronger position when considering that consumers engage for functional and emotional purposes, whereas the industry initially engages for financial benefits. What is important to retain at this point is that relationships and concepts are in a state of flux. Concepts such as value, fidelity, power and identity, and practices such as adaptation and trans-media storytelling are in flux. Similarly, within a branded culture of entertainment, the relationship between industry and consumers is in a state of flux.
The objectives of a brand system are clearly mirrored in the treatment of all brand intellectual properties in Marvel’s Phase One cinematic universe, as well as in the actual narrative of the Avengers film. These objectives cater to the logic of trans-media storytelling and reveal the priority of accumulating value over fidelity in spite of a state of flux. Aaker explains that “[a] key to managing brands in an environment of complexity is to consider them, as not only individual performers, but members of a system of brands that must work to support one another” (241). This intention is made clear to consumer audiences from the post-credit scenes of
Iron Man where Director Nick Fury informs Tony Stark that he is not the only superhero. It also reveals that his, and hence Marvel’s, objective is to assemble a team. In addition, Aaker informs that "[a] brand system can serve as a launching platform for new products or brands and as a foundation for all brands in the system" (241). The alleged death of Agent Coulson in the
Avengers acts as a launching platform for the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. television series. This poses Marazi 173 as the first Marvel Cinematic Universe case of actual transmedia storytelling. The plot-line of the television series crosses over with Phase Two Captain America: The Winter Soldier. The television series also refers to characters of the Cinematic Universe. Moreover, “in order for the system to thrive, it must have a reciprocal relationship with each of its brands; they must support the system as much as the system supports them” (Aaker 241). This reciprocal relationship is evident in narrative turning points, as well as in the case of easter eggs and post-credit scenes.
Certain character stories continue in the new phases, while new characters are introduced, such as Ant-Man, Doctor Strange, Quick Silver, and Scarlet Witch. This enriches the Avengers brand, as well as the shared universe, with more individual brands. As a result, "a brand creates value by helping other brands in addition to generating its own value proposition” (Aaker 241). Having introduced clear individual superhero brands complete with an origin story, Marvel then can manifest the goals of the brand system.
The goals of the brand system are different from those of individual brand identities and are clearly reflected in the Avengers film in an attempt to establish a megabrand. The first goal is to "exploit commonalities to generate synergy" (Aaker 241). The Marvel Cinematic Universe
Phase One consists of individual superhero brands, hence the common feature that would ultimately lead to a synergy and a shared universe. The second goal is to “[r]educe brand identity damage,” because there are evident differences between brand identities in different contexts
(Aaker 241). The differences between the individual superheroes become apparent in the squabbling scenes in the Avengers film. Each superhero attempts to dominate over the other by signaling the liabilities and shortcomings of their teammates. By uniting all of them under the
Avengers megabrand, these differences are undercut and the assets of each come together to drive the overall value of the team. This logic proves conducive to how one ought to approach Marazi 174 adaptations. Initially, one draws comparisons and views the short-comings and liabilities of the adaptations in comparison to the original. If, however, one is to view all texts holistically, as capable of offering and promoting something of the common abstract core, then one could ultimately see the value of the team-up amongst originals and adaptations. Value results from considering similarities and differences, so as to appreciate what each one has to offer with regard to meaning(s) promised via the brand.
The third goal is to “[a]chieve clarity of product offerings,” which is accomplished by uniting individual superhero brands under a new Avengers brand identity (Aaker 241). Each superhero film acts as a product line and brand in its own right. It is, however, also capable of becoming an additional product line of the Avengers and offering something different each time.
Furthermore, “all brands need to adapt and change in response to external forces” (Aaker 241).
This appears to be the case in Iron Man 3, where Tony Stark is affected by the battle of New
York in The Avengers. This prompts the character to create a plethora of Iron Man suits that pose as extensions of himself because he has the ability to control all of them without actually wearing them. The impact of the megabrand is evident in the product-line Iron Man brand. Another important aspect of the brand system is that of brand hierarchies that are evident in the Avengers film, as well as between the Marvel Cinematic Universe phase components. This highlights that brand hierarchies are vital so as to distinguish between types of brands, as well as confirm the overarching corporate brand. One clarification at this point is that Marvel's current overarching corporate brand is Disney. The hierarchical structure dictates that below the corporate brand one can find the range brand if one exists, that indicates different individual brands which can display sub-brand categories in themselves. For Phase One these product lines would be Iron Man, the
Hulk, Captain America, and Thor. If, however, the driving brand of this project were Disney, Marazi 175 then the range brand would be Marvel and the product lines would be the Marvel Cinematic
Universe (MCU) phases. Product lines of brands can also take on the characteristic of being a sub-brand to a range brand through the process of co-branding. Iron Man, the Hulk, Captain
America and Thor can be viewed as sub-brands for the Avengers range brand. Or, alternatively, the various phases could be viewed as sub-brands of the MCU. What is more, any merchandise of each product line can be viewed as an example of a sub-brand. For example, an Iron Man comic book or video game are product lines of the Iron Man brand, as well as sub-brands of the
Iron Man overarching corporate brand.
The relationships among these categories are significant and malleable and ought to be taken into consideration, as they shed light on various practices within media franchise culture.
For instance, the line-up of sub-brands for the Avengers range brand will change in Phase Two.
They also demonstrate the power play amongst factions of the industry. Marvel and appointed parent brand Disney are always established at the beginning of their superhero films with their respective logos. The cameo appearances of Stan Lee continue to uphold the Marvel house style of communication with consumers. The Stan Lee cameos in addition to the Disney parent company could be viewed as cases of endorsement. Aaker explains that through the endorser role,
a brand provides support and credibility to the driver brand's claim. The corporate
brand usually represents an organization with people, culture, values, and programs,
it is well-suited to support a driver brand, and thus it often plays the endorser role
[whose role it is] to reassure the customer that the product will deliver the promised
functional benefits because the company behind the brand is a substantial, successful
organization that would only be associated with a strong product. (245) Marazi 176
At the same time, the brand hierarchies further exhibit this logic of endorsement amongst sub- brands and product-lines. Understanding these complex relationships can aid in understanding choices pertaining to the treatment of branded intellectual properties. It is also vital for the industry in order to leverage their brands. The act of leveraging is another significant aspect of building strong brands and brand systems. Marvel has been leveraging its individual brand products from the beginning in its attempts to maintain value towards its brands. The easiest way to achieve leverage is to create line extensions within the existing product class: “Brand extensions –that is, extending the brand into other product classes– are the ultimate way to leverage” and what is more important is the fact that “brand extensions can be made on an ad hoc basis or be driven by a strategy to create a range brand” (Aaker 275). Marvel provides extensions of its superhero brands by offering analogous video games after each film and in certain cases comic book series that are either informative towards a particular character or fill the gap between films.
The films of Phase One are part of a strategy to create the Avengers range brand while the extensions of individual superhero brands in different product classes display the ad hoc logic behind this venture. In both cases, one can observe the transmedia storytelling logic where the ad hoc logic is reminiscent of what Tyler Weaver has deemed as additive transmedia –notions that will be viewed more extensively in the following section– whereas the strategy towards a range brand clearly reflects the native transmedia story type. According to Aaker, a range brand
“creates an identity that works across product classes […] and can also be conceived as a spanning symbol that assists customers in seeing relationships between products; […] they can extend a brand in new ways [and are sometimes referred to as] a megabrand" (292, emphasis in original). When taking into consideration the distinction between individual brand extensions Marazi 177 and range brands, Marvel's advantageous position against Sony and Fox becomes apparent. The outcome of Marvel's rivalry with DC/Warner, who is developing the Justice League range brand, remains to be seen. For individual brands that display brand extensions, the focus of the decision is incremental, while the scope of the product class and the time frame is short-term (Aaker 293).
Sam Raimi’s and Sony's initial Spiderman trilogy displays an individual brand that extends as a line product with three films. It exhibits extensions across media with video games, comic book issues and offers ancillary market products. The rebooting of the same brand appears to be following the same tactic, as it has no other film rights to similar brand superheroes. Fox, on the other hand, is in a more advantageous position due to the fact that the X-Men brand contains a plethora of heroes the company can focus on. The initial X-Men trilogy follows the same logic as that of the Spiderman trilogy. The Wolverine franchise is a case of an X-Men sub-brand, again following both line extension and product class extension logic. The X-Men First Class films act as prequels to the initial X-Men trilogy and pose as another sub-brand of the X-Men brand.
Marvel, however, has adopted for its Cinematic Universe Phases a range brand tactic in which case the focus is strategic.
The films of a particular phase have an important role to play in the development of the shared cinematic universe. The scope consists of product class groupings where individual brands are grouped together in order to form the range brand. The time frame is long term which is apparent from the production and release dates set by the studio for its projects. As a result, each individual product line identity can be viewed on its own, but more importantly, in association with the range brand that can augment the individual brand identity. This immediately grants more value to the individual components of any phase. They can be viewed individually for what they are, as well as collectively regarding how they contribute to and affect Marazi 178 the development of the range brand. Range brands offer "coherence and structure to strategy"
(Aaker 295). Economically speaking, range brands provide synergy and they “can add visibility and can reassure consumers that the firm is capable of success in different contexts” (295), both singular and multiple by creating vital associations between the individual components and the overall groupings.
The Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase One is indicative of a range brand composed of different individual product brands that belong to the same line of film production. The Agents of
S.H.I.E.L.D. series serves as a case of transmedia storytelling across different media that ultimately connect the cinematic with the television universe. DC has successfully established three superhero television series Arrow (2012-today), The Flash (2014-today) and Gotham
(2014-today) that are clearly competing against and overtopping Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.
However, DC shows no intention of connecting the television universe with that of the cinematic, in which the Justice League range brand will be conceived. Time will determine if the separation between television and cinematic universes will prove beneficial, successful and of value for this corporate brand and its consumers. Meanwhile, as this project is under development, Marvel has successfully launched the Daredevil (2015-today) television series on
Netflix. The first season was a roaring success, while the second season introduced the Punisher character. In addition, in November 2015, another television series Jessica Jones was launched with the added component of a spin-off of the character Luke Cage that premiered in September
2016. While no definitive statements have been made tying the Marvel television universe to that of the cinematic, rumors abound as they do regarding the role of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. in setting up the introduction of the Inhumans in the following Avengers films in addition to the possibility Marazi 179 of a Planet Hulk project. The time and energy spent on hypothetical discussions of such future projects alone raise their cultural value.
However, the actual practices observed in media franchise culture are not absolute or static. Transmedia storytelling leads to the reassessment of the cultural meaning and value of adaptation. The following section will examine various definitions appointed to the term transmedia storytelling in order to reach a point of convergence. It will also compare the Marvel
Cinematic Universe Phase One with a past franchise, so as to indicate that practices we view today characterized as transmedia were evident even in the mid-1990s. In addition, it will decipher the role of identity in transmedia storytelling in connection to brand identity and adaptation, so as to establish that the ultimate cultural value and meaning of adaptation is the power play that affects both meaning-making and identity forging. The practices of transmedia storytelling and the dominating media franchise practice of current popular culture in the following section display how fidelity is employed as a persuasive tool by means of which marketing seeks to maintain control and guide the communication and value produced by brand consumers.
3.3 Adaptation or Transmedia? Media Franchises and the Cultural Value of
Power Play and Renegotiating Identities
There are various cultural production practices such as franchise series, franchises across media, transmedia storytelling and cross-media distribution with Adaptation remaining the general Marazi 180 umbrella term71. Nevertheless, what is the role of adaptation in such a context? Traditionally, transferring a novel to a film would be considered adaptation. What is the role of adaptation in cases of transmedia storytelling? This section argues that adaptations and transmedia stories have a tight kinship of which the logic of the latter could assist in further re-evaluating the long-held debates of the former, and more specifically, the issue of fidelity. This will be achieved by comparing Tyler Weaver’s definition of transmedia storytelling which is to be evaluated in conjunction with Jenkins’ views to Hutcheon’s view on adaptations. Although Weaver’s account of what constitutes transmedia storytelling is relatively recent, at this point I would like to draw on some other accounts regarding the taxonomies of transmedia storytelling strongly influenced by Christy Dena’s Transmedia Practice: Theorising the Practice of Expressing a Fictional
World across Distinct Media and Environments (2009). The aim is to further negotiate the position of adaptation in comparison to that of transmedia storytelling and examine the power play amongst producers and consumers in both contexts, thus concluding that the cultural value in both cases is one of identity allocation and power play.
The practices within this context present how the boundaries of adaptations have widened. They are in need of a context-specific concept via which to examine the treatment of intellectual properties. What is more, they further ground the argument that the role of fidelity is that of a marketing tool. Adaptation and transmedia storytelling exhibit a tight kinship where the main difference appears to be in how a story is told, rather than how faithful it remains to the source material. Based on his definition of transmedia, Weaver informs that there are two
71 Jorik Jakubisko one of the leading European experts in transmedia problematic notes that the difference between cross-media and transmedia is that cross-media refers to one story distributed across many channels or media (this is also why we usually employ this term when referring to the distribution of content) while transmedia involves one story world containing many stories that can take on many forms across numerous channels or media. (https://www.filmneweurope.com/fne-innovation/item/113514-defining-transmedia-vs-crossmedia). In his Bachelor Thesis Transmedia Storytelling: The Benefits of Participative Consistency and the Hidden Markov Model (2015) Tim van Leeuwarden drawing on Bouman’s (2007) notion of cross-media emphasizes that content need only spread across platforms for audiences to engage without necessarily expanding on story worlds (19-20). Marazi 181 approaches to transmedia storytelling: one conceives of and creates “a story that can only be told across multiple platforms” or one takes “a story from one medium and add[s] other media to deepen the world created in the focus medium” (8). Examples of the first kind, which are considered native transmedia, include Weaver’s own comic book Whiz!Bam!Pow! (2012) plus video game Pokémon (1996), and the films The Matrix (1999, 2003) and Avatar (2009).
Examples pertaining to the second kind, which are considered to be additive transmedia, include
ABC’s Lost (2004-2010) with The Lost Experience ARG (2006-2010), the “Nikki Heat” novel series (2009-2017), the twitter feed and graphic novels of Derrick Storm (2011-2017), Twin
Peaks (1990-1991) in addition with the book The Secret Diary of Laura Palmer (1990) and the graphic novel and webisode of the TV show Heroes (2006-2010) (11). The four lynchpins of transmedia storytelling are “fragmentation, interplay, depth, and choice” (13) all of which point to a completely different logic than that of adaptation theory’s original source material and the faithful manifestation of an undefined core of content in an alternate form.
Even though adaptations generally occur across media, the main alleged discrepancy with transmedia stories is the notion of fragmentation. Weaver maintains that transmedia storytelling differs from traditional adaptation practices because the story begins to fragment across multiple media. One needs to "construct each piece so that it both builds on what has come before and stands on its own" (Weaver 8). In truth, this fragmentation occurs in adaptations, due to the switch and differences amongst narrative media, as well as what is transferred that perpetuates the issue of fidelity. Adaptations can also stand on their own especially when one is unaware of their status as an adaptation. Nevertheless, an adaptation offers additional and alternate elements to the source material that may enrich it, or even alter its interpretation. Transmedia tells a story across different media, while adaptation usually re-tells a story in a different medium. Marazi 182
The issue of depth within transmedia storytelling has to do with how each work or piece interacts with others to deepen the experience of being capable of standing on its own. Similarly, adaptations have been considered as works in their own right but due to fidelity discourses, they have not been viewed as necessarily deepening the understanding or experience of the source work or other adaptations. Depth can be achieved via updated versions, new special effects technology and CGI, new actor performances, directorial and script choices, as well as immersive experiences such as 3-D films. Adaptations do offer something new to the source material, but this is undervalued and possibly unacknowledged if according to some critics, it does not display fidelity towards the original. How depth is viewed in the case of transmedia storytelling can assist in re-evaluating this mentality. The issue of choice is always subjective and can be considered a component of both traditional adaptations, as well as transmedia. In the case of transmedia storytelling, the only way to enforce the choice to locate all the components in order to achieve a gestalt effect of content and experience is to make each creation integral to the whole. This, however, may come in contrast with the notion of every sector being capable of standing on its own. According to Hutcheon, “[t]o experience [a work] as an adaptation, […], we need to recognize it as such and to know its adapted text, thus allowing the latter to oscillate in our memories with what we are experiencing. In the process, we inevitably fill in any gaps in the adaptation with information from the adapted text” (120-21, emphasis in original). The same applies to transmedia if one is unaware of an intellectual property's transmedia nature.
To experience it as transmedia one would have to make the choice of filling the gaps by locating and experiencing the additional narrative media products. This depends on the type of transmedia story. Jenkins views transmedia storytelling as Marazi 183
a narrative [that] unfolds across multiple media platforms, with each new text
making a distinctive and valuable contribution to the whole […]. [I]n 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 gameplay or experienced as an amusement park
attraction […]. Reading across the media sustains a depth of experience that
motivates more consumption. (qtd. in Fuchs 151)
The new media paradigm emerging from media convergence offers according to Jenkins a
“richer entertainment experience” (21) and according to Paul Grainge “branded entertainment”
(31) thus resulting in a “new gestalt of ‘total entertainment’” (14). This far richer and branded entertainment experience is the result of an ongoing process that seeks ways of granting value to franchises and intellectual properties. As Rosemary Coombe explains: "If an Intellectual
Property has a cultural life, the meaning of a brand is not simply determined by those who circulate and co-ordinate mass media representations, but is also forged in cultural instances where texts, symbols, and images are used by social agents, interpreted by audiences and taken up by fan groups in potentially unforeseen ways" (qtd. in Grainge 8, 12). As such, one would approach and examine instances of adaptations and transmedia storytelling within the context of a media franchise culture via the very same concept, namely that of brand identity.
Joss Whedon’s Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1992) is an early example of an intellectual property that appears to oscillate adaptation and transmedia storytelling. This franchise is an example of an intellectual property that has established one of the most renowned female characters in pop culture. It demonstrates both elements of adaptation and transmedia storytelling, while Whedon’s Avengers project is the outcome of a co-branding process of Marazi 184 various brand product lines across a specific medium that has ultimately resulted in the Avengers range brand consisting of individual sub-brands. The core concept of the Buffy brand is initially stated in the opening scene of the first extended identity film production with the title Buffy the
Vampire Slayer (1992): “Since the dawn of man, the vampires have walked among us, killing, feeding. The only one with the strength or skill to stop their heinous evil is the slayer, she who bears the birthmark the mark of the coven, trained by the watcher, one slayer dies and the next is chosen.” This introduction indicates that Whedon specifically chooses to focus on one slayer in particular. The franchise demonstrates that from the timeless concept of the slayer, which the film establishes, Buffy is but one of many. Others introduced in the television series include
Kendra and Faith. This alludes to the shared notion of core identity among brands, as well as the common core elements that may be evident across brands, such as those of superheroes. The core of the Avengers brand echoes throughout each individual superhero film of Phase One. It contains the idea of superheroes teaming up to avenge mankind from forces of evil no superhero can face alone.
The television series Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which aired its first season in 1997, posed as a television series adaptation of, as well as an enrichment and extension of, the original film. It picks up where the film leaves off. Just as the Avengers core identity is introduced and repeated throughout the single superhero films of Marvel’s Phase One Cinematic Universe, so does the opening scene of practically every Buffy episode with stating, repeating and confirming the core identity of the Buffy brand character as the following opening remark goes: “In every generation there is a chosen one. She alone will stand against the vampires, the demons and the forces of darkness. She is the Slayer.” Differences, however, are evident between the narrative media even though both film and television series maintain the mythology of the slayer, as well as the Buffy Marazi 185 character. The film offers a complete story with a beginning-middle-end logic. The switch to the serial television medium obviously caters to extending and enriching the story-telling experience.
One can examine similarities and differences from film to television narrative by way of characters (heroes, villains, additional characters), setting (Hemery vs. Sunnydale), aesthetics, and media narrative characteristics. This can only be accomplished between the film and the first season of the series. The renewal for a second season immediately deems the television series as a work in its own right.
The connection between film and television series is established through the Buffy brand character by way of the slayer mythology. It illustrates the core element of the brand, thus acting as a response-account to the film. At the same time, it poses as an additional interpretive/creative response to the slayer mythology, in other words, the brand's core identity. The television series establishes the Buffy franchise. It also poses as an example of transmedia storytelling in accordance with Weaver's definition. As a result, examining the television series among other extended identity samples, it would seem ineffective as an adaptation by traditional standards.
However, employing the concept of brand identity and viewing the television series as one of the numerous extended identities allows one to re-evaluate the notion of content/form, and focus on the significance of similarities and differences amongst the extended identities.
All brands exhibit extended identities acting as interpretive/creative responses of their respective core. Hence, franchise adaptations and trans-media stories, which are always franchises, are equally considered extended identities of a respective brand. Extended identities of a brand offer variety and choice to audience consumers similarly to transmedia storytelling.
Furthermore, extended identities may be subject to change, as they are not an integral part of the brand identity core. This is noticeable when an intellectual property is bought or licensed off to Marazi 186 another company, when a film director changes from one franchise to the next or even when different products emerge, such as a graphic novel or video game in addition to a film or television series. In the case of the Buffy brand, a television spin-off was produced with the title
Angel (Joss Whedon 1999-2004) that expanded the Buffy world. Actually, it created tie-ins with an additional television show and even deemed Angel as a brand character in addition to being a sub-brand of the Buffy world. Dark Horse Comics undertook the canonical continuation of the television series’ season 8 (2007) and season 9 (2011). Instead of a TV series, the intellectual property has continued in the form of a graphic novel.
In addition to the above, two video games titled Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Chaos
Bleeds came out in 2002 and 2003 respectively. The aforementioned examples demonstrate how the Buffy brand has extended to the status of the franchise with the addition of alternate brand characters such as Angel, Spike, Willow, and Faith. These examples indicate the attempts at offering a transmedia storytelling experience. Moreover, they point to extended identities that are not an integral part of the Buffy core brand but are offered as alternate audience choices. By acknowledging the fact that content and media converge, one begins to realize how an adaptation would have difficulty in even trying to establish its faithfulness to the original. Deborah Cartmell has proposed, among others, that “[i]nstead of worrying about whether a film is ‘faithful’ to the original literary text, we read adaptations for their generation of a plurality of meanings. Thus, the intertextuality of the adaptation is our primary concern” (28). To this, I would add the raising of awareness towards the distinct text-identities. A significant difference between transmedia storytelling and the content/form debate held by Adaptation Studies is that the former does not condemn a work based on its degree of similarities and differences with the latter. Instead, it acknowledges the distinct identity of the text or brand. Marazi 187
Transmedia storytelling acknowledges and plays with similarities and differences of content and form in its meaning-making process. Jenkins emphasizes that “[i]ncreasingly, we inhabit a world of transmedia storytelling […] We already know the story before we even buy the game and would be frustrated if, all it offered us, was a regurgitation of the original film experience. Rather, [games exist] in dialogue with the films, conveying new narrative experiences through [their] creative manipulation of environmental details” (qtd. in McGowan
26). For Jenkins “different texts in different media […] contribute to the understanding of the whole transmedia story,” whereas for Dena “the various media play ‘an active part [in] the meaning-making process’” (qtd. in Althans 21-22). While I concur with Dena on how each medium interacts and contributes to the process of meaning-making, I would not be so dismissive of the notion of franchise that acts as the cultural economic framework within and via which these intellectual properties are created, experienced by the audience and even appropriated by the audience into their own grass-roots varieties of expression.
The franchise framework and the brand identity concept are the respective guidelines that offer a sense of stability and continuity in what would otherwise be an expansive all-inclusive intellectual property. The LucasFilm Studio decision72 to differentiate between what is of the franchise canon73 and what is not, is just one example of this issue that will no doubt prove
72 Mike White in his online article "Star Wars New Media Set as Official Canon Only" (2014) informs: "New things are afoot in the galaxy far far away. The studio behind the insanely popular Star Wars franchise has announced the new direction they plan to take. Up until now, there has been a large amount of media released with a Star Wars name branded on it, but those were works that took place in the Expanded Universe, meaning that they did not follow the main Star Wars story. The decision was made by Lucas Film and the man himself, George Lucas. They stated that all Star Wars new media, including the games that are planned for future release, will be set as official canon only. Meaning that it will not make any references to any events or characters that made appearances in the Expanded Universe mentioned above. Although the Expanded Universe of the franchise has only served to boost the insurmountably large fan base, George Lucas wanted it to be known that Star Wars will not be restricted or limited by the concept of the Expanded Universe. As of now the only canon media in the Star Wars franchise are the first six films and the animated series, Star Wars: The Clone Wars which started airing in March 2008” (n.pag.) (www.guardianlv.com) 73 Lucasfilm President Kathleen Kennedy informs in “The Legendary Star Wars Expanded Universe Turns a New Page” posted on the official Star Wars website (25 April 2014) that “[w]e have an unprecedented slate of new Star Marazi 188 fruitful for future projects. While the Lucasfilm Studio decision regarding its franchise canon may be considered problematic for fans –especially for audience members who have become fans due to intellectual properties that will be excluded from the canon– it is a practice that has been enforced within the comic book arena in the cases of both DC and Marvel in their attempts to update or clarify long-held plot-lines or eliminate characters they see as having no future. The
Lucasfilm example may prompt one to believe that the expanded universe is being excluded from the canon because it strays from the storyline set by the first six films. However, the very fact that Lucasfilm intends to offer new transmedia storytelling experiences does not necessarily point to an issue of fidelity, nor can it be explained by way of fidelity.
The same tactics practiced by DC and Marvel do not restrict them from creating cross- media adaptations, intellectual property appropriations and instances of transmedia stories, such as the cross-overs between Whedon’s television series Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and the films belonging to the second phase of Marvel’s Cinematic Universe. Instead, what they do offer is a re-assessment of the intellectual property brand in light of current trends and developments, in order to strengthen and further ensure the respective brand’s equity value. Whether the focus is on media franchises, adaptation franchises or transmedia franchises, all are even indirectly seeking brand value. By substituting equity for fidelity value one can begin to understand that fidelity, having to do with the debate between similarities and differences, can actually serve as a stepping stone that launches a much more productive dialogue within the context of the brand that centers on how and why a brand accumulates value.
The television adaptation/transmedia storytelling series of the Buffy brand proves to be an asset as it upholds the mythology and extends the narrative via a new medium. The canonical
Wars entertainment on the horizon. We're set to bring Star Wars back to the big screen, and continue the adventure through games, books, comics, and new formats that are just emerging. This future of interconnected storytelling will allow fans to explore this galaxy in deeper ways than ever before" (n.pag.) Marazi 189 continuation of the television series in the form of a comic book ensures the maintenance of the
Buffy brand core. In addition, it offers audiences a new media format through which to experience the narrative. The video games that are situated within specific seasons extend the
Buffy brand core by offering an immersive experience to an additional gamer audience, as well as to those who have already been viewing the television series. The Angel spin-off series offers tie-ins, as well as cross-overs, between the two series and maintain the Angel brand character in addition to the Cordelia character. Furthermore, the comic book series that focus on the characters of Spike and Dru offer additional information about them that cannot be found in the television series. The Buffy brand conforms to what Steve Marrs (CEO of Brand Entertainment
Studios) states: “If you can create an environment that is entertaining to your desired consumers and allows them to be entertained in the context of the brand, then you have an ideal form of communication with your consumer that is relevant, original and impactful” (qtd. in Grainge 37).
Bearing this pattern in mind, equity value appears to be more conducive to understanding, interpreting and even appreciating the meaning and effects of similarities and differences amongst adaptations. Furthermore, it offers a well-rounded approach that takes product, industry, and audience into consideration.
Brand equity is not restricted to adaptations but extends to all intellectual properties belonging to a media franchise, including transmedia stories. The current dominating practices of transmedia storytelling in addition to the examination of the respective phenomenon have contributed to an accumulation of relatively similar accounts, definitions, and taxonomies, albeit with some discrepancies. One lingering question in light of these accounts is: what is the relationship between adaptation and transmedia storytelling? The answer is not clear-cut and is highly dependent on the standpoint from which one views both. Jason Mittell in his article Marazi 190
“Strategies of Storytelling on Transmedia Television” clearly falls in line with Jenkin’s definition of the form. Mittell, however, makes an interesting observation regarding the general understanding of transmedia and that which has been under more strict academic and industrial examination. More specifically, “[n]early every media property today offers some transmedia extensions, such as promotional websites, merchandise, or behind-the-scenes materials. These forms can usefully be categorized as paratexts in relation to the core text, whether a feature film, video game or television series" (Mittell 254, emphasis in original). In the case of Hollywood blockbuster films and media franchises, such paratexts are expected to accompany the core text for marketing and promotional purposes. Jonathan Gray in his Show Sold Separately: Promos,
Spoilers, and Other Media Paratexts (2010) argues that in a media-saturated age no text can be viewed in isolation from its paratexts (qtd. in Mittell 254). Mittell provides a distinction between paratext types between those that hype, promote and introduce a text and those that contribute to narrative expansion, such as in the cases of the television series Lost (2004-2010) and Breaking
Bad (2008-2013). The question is how one chooses to view the case of Marvel’s Cinematic
Universe (MCU) where texts come to act as paratexts for future installments. In critiquing
Jenkins’ definition, Mittell argues that
the hierarchy between text and paratext, for in the most ideally balanced example,
all texts would be equally weighted rather than having one being privileged as
“text” while others serve as supporting “paratexts.” However, in the high-stakes
industry of commercial television, the financial realities demand that the core
medium of any franchise be identified and privileged, typically emphasizing the
more traditional television form over newer modes of online textuality. (255) Marazi 191
While this is true in the case of the MCU that uses extensive marketing paratexts to raise hype and promote films, the films of each phase also constitute a paratextual-hype for the promotion of films to come. Each film actually constitutes a text that offers narrative expansion. To not view the post-credit scenes and easter eggs scattered across each film, is to ignore the paratextual marketing component of these films, as well as vital or minute details and indicators that still have some narrative function. What this entails for transmedia storytelling is that the significance and value of paratexts ought to be taken into consideration as part of the cultural context. What this indicates for adaptation is the significance of the cultural context in which an adaptation develops. Potential future projects could focus on the interrelationship of adaptation and transmedia stories, with paratexts acting as the focal point in either becoming texts or resorting to paratexts.
Another recent account of transmedia storytelling that ties in with the premise of brand core and extended identity is that of the transmedia world theory. In their “Game of Thrones:
Transmedial Worlds, Fandom, and Social Gaming” essay, Lisbeth Klastrup and Susana Tosca focus on the marketing campaign and episodic puzzle game The Maester’s Path (2011) set to promote Season One of Game of Thrones. In doing so, they provide a transmedia world definition where there:
are abstract content systems from which a repertoire of fictional stories can be
actualized or derived across a variety of media forms. That is, TMWs74 are mental
constructs shared by both the designers/creators of the world and the
audience/participants. The TMW is not defined by the material entity of any
particular instantiation (the media platform) but by the shared idea of the world, a
sort of platonic approach that situates the ontological status of the TMW in a
74 TMWs stands for Transmedial Worlds Marazi 192
disembodied plane. We call this mental image “worldness,” and a number of
distinguishing and recognizable features of the TMW originate from the first
version, or instantiation, of the world but can be elaborated and changed over time.
[…] The experience of worlds is informed by three different dimensions, [namely,
mythos, topos, ethos]. 75 (296-97, emphasis in original)
The significance of this particular account is that it complies with the abstract nature of the brand core identity, while the instantiations can be conceived of as being the concrete brand extended identity. Narrative decisions are not solely dictated by designers or creators, but by the cultural context as well. For example, the fictional world of Spiderman in the Sam Raimi trilogy accounts for the attack of the Twin Towers on 9/11, by not continuing to display backdrop images or footage of the towers. What is more, the idea of a number of distinguishing yet recognizable features appearing in various instantiations, that can be elaborated on and change over time, appears somewhat ambiguous when considering that new instantiations need to “respect the original spirit of the urtext’s actualization” (Klastrup and Tosca 297, emphasis in original). This last remark is reminiscent of an original text and the need for any adaptation to display fidelity towards the initial instantiation. Similar reactions have occurred in response to Zack Snyder’s
Man of Steel (2013) where the film subverts the ethos of the character established in the comic books, despite evidence alluding to a break in this ethos even in the context of the original ur- text. The question deriving from this account relating to both transmedia stories, as well as adaptations, is the matter of freedom of creativity, interpretation and the boundaries that allow an
75 “Mythos – the establishing story, legend, or narration of the world, with the defining struggles. It is the back-story that gives meaning to the current situation of the world, and it includes creational myths and legendary characters and goals. Topos – the setting of the world in both space (geography) and time (history). It shows how places have changed and events have unfolded. Ethos – the explicit and implicit ethics, or the moral codex of behavior for characters. It can be considered generally, as valid for the whole world (e.g. nobody performs or even talks about sex in Lord of the Rings), or locally, as appropriate to a determined group of inhabitants of that world (e.g. elves would never burn a tree)” (Klastrup and Tosca 297). Evidently, audiences will have negative reactions if a dimension is subverted, if factual errors regarding the dimensions are made. Marazi 193 instantiation or brand extended identity to be considered valid and overall acceptable. In light of this, I would like to go back to Mittell’s observation regarding “What Is” and “What If” tendencies in transmedia storytelling.
Mittell distinguishes between two types of transmedia stories by focusing on the commonsense notion of storytelling and its basic components of events, characters and setting.
The first is exemplified by Lost, while the second by Breaking Bad. Mittell examines both as paratexts. He explores Lost based on the premise that it is an expansionist transmedia story,
“working to extend the narrative universe across media and introduc[e] many new characters, settings, plotlines, time periods, and mythological elements” (263). The Breaking Bad case study, on the other hand, by focusing mainly on characters, creates a type of transmedia story that folds in on itself in a centripetal fashion (270). Although it does not delve into “deeper narrative experiences, flesh[ing] out the fictional universe, or relay[ing] any seemingly vital story events” (272) it grants more time with the characters. According to Mittell, the case of Lost reflects a “What Is” tendency in transmedia storytelling, while the Breaking Bad case is indicative of the “What If” tendency. “What Is” transmedia seek “to extend the fiction canonically, explaining the universe with coordinated precision and hopefully expand viewers’ understanding and appreciation of the story world. This narrative model encourages forensic fandom with the promise of eventual revelations once all the pieces are put together” (273). The logic behind this tendency is highly indicative of Jenkins’ definition, as well as reminiscent of
Grainge’s account regarding a gestalt of total branded entertainment. The “What If” tendency, on the other hand, “poses hypothetical possibilities rather than canonical certainties. [I]t invites viewers to imagine alternative stories and approaches to storytelling that are distinctly not to be treated as potential canon,” where the goal is ultimately “to launch off the mothership into Marazi 194 parallel dimensions, with connections foregrounding issues of tone, mood, character, or style, more than continuing with canonical plots and storyworlds” (273). The “What If” tendency is highly reminiscent of fan fiction in general, as well as “what if” scenarios in superhero comic book stories. It also highlights the logic of DCs parallel worlds, all of which are part of the canon until DC sees fit to “clean up” its convoluted plotlines. The ludic properties of each tendency are also indicative of brand management and brand systems, as well as the potential of adaptations.
While “What Is” transmedia is based on a puzzle-logic, Mittell also sees “What If” as spin-off scenarios “with no real outcome or canonical narrative function” (274).
From the vantage point of brand identity and intellectual properties, “What Is” is what has been pre-set, owned and controlled by the production. Engaging with any intellectual property, whether transmedia or adaptation, on a “What Is” basis is essentially mastering the knowledge and experiencing the total gestalt of that entertainment. The engagement with an intellectual property on a “What If” basis is employing knowledge of references and intertextuality to what already exists while expanding on meaning-making through creativity and interpretation. The main problem is one of ownership in connection to the power play between producers and consumers. With the owning of an intellectual property, production determines the
"What Is," as well as what constitutes the canon. The power play becomes evident when "What
Is" fans are faced with a renegotiation of the canon exacted by the industry as is the case of Star
Wars, DC and even the Marvel Cinematic Universe storylines, that cannot be followed due to issues of film rights.76 The process of adaptation presupposes logic of “What If,” either in the case of minute details, such as omitting Spiderman’s wristwebs in the films, or significant alterations, such as having Captain America wake up in the 2000s instead of the 1960s. In light
76 Marvel cannot adapt certain storylines to the Marvel Cinematic Universe because it does not have the films rights to certain characters. For example, the fact that Fox has the film rights to the Fantastic Four and X-Men IPs does not allow Marvel to follow the Civil War: A Marvel Comics Event (2007) more strictly. Marazi 195 of this power play, I would now like to segue into the final recent transmedia account that is highly influenced by Dena and offers transmedia taxonomies which acknowledge elements, such as the industry via legality and consumers via memory.
Transmedia storytelling as a phenomenon does not have a clear-cut definition yet, or a single vantage point of categorization. Definitions are still tentative in spite of numerous academic accounts, as seen above, that is quite indicative of the predominant convergence culture phenomenon. Colin B. Harvey in his essay "Taxonomy of Transmedia Storytelling” offers an account that employs the concept of legally prescribed memory “as a way of differentiating kinds of transmedia storytelling in the form of a taxonomy” (279). The account includes the transmedia phenomenon, as well as industry practices, audience reception, and the actual story product. Harvey posits that transmedia storytelling ought to be viewed as a broad category “to describe instances of convergent storytelling but also varieties of pre-digital, licensed tie-in production that anticipate convergence, as well as contemporary cross-media production that incorporates elements of the analogue and the digital” (278). He bases this on the common link of memory “in terms of what a creator asks the audience to remember but also in terms of what a creator requires the audience to forget” (278-79). Consequently, transmedia ought to be a broad category and also cater to products that are developed initially as transmedia as well as those that have the potential to become transmedia.77
Similarly, adaptation is not restrictive in its categorizations of adaptation types concerning media because the potential for the generation of adaptation is not and cannot be
77 The case studies Harvey examines are Doctor Who that he categorizes as “an expansion analysis form of transmedia storytelling, whereby the urtext of the television program has been expanded over time into numerous other media” (287). Highlander that is categorized as “directed transmedia storytelling in contrast to the devolved transmedia storytelling of Big Finish’s Doctor Who output across audio and prose (289). Arguably, devolved transmedia storytelling in the early history of the Highlander franchise led to multiple, continuity-contradicting iterations; thus directed transmedia storytelling has become the dominant mode in relation to the contemporary control of the Highlander franchise” (289) And Tron categorized as the kind of transmedia Jenkins refers to (289). Marazi 196 predicted. Another vital component of Harvey’s definition is that it contradicts Jenkins’ account of what ought to be considered transmedia stories. More specifically, Jenkins
explicitly differentiates transmedia storytelling from licensed cross-media
storytelling but allows for pre-digital precedents. Stephen Dinehart echoes this
viewpoint in his belief that “[t]ransmedia storytelling is not marketing and
merchandising based extensions into an existing franchise,” suggesting instead that
the term should be used to refer to franchises envisaged as cross-media from the
outset. Dinehart contends that true transmedia storytelling “enable[s] the
imagination via story-driven extensions in a ‘world’ in which a player seeks to be
further immersed.” (278)
Inconsistencies and discrepancies immediately appear when comparing various accounts.
Weaver views all transmedia stories as franchises, while not all franchises are transmedia.
Jenkins, while acknowledging the pre-digital precedent of transmedia stories does not, similarly to Dinehart, include cross-media products that exhibit the potential to become transmedia. What is more, the inclusion of paratexts and their potential to act as transmedia extensions, as seen in
Mittell’s account, is not even considered. In not accounting for various industrial parameters and matters of potential and future projects of the industry, these accounts do not take other parameters taking the audience into consideration.
The degree and level of audience engagement are not necessarily higher in the case of transmedia stories as accounted for by Dinehart. For instance, consumers can exhibit high levels of engagement with licensed cross-media products which are not envisaged as transmedia from the outset and can extend that engagement as examples of superhero and other blockbuster franchise displays of paratextual transmedia. In a brand context, the degree of loyalty and Marazi 197 engagement differs based on consumer types, in spite of the majority having access to the exact same brand products. What is more, the fact that a story is envisaged as transmedia does not entail that audiences will engage with it as such. Similarly, an adaptation does not entail that audiences will engage with the initial product or be aware of the initial work. If one were to include the matter of "What Is" and "What If" tendencies, then one cannot exert complete control over the references, associations, and types of engagement or meaning-extraction an audience may reach. Even though a tentative definition and categorization of transmedia storytelling is a theoretical possibility, the actual practice of transmedia storytelling and, more importantly, the producer/consumer relationships surrounding these types of stories are quite telling of the cultural value of this phenomenon.
The parallel I would like to draw at this point between adaptation theory and transmedia storytelling accounts is: fidelity is to adaptation as consistency is to transmedia. The issue of consistency is evident in all the accounts presented thus far. Harvey makes a point of inserting the legal role of the industry and the memory of audiences, thus elevating consistency to a different level. The varieties of transmedia stories are differentiated based on the extent of consistency exerted by those in the industry who manage an intellectual property and the activity of those who receive and engage with such properties. “In all cases of professional transmedia production, the use of memory is circumscribed by legally binding documents that dictate what elements of a franchise can and cannot be used and in what context” (Harvey 279). This is reminiscent of the licensing deals made between conglomerate divisions in the general production of professional or in other words, branded intellectual properties. It can also account for various omissions, inconsistencies and even alterations that audiences view in the case of adaptations. Moreover, “[t]he varieties of transmedia storytelling that exist emerge from Marazi 198 transactions between owners of intellectual property rights, in-house operatives, licensees, and, of course, consumers. These legally framed interactions produce different kinds of ‘collective’ or
‘fan’ memory and enable us to differentiate one kind of transmedia storytelling from another”
(Harvey 280). The problem that arises here is that this premise is actually the general process that exists in the case of all franchises, even though it is employed to differentiate between transmedia storytelling types.
From a brand identity perspective, this premise effectively summarizes the relationship between producers, branded intellectual properties, and consumers. It is not specific only to transmedia and does not account only for transmedia stories. If transmedia stories are equated with branded intellectual properties and franchises, then why would cross-media that have the potential of becoming transmedia be excluded from the transmedia taxonomy? The answer will be provided by cross-examining Harvey’s taxonomies to those of Dena’s transmedia categories.
Dena provides four categories of transmedia writing, upon which Harvey builds his six transmedia taxonomies. These taxonomies are quite indicative of the relationship between adaptation and transmedia storytelling, as well as the power play between producers and consumers.
Dena’s first approach is that of mono-medium story collection: “individual components produced in different media –a film, a book, or a game, for instance– contribute distinct but related stories that add up to the wider story world” (qtd, in Harvey 280-81). Thus far, this approach is reminiscent of Whedon’s Buffy the Vampire Slayer and more specifically the television series that was complemented by video games, comic books series and graphic novels.
Nevertheless, Dena makes a distinction between this type and that of the “pre-transmedia paradigm […] in which a dominant story in a single medium [such as Buffy] spins off into other Marazi 199 media, often in the form of adaptations, rather than continuation” (281). What is problematic with this distinction is the fact that it caters for the Buffy spin-offs into other media but it does not account for Angel, which is a TV spin-off. It is a different story but it poses as part of the
Buffy-verse. In addition, it does not appear to account for the fact that the Buffy television series is also an adaptation of the initial Buffy film. Harvey, amongst others, comments that
“[t]ransmedia storytelling cannot refer to the process of adaptation” (281), which is a statement that clearly disregards the matter of consistency the transmedia accounts have raised thus far. A transmedia story may extend the narrative to other media outlets but, in order to maintain consistency, certain elements need to be adapted.
Dena’s second approach is a collection of media that tell one story, or in other words a story spread across multiple media: “[t]o understand the totality of the story, the user needs to engage with all parts of the story, and it is distinct from the first category, where each element is capable of standing alone” (qtd. in Harvey 281). This approach coincides with that of Jenkins’,
Dinehart’s and Weaver's. The problem with this approach is the degree of interactivity and the issue of a work standing on its own. If the presupposed degree of interactivity is high, then audiences who do not wish to or cannot engage with all components are at a disadvantage. This also raises the question of how each component can possibly stand on its own if engagement with all components is necessary for the total comprehension of the story. If one story is told across multiple media, then a degree of adaptation is again involved, thus contradicting Harvey's statement that transmedia cannot refer to the process of adaptation.
Dena’s third approach involves expansion analysis: “an existing mono-media property is expanded into a transmedia property [which] involves fixing the world-internal history of the characters and settings as already established, identifying essential aspects of the story world, Marazi 200 and pinpointing any areas yet to be explored. This process results in the creation of a transmedia
‘bible,’ ensuring continuity in terms of any transmedia expansion” (qtd. in Harvey 281). This approach highlights the potential of a property to become a transmedia story, thus contradicting
Jenkins and Dinehart who view stories only initially prescribed from the outset to be transmedia.
Furthermore, the relatively lax boundaries of this approach could easily accommodate adaptations that do not display high fidelity to the initial material and are more loosely based on the primary work.
Dena’s fourth category clearly falls in line with Jenkins’ and Dinehart’s, as it refers to those projects that have been designed as transmedia from the beginning. From the aforementioned accounts what can be deduced is that transmedia stories can be divided into two types: namely those that are designed as such and those that have the potential to become transmedia. A reference to adaptation ought to be made when examining transmedia stories based on the issue of consistency with the goal of continuity. If a transmedia story is intent on establishing a world across media, then the process that will enable production to go about achieving this needs to be taken into consideration. While adaptations are the synchronic paroles of an abstract diachronic langue, transmedia stories could be conceived as the synchronic paroles that come to reveal a diachronic langue. The final component that needs to be considered is that of the relationship between producers, consumers and transmedia stories as the tendencies of
“What Is” and “What If” are not as simple as they may appear.
Legal relationships in connection with memory allow Harvey to produce six transmedia taxonomies, which take the vantage points of both producers and consumers into account. These taxonomies can be applied to a branded intellectual property context, as well as to cases of adaptation. The first category includes identifying the intellectual property while the second, Marazi 201 directed transmedia storytelling, refers to the transmedia extensions “over which the intellectual property holder exercises close control” (Harvey 282, emphasis in original). Being aware of who is in control of an intellectual property extension is vital in understanding what the extension in question has to offer to the story world or brand. The third category is that of devolved transmedia storytelling, displaying a degree of flexibility on the part of the intellectual property holder: “While core ideas and themes might be maintained, certain aspects of the established continuity can be forgotten or otherwise misremembered or reimagined within the terms of the licensing agreement” (282, emphasis in original). This relates to Johnson’s concepts of difference and deference in the case of developing franchises that are based on licensing agreements and whether the story is taking place in the same medium or across different media.
The company or studio that holds the respective rights will have the final word in the production.
The fourth category of detached transmedia storytelling “refers to those works inspired by a storyworld but that are not licensed by the intellectual property holder and over which the holder does not, therefore, exercise legal control" (Harvey 282, emphasis in original). The fifth taxonomy of directed transmedia storytelling with user participation “is used to describe the content produced by consumers of the franchise that is circumscribed by the owners of the intellectual property or the license holders” (282, emphasis in original). This extends to ancillary market products, video games, toys, merchandise, soundtracks and amusement parks. The final category is emergent user-generated transmedia storytelling that includes the varieties of unofficial transmedia stories, such as fan fiction, fan websites, fan blogs, forums and fan art
(283, emphasis in original). The division of these taxonomies follows the logic of brand management and brand systems and caters to the ownership rights, as well as licensing agreements amongst companies and studios. Even though Dena's approach categories and Marazi 202
Harvey's taxonomies appear to cater to transmedia, they do account for cross-media storytelling franchises in addition to cases of adaptation.
By comparison, the concept of branded intellectual property is more general and inclusive, regarding the type of storytelling, the practice of adaptation and the future potential of intellectual properties. The issue of memory correlates with the "What Is" tendencies relating directly to the canon. The "What If" tendencies emanate from an adaptation standpoint. If the above is seen in connection with the consumer perspective, they exhibit the power play that aims at setting the legal boundaries of what ought and ought not to be an issue, either in adaptations or transmedia stories. The idea of memory can be appropriated to examine the matter of power play, as well as the issue of original versus adaptation, proving that both are a matter of power play and institutionally charged when the issue is that of fidelity or consistency.
Beginning with adaptation, memory is directly related to narrative, semiotic and aesthetic parameters set by the original work that an adaptation ought to be faithful to. The production of equivalents of the aforementioned is considered vital. The closer the adaptation is to a copy or duplicate of the original the more acceptable it is. On a similar note, a transmedia story aims at maintaining consistency amongst intellectual properties across different media, essentially by remaining faithful to certain abstract elements. This leaves more flexibility regarding the adaptation process of components such as characters, setting, plot-lines, as well as narrative, semiotic and aesthetic equivalents. Similarly, a brand context seeks to produce product lines, range brands, and sub-brands of an intellectual property that display loyalty to an overarching core identity. As Harvey points out,
[t]he legal owner(s) of the franchise in question controls the extent to which their
in-house operatives, licenses, and ultimately the consumer base are afforded access Marazi 203
to these memories. Legally binding contracts circumscribe what can and cannot be
done in terms of remembering, forgetting, non-remembering, and misremembering
the plot events, characters, and settings that writers and producers can deploy and
that can link one entry in a transmedia franchise to another. (291-92)
When taking into account the matter of memory from the point of view of the industry the matter is initially and predominantly one of legal control that determines how an adaptation, transmedia story or brand product will develop and pose as part of the accepted canon.
From the aspect of consumers, however, memory in connection with choice are the triggers that lead to friction between producers and consumers. The knowing audience of an adaptation will criticize the film or television series based on what their memory deems vital for preservation. This memory may or may not be compatible with what the legal restrictions of the industry in connection with the creator’s vision actually produce. In the case of the Batman
Matrix, the fact that the industry promotes particular comic books and graphic novels, as the canon upon which Nolan’s films have been faithfully based and reproduced, may not correspond to audience expectations or preferences. Audience segments who do not read comic books may resort to comparisons with previous film installments, such as those of Tim Burton’s or Joel
Schumacher’s Batman films in order to extract meaning or assign value to Nolan’s films. In the case of rebooted franchises or cross-media stories and adaptations, the extent of comparison may be unpredictable given the heterogeneous audience.
As far as transmedia stories are concerned, the legal agreements within the industry will certainly affect the continuity evident in the multiple media productions. The type of transmedia story and the level of engagement may or may not attract audience engagement. A good case in point is the Star Wars canon and more specifically the decision made on the part of the industry Marazi 204 to exclude certain intellectual properties from the official canon, effectively dictating to audiences what they ought and ought not to remember from here on out of the Star Wars brand.
The authoritative decisions of the industry, however, cannot wipe clean the memory of audiences who until that point in time viewed certain intellectual properties as part of the canon. Finally, from a brand context perspective, comparisons regarding pricing and quality among others will always affect and influence matters of purchase and engagement. For instance, while audience segments may engage with both the Marvel Cinematic Universe and the DC Extended Universe, the extent of that engagement may not depend on the type of adaptations or transmedia stories, but on character preferences, brand preferences or media preferences. The legal terms of the industry function in a top-down fashion affecting and even dictating which stories are told and how meaning-making is elicited.
Memory and choice on the part of the audience can always cause a bottom-up friction with regard to the industry’s choices and decisions. With regard to transmedia stories, Harvey concludes that “these relationships, rather than the particular medium being deployed at any specific point, can help illuminate the particular character of transmedia storytelling in all its manifold forms” (292). This echoes Cartmell’s suggestion of being concerned with the plurality of meanings generated via adaptations. The cultural value of adaptations, transmedia stories, and branded content lies in the power play between producers and consumers. It is observed in the respective dialogue that seeks to negotiate similarities in order to cater to the idea of continuity and consistency. At the same time, it involves debating differences that lead to new interpretations and developments. The dialogue is not so much about the meanings that are extracted, but the interrelationship between the two and how they are viewed and valued by industry and audience respectively. Marazi 205
Overall, the content and form of any story will always hold value in regards the idea of storytelling whether it is viewed as a branded intellectual property, an adaptation or segment of a transmedia story world. The value of the aforementioned appears to be located in cultural elements contributing to and surrounding the story in question. In the case of adaptation, as
Stam’s account of prejudices display, the debates within academia reveal the issue as not being about the story per se but about narrative, semiotic, aesthetic equivalents, or in other words, the interrelationship between disciplines. In the case of transmedia stories, the accounts regarding definitions, approaches, and tendencies reveal debates regarding legal and practical relationships rather than the interrelationship of media and contributions to the expansion of a story world.
Finally, in the case of brands, discourses clearly indicate that the brand in question is not the sole concern but rather the relationship between producers and consumers. Culturally speaking, to view one aspect of the content/form/context triptych is to extract one-third of a cultural phenomenon or product's meaning. To believe that only one unanimously agreed-upon meaning will be reached is to accept the idea of authoritative imposition. Nevertheless, to allow for the uncontrolled production of meaning may indicate a violation of boundaries and confusion regarding roles and identities. Then cultural adaptation is the contestation of identity roles and the power one has to express, impose, or affect the process and understanding of meaning- making and identity forging.
Marazi 206
Conclusion
As I write the conclusion of this dissertation it is important to consider what has come before and the tendencies now emerging in the field of adaptation studies. The main points this dissertation has attempted to explore and comment on include: i) adaptations within the context of
Hollywood franchises, ii) fluid and yet distinct identities of intellectual property texts –in this case, superhero case studies– examined in tandem with iii) brand identity thus demonstrating iv) the context of the power play between producers and consumers. By adopting brand identity as a tool and focusing more intently on the context of production and consumption I have moved away from textual comparisons of adaptations in order to promote a text/context comparison instead. This has been encouraged by the need to move beyond the content and form of adaptations, so as to focus on their interrelationship by taking into account the matter of intentions from the side of the production and how that is communicated to the audience through the branding of the adaptation products.
Hutcheon does bring the notion of context into focus in her seminal work A Theory of
Adaptation (2006), though it is still an area in the field of Adaptation Studies that has not received sufficient attention. The publications for instance that do examine the context of production and consumption are not necessarily adaptation-oriented.78 As a result, this dissertation views content and form as interchangeable, concrete extended identities that act as interpretive and creative responses to an abstract core identity. This provides a re-evaluation of the “original,” as one more extended identity version, as well as a re-evaluation of content and
78 Some of these works include Storyworlds across Media: Toward a Media-Conscious Narratology (2014) edited by Marie-Laure Ryan and Jan-Noël Thon and including essays by Ryan, Thon, and Jesper Juul to name but a few; Game on, Hollywood! Essays on the Intersection of Video Games and Cinema (2013) edited by Gretchen Papazian and Joseph Michael Sommers and containing essays by David McGowan and Michael Fuchs; Make Ours Marvel: Media Convergence and a Comics Universe (2017) edited by Matt Yockey and containing essays by Henry Jenkins, Derek Johnson and Michael Graves among others. Marazi 207 form as not being inseparable from context. The notion of intentions coupled with brand identity grants more attention to adapters and producers, as well as audience consumers. The notion of identity provides yet another dimension to how texts, contexts, and in this case adaptations can be examined.
From a Cultural Studies perspective, the meaning and value of adaptations cannot be restricted to the relativity and relationality between two texts. It should be viewed more holistically within the franchise context of production and consumption. There, in addition to acknowledging the fluidity of texts and their intertextual value, it is vital to consider the distinct text identities as interpretive and creative responses to both an abstract core identity and a concrete extended identity. This further contributes to the production of works along the horizontal axis, namely across media. Brand identity demonstrates the intentions and treatment on the part of the industry and it caters to practices within the industry and can guide to the understanding of the cultural communities that form around brands. The interrelationships of content/form/context and the discourses that surround them display the power play along with the vertical axis of production and consumption. More importantly, employing brand identity to examine both the text identities and the context in which they are produced and consumed indicates how important it is for the field of adaptation studies to focus more intently on the actual practices that produce adaptations and precede any theoretical accounts.
A conference I attended recently demonstrated the necessity of not only taking context into consideration alongside the adapted texts but also of seeking to bring together three disciplines that share common concerns, practices, even terminology. The School of English of the University of Cyprus held its inaugural conference with the title "Intersemiotic Translation,
Adaptation, Transposition: Saying almost the same thing?” in November, 2017, in an effort to Marazi 208 bring together the fields of Adaptation, Translation and Semiotics, so as to examine the common ground these disciplines share. The conference has tried, through the keynote speaker addresses and other presentations, to shed light on current practices in each one of the fields mentioned, challenge long-held notions and enrich the perspectives and potential approaches one can take in examining the subject matter in each field individually.79
In an open-minded and interdisciplinary fashion, it has become clear that these fields of study are first and foremost cultural, an element that truly brings them together and allows them to draw on each other. Deborah Cartmell's keynote speech, for instance, weaved together the case of Shakespearean adaptations and the role marketing has to play in the production as well as promotion. Peeter Torop's keynote speech revealed common terminologies such as intertextuality, intermediality, transmedia storytelling, transposition and multimodality, notions that assist each field but are capable of enriching each and all fields depending on the perspective, categories, and definitions. Patrick Catrysse, for example, noted how being more flexible with terminology and specific definitions –stipulative and lexical– allows academics and researchers the lee-way to engage in constructive debates. Andrew Chesterman by seeing each discipline as a cultural category emphasized the overlaps and the similarities while highlighting the purpose of each field is the factor that can assist in detecting differences. This, in fact, mirrors the emphasis I have been placing on the matter of intentions evident in the industry's treatment of brand intellectual properties and adaptations. Characterizing these particular disciplines or categories as "fuzzy" –as not natural sciences but social and by extension cultural
79 The three keynote speakers of the conference included Deborah Cartmell representing the field of adaptation studies with a keynote address titled “Adaptation and the Marketing of Shakespeare in Classical Hollywood,” Andrew Chesterman representing the field of Translation Studies with a keynote address titled “Semiotransadaptational Notes for an Investigation of Rhythm,” and Peeter Torop representing the field of Semiotic Studies with a keynote address titled “Intersemiotic Translation in the World of Transmedia.” Marazi 209 areas of interest– it is no surprise that each field shares similar interest, practices, terminology, and concerns.
In light of the numerous question and answer sessions as well as discussions with conference participants, what has become clear with regard to adaptation is that focus is on intertextuality, equally considering the context of production and reception with that of the adapted text and drawing on other fields, such as brand management, marketing, even semiotics to examine current practices and texts. In fact, aside from the horizontal and vertical dimensions of intertextuality, it is vital with regard to adaptations to begin considering the tertiary text. The tertiary texts "are the texts that the viewers make themselves out of their responses, which circulate orally or in letters to the press, and which work to form a collective rather than an individual response" (Fiske 230). Suggestions for future research in this area that also employ brand identity can extend to the collection of data via questionnaires and interviews with representatives of the industry, as well as with audiences so as to cater to the notion of perceived quality of brand equity value. Collection of such data would be significant because brand identity cannot fully account for the matter of intentions, either on the part of the industry or in relation to consumers. It is becoming more and more common for artists who practice a craft to actually teach it; examples range from actors such as Ian McKellan teaching acting, to Hans Zimmer teaching musical composition as a form of storytelling. While this is not a new trend by any means, it does highlight how addressing the creator about how they adapt works in actual practice is more relevant and integral to the further development of Adaptation Studies than simply providing textual comparisons. The main reason is the fact that creators of source work such as Stephen King and George R. R. Martin are consulted and even involved in the adaptation Marazi 210 process, hence, directly addressing them and how they go about adapting a work will prove highly significant in Adaptation Studies.
With regard to superheroes that have been the main area of concern in this dissertation, the developments of both Marvel and DC exemplify that, while there is and has been a plethora of superhero productions, there is still a strong interest in producing more superhero texts, sharing universes and extending identities. As I write this, DC’s first superhero team-up premieres onscreen with Justice League (2017) bringing together Superman, Batman and
Wonder Woman, while introducing us to Aquaman, the film version of the Flash and Cyborg superhero characters. Meanwhile, DC’s TV extended universe will be holding its second major crossover between the series of Arrow (2012-today), The Flash (2014-today), Supergirl (2015- today) and Legends of Tomorrow (2016-today). As for Marvel, it has released its two latest films
Black Panther (2017) and Thor: Ragnarok (2017) to raving reviews that see the first as the best
Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) film thus far and the second as the best Thor film out of the three that have been released in the MCU. The next film to follow is Ant-Man and the Wasp
(2018) that will introduce audiences to the Marvel multiverse.80 Other new character additions are implemented with Dr. Strange (2016) and Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017), the latter following as a result of negotiations to film rights between Marvel and Sony. The next massive superhero team-up for Marvel will begin with the first installment of Avengers: Infinity War
(2018). On a final note, a major breakthrough for Marvel is the current negotiations that may lead to Disney purchasing Fox and by extension the reacquisition of film rights to properties such as the Fantastic Four and the X-Men brands. This, in particular, will finally allow Marvel to
80 "The Multiverse is the collection of alternate universes which share a universal hierarchy; it is a subsection of the larger Omniverse, the collection of all alternate universes" (Wikia n.pag.). Marazi 211 bring all the characters together. There have been hints towards a World War Hulk trilogy production although this may require further negotiations between Marvel and Sony.
Another development is that Disney intends on offering a streaming service of its television series to its audiences, a fact that will affect the current Marvel-Netflix shows. As of now, The Punisher and The Defenders (2017) premiered on Netflix, thus enriching the Marvel television universe, while other projects such as Daredevil (2015-today), Jessica Jones (2015- today), Luke Cage (2016-today) and Iron Fist (2017-today) are in production for their third and second seasons respectively. New productions also include Marvel’s Inhumans (2017),
Runaways (2017), The Gifted (2017), Legion (2017) while Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (2013-today) premieres its fifth season in 2018. In addition to the aforementioned film and television productions, comic book storylines and video games extend, enrich and complement the superhero narrative and experience. Comic-con events, ancillary market products, and the discourse surrounding superheroes are abundant. Fans appear more invested than ever by producing fan-art, fan-narratives and critiquing various productions. University courses and
MOOCs catering to comic books, and superheroes are rising in numbers and demand.81 The culture of easter eggs and post-credit scenes that Marvel has introduced are being adopted by other franchise productions and used extensively in the discourse of other productions and franchises to touch upon intertextuality, adaptation, textual associations and fluid texts. The various legal negotiations between companies with regard to character and film rights further demonstrate the need for each company to brand their productions, as well as maintain and heighten audience expectations. More care is given to the marketing of these productions in an attempt to keep audiences engaged, which is an area that requires further attention and research.
81 Two such MOOCs that I myself audited in 2015 are POPX1.1x: The Rise of Superheroes and Their Impact On Pop Culture a course of study offered by Smithsonian X, an online learning initiative of The Smithsonian Institute through edX and Superhero Entertainments offered by the National University of Singapore. Marazi 212
As this project reaches its completion, an edited collection of critical essays published in
2017 will certainly act as another springboard for further research in the areas of superheroes, transmedia storytelling, pop culture, franchise culture and brand identity management. The volume entitled Make Ours Marvel: Media Convergence and a Comics Universe consists of twelve essays ranging across topics such as Marvel comics in the age of convergence culture, feminism and comics, the transformation of the all-star team book, transmedia storytelling, the
Marvel Cinematic Universe and convergence-era popular seriality, and constructing authors, genres, and fans. The back cover blurb of the collected edition confirms that the edition overall
"[d]emonstrat[es] that the secret to Marvel's success comes from adeptly crossing media boundaries, while inviting its audience to participate in creating Marvel's narrative universe, [and shows] why the company and its characters will continue to influence storytelling and transmedia empire building for the foreseeable future." Whether the text under examination is an adaptation or not, the focus needs to shift from a textual comparison to a comparison of the texts and the context of production and reception. Surprisingly, Derek Kompare comments on the fact that "there are almost no academic books about the comics brand" and to this, I concur and add that to date the current edited collection is the first academic publication focusing exclusively on the Marvel brand in spite of its dominance in popular culture. There is still arable ground for future research in comics, graphic novels, as well as company brands such as Marvel and DC.
This dissertation, in particular, by focusing on the cultural value of adaptation as well as the edited Marvel collection indicates the need to focus more intently on the cultural context and practices that provide us with identities, texts and the opportunity to examine the interrelationship of producers/consumers in their engagement and meaning-making. Marazi 213
A very telling indication of things to come is the cover-story "Secrets of the Marvel
Universe" that appeared on November 27, 2017, in Vanity Fair dedicated to the “decade of unprecedented success” Marvel has witnessed and its future plans. After almost a decade of superhero productions, Marvel is now faced with the question: what will keep its productions and success going? Joanna Robinson in her cover-story correctly points out that with the success of Wonder Woman (2017), "Marvel doesn't have the monopoly on beloved superhero icons"
(n.pag). As the cover-story and interview with the president of Marvel Studios Kevin Feige indicate there are still great things in store for Marvel. Disney C.E.O. Bob Iger believes
"Marvel's next wave is just beginning" as the studio has the rights to seven thousand characters
"who can travel anywhere their creators wish to take them" (qtd. in Robinson n.pag.). As Iger explains “We’re looking for worlds that are completely separate –geographically or in time– from the worlds that we’ve already visited” (qtd. in Robinson n.pag.). Feige confirms that
"Marvel is 22 movies in, and we've got another 20 movies on the docket that are completely different from anything that’s come before – intentionally” (qtd. in Robison n.pag.). The Marvel
Studios President has communicated the Marvel brand promise that everything following
Avengers 4 will bring things we have never seen in superhero films.
In light of this brand promise, I feel that the cultural practices of production and consumption, distinct textual identities, intentional intertextual logic, as well as the developments of storytelling will provide adaptation studies with rich opportunities for future research. As the keynote addresses, I mentioned earlier reveal Adaptation Studies has begun to examine adaptations and the marketing strategies that accompany them, a fact that demonstrates the importance of purposes and intentions in the production of adaptations. The fact that these three fields share common terminology is encouraging for future research and prospects of Marazi 214 interdisciplinary collaborations. The matter of purpose in each field individually – similar to the purpose of each studio brand– allows one to distinguish and understand each field separately.
Nevertheless, when viewed in light of common terminology, interests and interdisciplinary collaborations, even the differences between fields pose as promising research-wise. To understand the value and complex interrelationships of cultural production and consumption even academic disciplines need to adopt, implement and appropriate their concepts, methods and seek out alternative perspectives to enrich the research in their fields. The current dissertation demonstrates this by adopting a cultural instead of a literary approach to adaptations, by providing a text/context examination of the superhero case studies instead of a textual comparison of adaptations and, finally, by appropriating concepts from brand management and marketing studies that enrich the field of Adaptation Studies with concepts, approaches and perspectives. Adaptation as a process and a product is cultural, hence, to examine the cultural value of adaptations the respective field needs to adapt its approaches, methods, and purposes accordingly.
Marazi 215
WORKS CITED
Primary Sources
Batman Begins. Dir. Christopher Nolan. Screenplay by Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer.
Perf. Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Liam Neeson, Katie Holmes, Gary Oldman, Cillian
Murphy and Morgan Freeman. Warner Bros., 2005. DVD.
Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Creator. Joss Whedon. Perf. Sarah Michelle Gellar, Nicholas Brendan,
Alyson Hannigan, Charisma Carpenter, Anthony Steward Head, David Boreanaz, Seth
Green, James Marsters, Emma Caulfield, Michelle Trachtenberg and Amber Benson.
20th Century Fox, 1997-2001. DVD.
Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Dir. Fran Rubel Kuzui. Screenplay by Joss Whedon. Perf. Kristy
Swanson, Donald Sutherland, Paul Reubens and Rutger Hauer. 20th Century Fox, 1992.
DVD.
Captain America: The First Avenger. Dir. Joe Johnston. Screenplay by Christopher Markus and
Stephen McFeely. Perf. Chris Evans, Tommy Lee Jones, Hugo Weaving, Hayley
Atwell, Sebastian Stan, Stanley Tucci. Paramount Pictures. 2011. DVD.
Hulk. Dir. Ang Lee. Screenplay by James Schamus, Michael France and John Turman. Perf. Eric
Bana, Jennifer Connelly, Sam Elliott, Josh Lucas and Nick Nolte. Universal Pictures,
2003. DVD.
Iron Man. Dir. Jon Favreau. Screenplay by Mark Fergus, Hawk Otsby, Art Marcum, Matt
Holloway and John August. Perf. Robert Downey Jr., Terrence Howard, Jeff Bridges
and Gwyneth Paltrow. Paramount Pictures, 2008. DVD. Marazi 216
Iron Man 2. Dir. Jon Favreau. Screenplay by Justin Theroux. Perf. Robert Downey Jr., Gwyneth
Paltrow, Don Cheadle, Scarlett Johansson and Mickey Rourke. Paramount Pictures,
2010. DVD.
The Avengers. Dir. Joss Whedon. Screenplay by Joss Whedon. Perf. Robert Downey Jr. Chris
Evans, Mark Ruffalo, Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Scarlet Johansson, Jeremy
Renner, Clark Gregg, Cobie Smulders, Stellan Skaarsgard and Samuel L. Jackson. Walt
Disney Studios Motion Pictures, 2012. DVD.
The Dark Knight. Dir. Christopher Nolan. Screenplay by Jonathan Nolan and Christopher Nolan.
Perf. Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Heath Ledger, Gary Oldman, Aaron Eckhart,
Maggie Gyllenhaal and Morgan Freeman. Warner Bros. Pictures, 2008. DVD.
The Incredible Hulk. Dir. Louis Leterrier. Screenplay by Zak Penn and Edward Norton. Perf.
Edward Norton, Liv Tyler, Tim Roth and William Hurt. Universal Pictures, 2008. DVD.
Thor. Dir. Kenneth Branagh. Screenplay by Ashley Edward Miller, Zack Stentz and Don Payne.
Perf. Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Tom Hiddleston, Anthony Hopkins, Stellan
Skarsgard, Rene Russo, Kat Dennings and Idris Elba. Paramount Pictures, 2011. DVD.
Marazi 217
Secondary Sources
Aaker, David A. Building Strong Brands. London: Free Press Business, 1996. Print.
Albrecht-Crane, Christina and Dennis Ray Cutchins. “Introduction: The New Beginnings for
Adaptation Studies.” Adaptation Studies: New Approaches. Ed. Christina Albrecht-
Crane and Dennis Ray Cutchins. Madison: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2010.
11-24. Googlebooks. Web. 15 Apr. 2014.
Althans, Katrin. “Playing the Buffyverse, Playing the Gothic: Genre, Gender and Cross-Media
Interactivity in Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Chaos Bleeds.” Game On, Hollywood! Essays
on the Intersection of Video Games and Cinema. Ed. Gretchen Papazian and Joseph
Michael Sommers. Jefferson and London: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers.
2013. 20-34. Print.
Arvidsson, Adam. Brands: Meaning and value in media culture. London and New York:
Routledge, 2006. Print.
Bakhtin, Mikhail. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael
Holoquist. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981. Print.
Bainbridge, Jason. “‘Worlds within Worlds’: The Role of Superheroes in the Marvel and DC
Universes.” The Contemporary Comic Book Superhero. Ed. Angela Ndalianis. New
York and London: Routledge, 2009. 64-85. Print.
Barker, Chris. Cultural Studies: theory and practice. London: Sage, 2012. Print.
Bazin, Andre. “Adaptation, or the Cinema as Digest.” Film Adaptation. Ed. James Naremore.
New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2000. 19-27. Print.
---. What is Cinema? Trans. Hugh Gray. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967. Print. Marazi 218
Brooker, Will. Hunting the Dark Knight: Twenty-First Century Batman. London and New York:
I. B. Tauris. 2012. Print.
Bryant, John. “Textual identity and adaptive revision: Editing adaptation as a fluid text.”
Adaptation Studies: New Challenges, New Directions. Ed. Jørgen Bruhn, Anne Gjelsvik
and Eirik Frisvold Hanssen. London and New York: Bloosmbury Publshing Plc, 2013.
47-68. Print.
---. The Fluid Text: A Theory of Revision and Editing for Book and Screen. Michigan: University
of Michigan Press, 2002. Print.
Boucher, Geoff. “COMIC-CON 2010: ‘Captain America’ director has different spin on hero:
‘He’s not a flag-waver”.” Hero Complex. Latimes.com n.pag. 21 Jul. 2010. Web. 30 Jul
2011.
Carroll, Noel. Theorizing the Moving Image. Madison: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Print.
Cartmell, Deborah. “Introduction.” Adaptations: From Text to Screen, Screen to Text. Ed.
Deborah Cartmell and Imelda Whelehan. London and New York: Routledge, 1999.
23-28. Print.
Coogan, Peter. “The Definition of Superhero.” Super/Heroes: From Hercules to Superman. Ed.
Wendy Haslem, Angela Ndalianis and Chris Mackie. Washington: New Academia
Publishing, 2007. 21-36. Print.
De Mooij, Marieke. Global Marketing and Advertising: Understanding Cultural Paradoxes.
London: Sage Publications, 1998. Print.
Dena, Christy. Transmedia Practice: Theorizing the practice of expressing a fictional world
across distinct media and environments. Diss. School of Letters, Art and Media Marazi 219
Department of Media and Communications Digital Cultures Program, University of
Sydney, 2009.
Drake, Philip. “Distribution and Marketing in Contemporary Hollywood.” The Contemporary
Hollywood Film Industry. Ed. Paul MacDonald and Janet Wasko. Massachussetts:
Blackwell Publishing, 2008. 63-82. Print.
Dudley, Andrew. “Adaptation.” Film Adaptation. Ed. James Naremore. New Jersey: Rutgers
University Press, 2000. 28-37. Print.
Du Gay, Paul et al. Doing Cultural Studies: The Story of the Sony Walkman. London: Sage
Publications, 1997. Print.
Elliott, Kamilla. Rethinking the Novel/Film Debate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2003. Print.
---. “Theorizing adaptations/adapting theories.” Adaptation Studies: New Challenges, New
Directions. Ed. Jørgen Bruhn, Anne Gjelsvik and Eirik Frisvold Hanssen. London and
New York: Bloosmbury Publishing Plc, 2013. 9-46. Print.
Fiske, John. “Intertextuality.” Popular Culture: Production and Consumption. Ed. C. Lee
Harrington and Denise D. Bielby. Massachussetts: Blackwell Publishers, 2001. 219-
233. Print.
---. “British cultural studies and television.” What is Cultural Studies? A Reader. Ed. John
Storey. London and New York: Arnold, 1996. 115-146. Print.
Fritz, Ben. “Disney tells details of Marvel Entertainment acquisition in a regulatory filing.” Los
Angeles Times. Latimes.com n.pag. 23 Sept 2009. Web. 27 Nov 2012.
Frow, John and Meaghan Morris. “Australian cultural studies.” What is Cultural Studies? A
Reader. Ed. John Storey. London and New York: Arnold, 1996. 344-367. Print. Marazi 220
Frye, Northrop. Anatomy of Criticism: four essays. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957.
Print.
Fuchs, Michael. “‘My name is Alan Wake. I’m a writer’: Crafting Narrative Complexity in the
Age of Transmedia Storytelling.” Game On, Hollywood! Essays on the Intersection of
Video Games and Cinema. Ed. Gretchen Papazian and Joseph Michael Sommers.
Jefferson and London: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, 2013. 144-155. Print.
Gomery, Douglas. The Hollywood Studio System: a History. London: BFI Publishing, 2005.
Print.
---. “Hollywood corporate business practice and periodizing contemporary film history.”
Contemporary Hollywood Cinema. Ed. Steve Neale and Murray Smith. London and
New York: Routledge, 1998. 47-57. Print.
Grainge, Paul. Brand Hollywood: Selling entertainment in a global media age. London and New
York: Routledge, 2008. Print.
Grossberg, Lawrence. Cultural Studies in the Future Tense. Durham and London: Duke
University Press, 2010. Googlebooks. Web. 20 Oct. 2016.
Haas, Nancy. “INVESTING IT; Marvel Superheroes Take Aim at Hollywood.” The New York
Times. Nytimes.com n.pag. 28 July 1996. Web. 20 Nov 2012.
Healey, Matthew. What is Branding? N.p.: Rockport Publishers, 2010. Print.
Hall, Stuart. Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices. Ed. Stuart Hall.
London: Sage Publications, 2000. Print.
---. “Cultural Studies: two paradigms.” What is Cultural Studies? A Reader. Ed. John Storey.
London and New York: Arnold, 1996. 31-48. Print. Marazi 221
Harrington, Lee C. and Denise D. Bielby. “Constructing the Popular: Cultural Production and
Consumption.” Popular Culture: Production and Consumption. Eds. Lee C. Harrington
and Denise D. Bielby. Malden: Blackwell Publishers, 2001. 15. Print.
Harvey, Colin B. “A Taxonomy of Transmedia Storytelling.” Storyworlds across Media: Toward
a Media-Conscious Narratology. Ed. Marie-Laure Ryan. Lincoln and London:
University of Nebraska Press, 2014. 278-294. Print.
Haslem, Wendy, Angela Ndalianis and Chris Mackie, ed. Super/Heroes: From Hercules to
Superman. Washington, DC: New Academia Publishing, 2007. Print.
Hutcheon, Linda. A Theory of Adaptation. New York: Routledge, 2006. Print.
Jenkins, Henry. “‘Just Men in Tights’: Rewriting the Silver Age of Comics in an Era of
Multiplicity.” The Contemporary Comic Book Superhero. Ed. Angela Ndalianis. New
York and London: Routledge. 2009. 16-43. Print.
---. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York University
Press, 2006. Print.
---. Fans, Bloggers, and Gamers: Exploring Participatory Culture. New York and London: New
York University Press, 2006. Print.
Jenkins, Henry, Sam Ford and Joshua Green. Spreadable Media: Creating Value and Meaning in
a Networked Culture. New York and London: New York University Press, 2013. Print.
Johnson, Derek. “Cinematic Destiny: Marvel Studios and the Trade Stories of Industrial
Convergence.” Cinema Journal. 52.1 (2012): 1-24. Project Muse. Web. 15 July 2015.
---. Franchising Media Worlds: Content Networks and the Collaborative Production of Culture.
Diss. University of Wisconsin – Madison, 2009. Marazi 222
---. “Will the Real Wolverine Please Stand Up? Marvel’s Mutation From Monthlies to Movies.”
Film and Comic Books. Ed. Ian Gordon, Mark Jancovich and Matthew P. McAllister.
Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 2007. 64-85. Print.
Johnson, Richard. “What is cultural studies anyway?” What is Cultural Studies? A Reader. Ed.
John Storey. London and New York: Arnold, 1996. 75-114. Print.
King, Geoff. New Hollywood Cinema: An Introduction. London: I. B. Tauris Publishers, 2007.
Print.
---. Spectacular Narratives: Hollywood in the Age of the Blockbuster. London: I. B. Tauris
Publishers, 2000. Print.
Klastrup, Lisbeth and Susan Tosca. “Game of Thrones: Transmedial World, Fandom, and Social
Gaming.” Storyworlds across Media: Toward a Media-Conscious Narratology. Ed.
Marie-Laure Ryan. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press, 2014. 295-314.
Print.
Kokonis, Michalis. “Hollywood’s Major Crisis and the American Film ‘Renaissance’.”
Revisiting Crisis/Reflection on Conflict: American Literary Interpretations from World
War II to Ground Zero. Thessaloniki: UP of Aristotle, 2008. 169-206. Vol. 16 of the
Gramma: Journal of Theory and Criticism. ed. Tatiani G. Rapatzikou, Aliki Varvogli
and Eleftheria Arapoglou. Print.
Krämer, Peter. The New Hollywood: From Bonnie and Clyde to Star Wars. London and New
York: Wallflower Press, 2005. Print.
Kompare, Derek. Afterword. Make Ours Marvel: Media Convergence and a Comics Universe.
Ed. Matt Yockey. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2017. Print. Marazi 223
Leitch, Thomas M. “Twelve fallacies in contemporary adaptation theory.” Criticism. 45.2
(2003): 149-171. Project Muse. Web. 22 November 2012.
Leve, Annabelle. “The Circuit of Culture as a Generative Tool of Contemporary Analysis:
Examining the Construction of an Education Commodity.” AARE APERA International
Conference, Sydney 2012. 1-12. Web. 28 Dec. 2017.
Lury, Celia. Brands: The Logos of the Global Economy. New York and London: Routeldge,
2004. Googlebooks. Web. 20 May 2012.
McDonald, Paul and Janet Wasko, ed. The Contemporary Hollywood Film Industry.
Massachessetts: Blackwell Publishing, 2008. Print.
McFarlane, Brian. Novel to Film: an Introduction to the Theory of Adaptation. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1996. Print.
McGowan, David. “Some of This Happened to the Other Fellow.” Game On, Hollywood! Essays
on the Intersection of Video Games and Cinema. Ed. Gretchen Papazian and Joseph
Michael Sommers. Jefferson and London: McFarland and Company, Inc., Publishers.
2013. 115-128. Print.
Maxwell, Richard. “Distribution, Marketing and Exhibition.” Global Hollywood. Ed. Toby
Miller, Nitin Govil, John McMurria and Richard Maxwell. London: BFI Publishing.
2001. 146-170. Print.
Meehan, Eileen R. “Ancillary Markets – Television: From Challenge to Safe Haven.” The
Contemporary Hollywood Film Industry. Ed. Paul MacDonald and Janet Wasko.
Massachussetts: Blackwell Publishing, 2008. 106-119. Print.
Millicent, Marcus. Filmmaking by the Book: Italian Cinema and Literary Adaptation. Baltimore:
John Hopkins University Press, 1993. Googlebooks. Web. 12 Nov. 2013. Marazi 224
Mittell, Jason. “Strategies of Storytelling on Transmedia Television.” Storyworlds across Media:
Toward a Media-Conscious Narratology. Ed. Marie-Laure Ryan. Lincoln and London:
University of Nebraska Press, 2014. 253-277. Print.
---. “A Cultural Approach to Television Genre Theory.” Cinema Journal. 40.3 (2001): 3-24.
JSTOR. 13 December 2015. Web.
Naremore, James. “Introduction: Film and the Reign of Adaptation.” Film Adaptation. Ed. James
Naremore. New Jersey: Rutgens University Press, 2000. 1-16. Print.
Ndalianis, Angela. “Enter the Aleph: Superhero Worlds and Hypertime Realities.” The
Contemporary Comic Book Superhero. Ed. Angela Ndalianis. New York and London:
Routledge. 2009. 270-290. Print.
---. “Do We Need Another Hero?” Super/Heroes: From Hercules to Superman. Ed. Wendy
Haslem, Angela Ndalianis and Chris Mackie. Washington: New Academia Publishing.
2007. 1-10. Print.
---. Neo-Baroque Aesthetics and Contemporary Entertainment. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2004.
Print.
Nelson, Cary, Paula A. Treichler, and Lawrence Grossberg. “Cultural studies: An Introduction.”
Cultural Studies. Ed. Lawrence Grossberg, Cary Nelson and Paula A. Treichler. New
York: Routledge, 1992. 1-22. Print.
Ong, Walter J. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. London and New York:
Routledge, 1988. Print.
Parker, Felan. “Millions of Voices: Star Wars, Digital Games, Fictional Worlds and Franchise
Canon.” Game On, Hollywood! Essays on the Intersection of Video Games and Cinema. Marazi 225
Ed. Gretchen Papazian and Joseph Michael Sommers. Jefferson and London:
McFarland & Company., Publishers. 2013. 156-168. Print.
Pierno, Adam. “The White Space Is Where Your Brand Lives.” Brandquarterly.com n.pag. 24
Aug. 2016. Web. 15 Sept. 2016.
Ray, Robert B. “The Field of ‘Literature and Film’.” Film Adaptation. Ed. James Naremore.
New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2000. 38-53. Print.
---. A certain tendency of the Hollywood cinema, 1930-1980. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 1985. Print.
Reynolds, Richard. Super Heroes: A Modern Mythology. Jackson: University of Mississippi
Press, 1994. Print.
Robinson, Joanna. “Secrets of the Marvel Universe.” Cover Story. Vanityfair.com n.pag. 29
Nov. 2017. Web. 29 Nov. 2017.
Rollins, Roger B. “Beowulf to Batman: The Epic Hero and Pop Culture.” College English, vol.
31, no. 5, 1970. 431-449. JSTOR. Web. 15 Feb. 2009.
Ryall, Chris and Scott Tipton. Comic Books 101: The History, Methods and Madness.
Cincinnati: Impact, 2009. Print.
Ryan, Marie-Laure. “Introduction.” Narrative Across Media: The Language of Storytelling. Ed.
Marie-Laure Ryan. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2004. 1-40. Print.
Schatz, Thomas. “New Hollywood, New Millenium.” Film Theory and Contemporary
Hollywood Movies. Ed. Buckland, Warren. New York: Rouledge, 2009. 19-46. Print.
---. “The Studio System and Conglomerate Hollywood.” The Contemporary Hollywood Film
Industry. Ed. Paul MacDonald and Janet Wasko. Massachussetts: Blackwell Publishing,
2008. 13-42. Print. Marazi 226
---. “The New Hollywood. Film Theory Goes to the Movies. Ed. Collins, Jim, Hilary Radner and
Ava Preacher Collins. New York: Routledge, 1993. 8-36. Print.
Stam, Robert. “Beyond Fidelity: The Dialogics of Adaptation.” Film Adaptation. Ed. James
Naremore. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2000. 54-76. Print.
Stam, Robert and Alessandra Raengo, ed. Literature and Film: A Guide to the Theory and
Practice of Film Adaptation. Massachussetts: Blackwell Publishing, 2005. Print.
Storey, John. “Cultural Studies: an introduction.” What is Cultural Studies? A Reader. Ed. John
Storey. London and New York: Arnold, 1996. 1-13. Print.
Thanouli, Eleftheria. Post-classical narration: A new paradigm in contemporary World cinema.
Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam, 2005. Print.
“THE LEGENDARY STAR WARS EXPANDED UNIVERSE TURNS A NEW PAGE.” Star
Wars Starwars.com n.pag. April 25 2014. Web. May 5 2014.
Tzioumakis, Yannis. American Independent Cinema: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press, 2006. Print.
Van Leeuwerden, Tim. Transmedia Storytelling: The Benefits of Participative Consistency and
the Hidden Markov Model. BA diss. International Media and Entertainment
Management. NHTV Breda University of Applied Sciences. 2015.
Vincent, Roger. “Marvel to Make Movies Based on Comic Books.” Los Angeles Times.
Latimes.com 6 Sept. 2005. Web. 25 Nov. 2012.
Wasko, Janet. Understanding Disney: The Manufacture of Fantasy. Cambridge: Polity Press,
2003. Print. Marazi 227
Walton, Saige. “Baroque Mutants in the 21st Century?: Rethinking Genre Through the
Superhero.” The Contemporary Comic Book Superhero. Ed. Angela Ndalianis. New
York and London: Routledge, 2009. 86-106. Print.
Weaver, Tyler. Comics for Film, Games, and Animation: Using Comics to Construct your
Transmedia Storyworld. New York and London: Focal Press, 2013. Print.
Whelehan, Imelda. “Adaptations: The contemporary dilemmas.” From Text to Screen, Screen to
Text. Ed. Deborah Cartmell and Imelda Whelehan. London and New York:
Routledge, 1999. 3-20. Print.
White, Mike. “Star Wars New Media Set as Official Canon Only.” Guardian Liberty
Guardianly.com n.pag. 30 Apr. 2014. Web. 15 May 2014.
Yockey, Matt. Afterword. Make Ours Marvel: Media Convergence and a Comics Universe. Ed.
Matt Yockey. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2017. Print.
Ζερβάκη, Δήμητρα. “Τι είναι αλήθεια το branding & το brand;” Επιχειρώ. Epixeiro.gr n.pag. 11
February 2015. Web. 15 January 2017.
Marazi 228
Marketing Strategies
“Acura and Marvel Entertainment Announce Exclusive Co-Promotion Campaign for THOR.”
Honda.com n.pag. 20 Apr. 2011. Web. 30 Apr. 2011.
“An Interview with Ang Lee.” Ign.co.uk. n.pag. 17 Jun. 2003. Web. 20 Dec. 2008.
Barnes, Brook. “Soft-Pedal Captain America Overseas? Hollywood Says No.” New York Times.
Nytimes.com. n.pag. 3 Jul. 2011. Web. 30 Jul. 2011.
“Breaking News: Alan Silvestri to Score Captain America.” Filmmusicreporter.com. n.pag. 28
Feb. 2011. Web. 17 Mar. 2011.
Boucher, Geoff. “Marvel Makes it Official: No Hall H Panel at Comic-Con.” LA Times.
Latimes.com n.pag. 22 Jun. 2011. Web 30 Jul. 2011.
---. “Comic-Con 2010: ‘Captain America’ Director has Different Spin on Hero’: He’s Not a
Flag-Waver.” LA Times latimes.com n.pag. 21 Jul. 2010. Web. 30 Aug. 2010.
“Captain America: The First Avenger Early at Comic-Con.” Marvel.com n.pag. 18 Jul. 2011.
Web. 28 Jul. 2011.
“Captain America: The First Avenger Soundtrack Details.” Filmmusicreporter.com n.pag. 12
Jun. 2011. Web. 2 Sept. 2011.
Douglas, Edward. “Hasbro Previews G. I. Joe, Hulk, Iron Man, Indy and Clone Wars.”
Superherohype.com n.pag. 16 Feb. 2008. Web. 22 May 2009.
Marazi 229
“Dunkin’ Donuts and Baskin Robins Launch National Search for ‘American Super-Soldiers.”
Reuters.com n.pag. 27 Jun. 2011. Web. 2 Aug. 2011.
Filipponi, Pietro . “Tons of New ‘Thor’ and ‘Captain America’ Movie-Based Toy Line Images.”
The Daily Blam. Archive.is n.pag. 3 Feb. 2011. Web. 1 Mar. 2011.
Ford, Rebecca. “‘The Avengers’ Trailer Downloaded More Than 10 Million Times in 24 Hours.”
The Hollywood Reporter. Hollywoodreporter.com n.pag. 14 Oct. 2011. Web. 28 Oct.
2011.
Glenn, Joshua. “We are Iron Man! A lowbrow literary mystery.” Boston Globe bostonglobe.com
n.pag. 2 Apr. 2008. Web. 3 May 2008.
Graser, Marc. “S.H.I.E.L.D wields Big Brand Blitz.” Variety. Variety.com. n.pag. 30 Mar. 2012.
Web. 17 Apr. 2012.
---. “Brand tie-ins for ‘Thor’ and more.” Variety. variety.com n.pag. 31 Mar. 2011. Web. 15 Apr.
2011.
---. “Pic’s Promo Partners Turn ‘Iron’ into Gold.” Variety. Variety.com n.pag. 8 Apr. 2010. Web.
30 May 2010.
---. “Studios Suit Up for Super Bowl: Hollywood set to unleash ads for big game.” Variety.
Variety.com n.pag. 19 Dec. 2007. Web. 20 Jan. 2008.
---. “Iron Man rides with Audi.” Variety variety.com n.pag. 25 Jul. 2007. Web. 12 Aug. 2007.
Hampp, Andrew. “Iron Man 2 Sparks $100M Marketing Bonanza.” Adage.com n.pag. 19 Apr.
2010. Web. 15 May 2010. Marazi 230
Harvey, James. “Hi-Res Promotional Image from Up-Coming ‘Thor’ animated series” Press
Release. Marvel.net n.pag. 17 Nov. 2008. Web. 10 Jan. 2009.
Hibbard, James. “Gladiators’ Hulks Up.” Hollywood Reporter. hollywoodreporter.com n.pag.
23 May 2008. Web. 5 Jun. 2008.
Kaye, Darryl. “Iron Man 2 Release Date Confirmed by Sega.” Gamingunion.net n.pag. 9 Feb.
2010. Web. 26 Feb. 2010.
Khown, Andy. “Thor Film Stars to Voice Characters in ‘God of Thunder’ Video Game.”
Comicsalliance.com n.pag. 2 Dec. 2010. Web. 15 Jan. 2011.
Linder, Brian. “Super Bowl Shuffle.” Ign.com n.pag. 24 Jan. 2003. Web. 18 Nov. 2009.
Marshall, Rick. “New ‘Thor: Tales of Asgard’ Trailer.” Mtv.com n.pag. 8 Feb. 2010. Web. 30
Mar. 2010.
“Marvel Movie Update: New Release Schedule.” Marvel.com. n.pag. 12 Mar. 2009. Web. 12
Sept. 2009.
“Marvel’s The Avengers Assemble on Twitter.” Marvel.com n.pag. 27 Jan. 2012. Web. 5 Feb.
2012.
“Marvel’s The Avengers Comes to NYCC.” Marvel.com n.pag. 4 Oct. 2011. Web. 27 Nov.
2011.
“Marvel’s The Avengers Prelude Comic in March.” Marvel.com n.pag. 14 Dec. 2011. Web. 4
Jan. 2012. Marazi 231
“Marvel’s The Avengers Trailer Downloaded over 10Million Times in First 24 Hours on i-Tunes
Movie Trailers.” Businesswire.com n.pag. 14 Oct. 2011. Web. 2 Nov. 2011.
“Marvel-ous Star Wattage: Actors Assemble for Comic-Con Panel Including ‘the Avengers,’
McClintock, Pamela. “Exclusive: Studios Set Super Bowl Ads; ‘Pirates,’
‘Transformers,’ “Ring Closing Bell at NYSE.” Comicbookresourcs.com n.pag. 28 Apr.
2011. Web. 12 May 2011.
McClintock, Pamela. “EXCLUSIVE: Studios Set Super Bowl Ads; ‘Pirates,’ ‘Transformers,’
‘Captain America.’ The Hollywood Reporter. Hollywoodreporter.com n.pag. 19 Jan.
2011. Web. 25 Feb. 2011.
“Multiverse.” Marvel Database. Wikia.com n.pag. n.d. 8 Oct. 2015.
Numez, Alex. “Tony Stark Trades his Audi for mystery Acura in Avengers.” Autoblog.com
n.pag. 3 Sep. 2011. Web. 22 Sept. 2011.
“Official Marvel Colognes and Perfume to Launch at TIA Toy Fair in New York.”
Ereleases.com n.pag. 10 Feb. 2012. Web. 5 Mar. 2012.
“Own Captain America on blu-ray, DVD and Digital Download Now.” Marvel.com n.pag. 20
Sept. 2011. Web. 14 Oct. 2011.
Rosenberg, Adam. “Captain America Movie Gets Video Game Tie-In: ‘Captain America: Super
Soldier’.” Mtv.com n.pag. 5 Oct. 2010. Web. 20 Nov. 2010.
Scrietta, Peter. “Iron Man 2 Viral Launched: StarkIndustriesNow.com.” slashfilm.com n.pag. 30
Jul. 2009. Web. 1 Sept. 2009. Marazi 232
“SEGA and Marvel Announce the Super-powered Voice Talent for the Iron Man Video Game.”
Gameindustry.biz n.pag. 20 Mar. 2008. Web. 30 Apr. 2008.
Spangler, Todd. “Marvel Teases New Avengers Video Game in Development with Square
Enix.” Variety. Variety.com n.pag. 26 Jan. 2017. Web. 15 Feb. 2017.
Stanley, T. L. “BK, 7-Eleven Adding Bulk to Hulk Redux.” Brandweek, vol. 49, no. 16, 21 Apr.
2008. 6. Ebscohost. Web. 14 Jun. 2008.
“Stark Industries Representatives at San Diego Comic-Con.” Marvel.com n.pag. 21 Jul. 2009.
Web. 18 Aug. 2009.
Storm, Marc. “Cap’s USO Girls Salute the USS Intrepid.” Marvel.com n.pag. 31 May, 2011.
Web. 15 Jun. 2011.
“The Avengers Actors Tom Hiddleston and Clark Gregg to Ring NYSE Opening Bell May 1st.”
comicbookresources.com n.pag. 26 Apr. 2012. Web 2 May 2012.
“The Incredible Hulk Trailer Coming Early March.” Superherohype.com n.pag. 19 Feb. 2008.
Web. 2 Apr. 2008.
“Thor: Foo Fighters take a ‘Walk’ with Marvel Film.” LA Times. Latimes.com n.pag. 15 Apr.
2011. Web. 3 May 2011.
“Thor Soundtrack Announced.” Filmmusicreporter.com n.pag. 25 Mar. 2011. Web. 30 Mar.
2011.
“To Russia with Guns the Black Widow Strikes.” Marvel.com n.pag. 17 Feb. 2012. Web. 22
Feb. 2012. Marazi 233
Truitt, Brian. “Captain America Commands Attention in Digital Comic, Film.” USA Today
usatoday.com. n.pag. 31 Jan. 2011. Web. 27 Feb. 2011.
“Watch the Debut Trailer for Captain America: The First Avenger.” Marvel.com n.pag. 23 Mar.
2011. Web 28 Mar. 2011.
Weintraub, Steve. “Joss Whedon Talks The Cabin in the Woods, The Avengers, his writing
process, Comic-Con, Collecting and more.” Collider.com n.pag. 5 Apr. 2012. Web. 17
May 2012.
“White Sox Host Indepedence Day Celebration. “ mlb.com n.pag. 1 Jul. 2011. Web. 20 Jul.
2011.
Vijayenthiran, Viknesh. “Acura Confirms NSX and ILX Concepts as well as 2013 RDX
Prototype for Detroit.” Motorauthority.com .n.pag. 12 Dec. 2011. Web. 20 Dec. 2011.
Marazi 234
Short Bio
Ms Katherine Marazi graduated from the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki with a B.A. in English Language and Literature. She continued her studies at the Aristotle University where she earned an M.A. in American Literature and Culture. While a Ph.D. student at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, she served as a graduate teaching assistant. Her teaching experience also extends to primary public schools, and secondary as well as Higher Education levels of private institutions. During her Ph.D. studies she was awarded a scholarship for excellence in academic studies by the Greek State Scholarships Foundation. In 2017 she also earned a Postgraduate Certificate in Learning and Teaching (CiLT) by the University of Sheffield thus granting her the status of a Fellow of the Higher Education Academy. Her research interests include Adaptation and Brand Identity theory, Trans-media storytelling, and Media Franchise Culture. She has presented papers at conferences both domestic and abroad promoting her research. Publications thus far include “Brand Identity, Adaptation and Media Franchise Culture” in the Journal of Film and Media Studies Acta Universitatis Sapientiae (Vol.9, 2014) and “Superhero or Vigilante? A Matter of Perspective and Brand Management” in the European Journal of American Culture (34,1) as well as published book reviews in the European Journal of American Studies. She is a member of the Hellenic Association of American Studies (HELAAS) and a member of the Multimodal Research and Reading Group where she has collaborated with members on shared projects and has offered individual workshops.