108

Copyright © 2006 Heldref Publications

108

Abstract: This article explores the often contradictory relationship between films and comic book art. Adaptations of superhero comics have reinforced a commercialistic blockbuster mentality among the Hollywood studios. Adapta-tions of graphic novels have explored alternate visions of visual style and representation. Complications of these polarized effects and subsequent impli-cations will be discussed.

Key words: blockbuster, comic books, film, graphic novels, superhero.

S ummer 2006 was a telling season for the often polarized nature of comic book-related movies,

as a comparison of two U.S. releases indicates. A major studio “tentpole” release—a high-profile film with the economic potential to singlehandedly boost a studio’s financial profile for the

year (Prince 5)—was X-Men: The Last Stand (X3). Based on characters owned by Marvel Entertainment, the largest U.S. comics publisher with approxi-mately 37% of the market, X3 dem-onstrated the huge amount of money involved in producing a Hollywood blockbuster. X3 cost over $200 million to make, showed in more than 3,700 U.S. theaters, and set a Memorial Day box office record with an intake of $122 million in four days (Kaltenbach 1).

Equally symbolic of modern Hol-lywood, however, was the film’s 67% box-office drop in its second

weekend. X3, a Twentieth Century Fox release, had the full promotional power of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. behind it, which included tie-ins with popular Fox network programs American Idol, The Simpsons, and Family Guy; local promotional news stories on television affiliates; and an X3 page on the NewsCorp-owned Web site MySpace.com (Angwin B3; Johnson). The movie’s reviews were mixed, with one common criticism being its conformity to an oft-cited shortcoming among blockbusters: its emphasis on explosions over char-

BLOCK BUSTER

Copyright © 2007 Heldref Publications

S ummer 2006 was a telling season for the often polarized nature of comic book-related movies,

as a comparison of two U.S. releases S

A comic book superhero, brought to life on the big screen.

109109

acter development (Denby 90). The number-two comics publisher, DC, controlling about 33% of the comics market and not far behind in movie revenue, continued its comeback later that summer with the much-hyped Superman Returns (Box Office Mojo; Steinberg Bl).

On the other hand, the release of the modestly budgeted Art School Con-fidential during the same time period offers another facet of the relationship between the two institutions. This Terry Zwigoff-directed movie is a scornful look at art and life, based on a graphic

novel story by Daniel Clowes, who also wrote the screenplay. Distributed by Sony Pictures Classics (Sony’s art film distributor), and coproduced by Mr. Mudd (actor John Malkovich’s produc-tion company), the movie was shown at several film festivals before its theatrical release in fewer than 800 U.S. theaters and earned less than $4 million at the box office. Although the movie received mixed notices, a common complaint by reviewers was not regarding its “Hol-lywoodness,” but rather its overly dark and cynical tone (Kleinschrodt 10); one positive reviewer, though, noted

that it was “a bitter, witty college pic-ture unlike any other” (Phillips 1; Box Office Mojo).

Such is the seemingly yin-yang nature of the relationship between comic art to motion pictures. Comic book-related films have done much to both establish the action-oriented mega-blockbuster and the thematically and/or visually innova-tive art film, even if particular examples do not easily fall along a neat alternative-mainstream continuum. This article will briefly examine these relations and posit potential developments for both film and comic books given this relationship.

BLOCK BUSTERMeets Superhero Comic, or

ART HOUSEMeets Graphic Novel?

The Contradictory Relationship between

Film and Comic Art

MATTHEW P. MCALLISTERIAN GORDON

MARK JANCOVICH

110 JPF&T—Journal of Popular Film and Television110 JPF&T—Journal of Popular Film and Television

Comic Books and the “Popcorniza-tion” of the Hollywood Blockbuster

As Stringer points out, although the definition of a film blockbuster is diverse and even contentious, “size” seems to be a central concept (3). Big casts, big costs, big distribution, big spectacle, and big rev-enue—or at least some combination—are implied as necessary conditions in many discussions of the blockbuster. The idea of the high publicity, expensive, and rev-enue-generating “tentpole” picture is an important strategy for the modern major film studios. As Schatz notes, “In terms of budgets, production values and market strategy, Hollywood has been increas-ingly hit-driven since the early 1950s” (15). This immediate postwar establish-ment of the prestige A picture, however, emphasized big-budgeted epics like The Ten Commandments (1956), Around the World in Eighty Days (1956), Lawrence of Arabia (1962), and Cleopatra (1963); not all of these films were successful at the box office, with Cleopatra being noto-rious in this regard.

Schatz and others have noted that specific manifestations of blockbusters are historically specific. By the end of the l980s, the blockbuster A picture was defined by many in the industry different-ly than in earlier eras: still big budgeted, but with a much larger advertising budget (especially targeting television) involv-ing cross-promotional partners; a wide theatrical release pattern that includes the global market; the goal of a public-ity-generating, huge opening weekend; the search for franchise-friendly premises and characters; and, in terms of genre, the dominance of the action-adventure, special effects-oriented “popcorn” thriller. Comic art—especially comic books—has played a key role in this evolution of the Hollywood blockbuster, especially in the narrowing of narrative genres and indus-trial strategies that characterize post-1980 blockbusters.

One early way that comics-based films have contributed to this develop-ment is that comic strips and books were key materials for the motion pic-ture serial in the 1930s and 1940s.In these serials, audiences would see a chapter each week of an unfolding action narrative, usually drawn back by

chapter-ending cliffhangers (sometimes literally, as burned in popular memory by silent film cliffhangers like The Per-ils of Pauline [1914]). Comics-licensed serials from this era included the very influential serial Flash Gordon (1936), as well as Superman (1948), The Adven-tures of Captain Marvel (1941), Dick Tracy (1937), Spy Smasher (1942), The Phantom (1943), and The Batman (1943). Aside from their visibility in the movie industry in the 1930s and 1940s and their role as early, usually economically successful, attempts at adopting comic books/strips to film, one could argue that the style and for-mat of these movies—perhaps exploit-ing the serialized narrative structure and visual modalities of comics indirectly influenced the episodic and cliffhanger nature of the action film genre, some of them self-consciously so, such as Raid-ers of the Lost Ark (1981).

More important, modern comic book-based films have helped establish the industrial formula of the Hollywood popcorn blockbuster: fantastic action movie as cultural event. Comic book materials attract a youthful moviegoing demographic, appeal to nostalgic older audiences, and offer thrills and well-defined archetype characters, especially heroes who also have well-established track records for popularity, licensing, and sequel potential. With the sound-bite simplicity of high-concept block-buster films (i.e., the economy of the titles Batman Begins [2005] and Super-man Returns [2006]), branded adver-tising and marketing is facilitated, an increasingly emphasized factor in an era of big media promotion (McAllister). Illustrating the degree to which these factors are now culturally engrained, the second season of HBO’s Hollywood satire Entourage depicts character Vin-cent Chase’s apex of blockbuster star-dom through his casting as the lead in the faux Warner Brothers-distributed and James Cameron-directed Aquaman. (One episode in this storyline depicts the obsession of Chase and his bud-dies with Aquaman topping the open-ing weekend box-office gross of then-champ Spider-Man.) Also no doubt contributing to this synergistic mix of properties is Time Warner’s ownership

of HBO, Warner Brothers Films, and DC Comics (including the character Aquaman). This mix is symbolical-ly reified in Entourage despite public claims in summer 2006 by Time Warner President Jeffrey Bewkes that synergy is “bullshit” (Karnitschnig A1).

Looking at specific films, any list of the most influential films for this strategy would include such non-comic book-related movies as 1975’s Jaws (Gomery), and 1977’s Star Wars (Kapell and Lawrence). But in addi-tion to these, Superman (1977), Super-man II (1980), and Batman (1989), all DC-based Warner Brothers films, con-tributed significantly as well. Acquir-ing National Periodical Publications (DC Comics) in 1967 and then War-ner Brothers-Seven Arts in 1969, Steve Ross, the early architect of the company that would later become Time Warner, valued National because of its success in merchandising DC Comics’ charac-ters and other figures, including James Bond (Bruck; Jones; “Kinney Plans”).

Superman, budgeted in 1977 at a whopping (for that era) $55 million, established several precedents for the popcorn blockbuster, not the least of which was the idea of hiring big stars in action genres that previously were made under mostly B-picture budgets. Marlon Brando was hired early in the film’s pro-duction to earn it popular publicity and industrial credibility; Gene Hackman’s hiring soon followed. Foreshadowing later efforts at coordinated licensing, Warner set up 1,000 retail displays and 12,000 floor displays in bookstores to sell Superman-related merchandise through the Warner subsidiary Licens-ing Corporate of America. Superman’s pre-1970s status as a globally appealing character (Gordon) is also relevant. The fact that Superman's non-U.S. box office was larger than its U.S. box office was an early precursor to the globalization of Hollywood and illustrated the appeal of superhero movies to a worldwide audience (boxofficemojo.com); illus-trating a global mind-set, the inclusion in international venues such as Cannes (Stringer, “Neither One Thing” 203).

Following up these characteristics was its sequel, Superman II (1980–1981). It heightened the global importance of big

Blockbuster Meets Comics 111

films by its theatrical release in Austra-lia and Europe several months before debuting in the United States. It also added to the commercial dimensions of the modern blockbuster formula (for a discussion of the commercialization of modern film, see Wasko). The strategic filming of much of this sequel during the making of the original Superman—fol-lowing the supposedly accidental simul-taneous filming of the mid-1970s films The Three Musketeers and The Four Musketeers—set a precedent for later planned film series franchises such as The Lord of the Rings and The Matrix (Russo N20). More than a year before E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial’s (1982) well-publicized Reece’s Pieces partner-ship, Superman II was a visible contribu-tor to the institutionalization of product placement in high-profile films. It fea-tured several paid placements, including the prominence of Marlboro logos and cigarettes (especially used by Lois Lane in the film) for a fee of over $42,000, a figure that eventually became notorious when revealed during the U.S. Con-gress’s investigation of youth marketing by tobacco (Segrave 182).

Batman (1989), aside from its enor-mous box office and cultural visibil-ity before and during its wide release, illustrated the importance of corporate synergy and widespread licensing, as Meehan has argued. In this case, unlike Star Wars, the licensing and merchan-dising (e.g., soundtracks, novelization) was largely in-house via the parent com-pany, then-titled Warner Communica-tions, Inc., and was strategically planned and distributed in stages as part of the film’s publicity and subsidiary revenue. The company used strategic publicity appearances and announcements asso-ciated with the film at the fan meeting Comic-Con in San Diego to turn around the initial negative reaction to Michael Keaton’s casting as Batman (Martin and Broeske 20). The studios now routinely use Comic-Con for even noncomic book films to generate early fan interest and buzz; the strategy is an institutionalized part of a larger cultivation of fans by the entertainment industry. Finally, Jack Nicholson’s eventual $50 million payday from Batman—a result of a landmark point participation deal for not just a per-

centage of the gross box office revenue but also toys and other products bearing his likeness (Warren 3)—significantly increased star compensation and, there-fore, blockbuster movie budgets.

The film and comic book industries have been profoundly affected by the con-nection between the two institutions, and industry discourse frequently acknowl-edges this connection. The success of both Fantastic Four in 2005 and X-Men 3 in 2006 were publicly credited with turning around (if only temporarily) a stale box office, for instance. This success has been generalized by the film indus-try to include the suitability of comic book films for modern blockbusters. One box-office analyst noted about Fantastic

Four’s performance that “comic book movies, if properly marketed, are exactly what mainstream audiences want to see in their summer movies” (qtd. in Germain 2). In fact, post-1990s comic book films have raised the stakes on the commercial blockbuster. With the need for big stars and an emphasis on increased special special effects in such films, budgets con-tinue to reach sky-high levels. The price tag of Superman Returns was purported to be upward of $260 million, while Spi-der-Man 3 (2007) cost as much as $300 million (Marr and Kelly A1). In addition to putting pressure on film financing, such trends also encourage a growing involve-ment of investment companies, and the accompanying bottom-line mentality and

heightened emphasis on track record and formula. One example is Legendary Pic-tures, which exists to “make consistent, reliable returns in the inconsistent movie business” by investing in “lots of studio-financed movies” that follow the block-buster formula (Mehta 120). The first two films Legendary Pictures financed were Batman Begins and Superman Returns.

Increasingly, comic book companies see themselves in the character-licensing business (at the very least) and perhaps even more specifically in the filmed entertainment industry. Given the decline in comic book sales—from a high of nearly $1 billion in the mid-1990s to less than half that in 2005 (Gustines 8)—comic book publishers are, ironi-cally, de-emphasizing the medium of comics. DC Comics, of course, is part of the Time Warner empire, the larg-est media conglomerate in the world, including Warner Brothers Films, a coproducer of virtually all DC-related films. Marvel Entertainment has moved into film development and production, after years of poor returns on licensing revenue from external studio-produced films based on their properties. In what has been called by a trade journalist “one of the most radical business-model overhauls in Hollywood history” Marvel is redefining itself as “an independent film studio” that makes its own mov-ies (Hammer 112). Avi Arad, Marvel Studio’s former chief executive officer who brokered many of the high-profile Marvel-licensed films, resigned in 2006 but remained involved with the film production unit (“Marvel Studios’ Arad [. . .]” B7). Borrowing more than $500 million from Merrill Lynch and secur-ing a distribution deal with Paramount, Marvel is planning several theatrical releases beginning in 2008. In the worst-case scenario, if the films significantly underperform, Marvel would actually lose control of its characters to Mer-rill Lynch. However, Marvel’s plan is to maximize box-office marketing and predictability by making the central characters as commercial as possible, which may not be critically aligned with character complexity. About a possible Hulk sequel, Arad said, referencing the underperforming but dark and interest-ing Ang Lee-directed Hulk (2003), “the

Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) is part of a box-office marketing strategy mar-veled at by studio heads.

112 JPF&T—Journal of Popular Film and Television

Hulk movie was a study of anger, and people wanted a popcorn movie [. . .] Our Hulk will be a diet Hulk. Lighter. Focusing on the love story, Hulk as hero, and his battle with the villain” (qtd. in Hammer 112). Similarly, Johnson argues that the complexity of a character like

Wolverine—multifaceted as manifested in the comic book versions—becomes more circumscribed and simplistic when the character becomes defined as a vis-ible and valuable multimedia brand.

Graphic Novels as Filmic Inspiration

The contribution of comic art to films is not just its role in the Hollywood blockbuster. Other smaller and often innovative U.S.-released films have been directly influenced by comics, especially graphic novels. These “alternative com-ics,” which frequently combine certain aesthetic and political attributes of the underground comics of the 1960s and the economic stability and narrative continuity of mainstream comic book companies like Marvel and DC, were cultivated by the direct sales comic books shops that developed in the 1970s (Hatfield; Sabin; Witek). Not bound by the superhero genre, the corresponding male adolescent market, or typically by a smooth integration into large media corporate synergy, these forms often deal graphically with adult themes (in ways that may be better tolerated in drawn rather than photographic forms) and stretch the potential of the comic book medium as a combined visual and verbal form of communication. Graphic

novels and other types of alternative comics may be visually and/or themati-cally innovative, and films that are based on these novels may stretch the indus-trial and technological boundaries of their medium in attempts to mimic their source material. Until relatively recently,

Hollywood’s attraction to underground/alternative comics were limited to the very occasional ani-mated curiosities such as Fritz the Cat (1972) and Heavy Metal (1981).

Since the 1990s, however, graphic nov-els have become a significant source of cinematic influence, including many live-action adaptations.

For example, we see discussions about the role of violence in people’s lives in movies based on graphic novels, such as A History of Violence (2005), The Road to Perdition (2002) and V for Ven-detta (2005). Although these moves may sometimes reveal their “comic book” roots (the protagonist in the purportedly realistic A History of Violence is a hyper-talented killer), they still encourage a reflection that is striking for mainstream film. A History of Violence and its explo-ration of violence’s instrumentality and effect on everyday life was labeled as “subversive” by critics from Film Com-ment, the Los Angeles Times, Rolling Stone, and the Village Voice (Lim; Tau-

bin). Much of this praise is no doubt due to changes in the story made by direc-tor David Cronenberg and the adapted screenplay by Josh Olson, particularly in its portrayal of a changed relation-ship between the married couple in the story. Nevertheless, the basic premise and themes of the story (the implications of a violent past for an ordinary life) came from the graphic novel by John Wagner and Vince Locke.

V for Vendetta, the most superhero-oriented of the three films mentioned above, translates the original Alan

Moore-created critique of Thatcher-era conservatism to filmic symbolism more closely related to the recognizable, well-circulated iconography of the era of George W. Bush, Abu Ghraib, and Guan-tanamo Bay. The film deals metaphori-cally with a Gordian knot reminiscent of Iraq in a way that few other fictional films have to date; the fact that the hero was a sympathetic “terrorist” was, to say the least, unusual for that time, and clearly struck a controversial note with critics (see Giles; Els). Although the original graphic novel was commenting on a different and quite specific histori-cal context, Moore’s use of allegory to explore contemporary political abuses and the role of violence as resistence facilitated the story’s application to post-9/11 society. “The fact that the film ver-sion was not produced until well over 20

From 1979 through 2006, Superman on film has demonstrated true comic potential.

Blockbuster Meets Comics 113

years after the original version debuted speaks to the uncomfortable political nature of the source material for Hol-lywood” (Els 86).

The nature of representation and identity is another theme for which graphic novel-based movies may be especially well positioned. American Splendor (2003), using Harvey Pekar’s autobiographical comics as a guide, mixes animation, acted portrayals, and documentary-style interviews to con-vey an ordinary man’s view of self and the world; in doing so, it presents a self-reflective) version of film, much as the comic itself does, and a critique of corporate media and the accompa-nying devaluation of ordinary life in such media (Hatfield). Similarly, Ghost World’s (2001) bleak take on teen iden-tity and consumerism contrasts signifi-cantly with the typical Hollywood teen film (see Hight; Flanagan).

American Splendor also brought an unusual visual style to its film, with its mix of animation and real-life represen-tation, clearly profoundly influenced by Pekar’s varied comic looks. From Hell (2001) also was apparently visually influenced by its dirty, detail-orient-ed source material and its unflinching views of horrific mutilation.

One of the most stylistically faith-ful movies to its graphic novel ori-gin was Sin City (2005), so much so that it literally broke Hollywood rules. Calling the film a “translation” rather than an adaptation, codirector Robert Rodriguez attempted to mimic—vir-tually shot by shot—the distinctive angles, visual tone and color schemes of Frank Miller’s graphic novel stories. In fact, the artistic influence of Miller on the film was so important to Rodri-guez that he insisted Miller be given codirector status and that the film be publicized as Frank Miller’s Sin City. The codirector status got Rodriguez in trouble with the Directors Guild, as it went against standard crediting prac-tices (Olsen). The result is a uniquely stylized film that uses color, makeup, digital cameras, green screen back-grounds, and camera angles in striking ways (even if its attitude toward gen-der, once again, reflects a stereotypical comic book sensibility).

Problematizing Polarization: Complex Cross-Industry Flows

Similar to most cultural categories, the distinctions between indie/cult and com-mercial/mainstream are easy to theorize, but become complicated in application; the use of the phrases “cult” and “mainstream” may have political and promotional uses by both fans and industry players, for instance (Jancovich). This is also true for both film and comic books. Many studios and media conglomerates have more “art-house” film production and distribution units (such as Time Warner’s independent distributor, Picturehouse) and most send representa-tives and films to supposedly alternative festivals like Sundance. Comic book com-panies, similarly, have more adult-targeted, “alternative-esque” imprints like DC’s Vertigo, and smaller companies often merge to get involved in heavily licensed properties. Dark Horse, the fourth-largest U.S. comic book publisher, has its own film production company involved in the making of films such as The Mask (1994) and Hellboy (2004). It has recently created a cooperative production company with Image Entertainment (a licensing and dis-tribution company, different from Image Comics) to form Dark Horse Indie, a new film production company.

Many of these “new wave” graphic novel adaptations were relatively “safe” parodies or differently imagined ver-sions of the superhero genre like The Mask, Mystery Men (1999), and Men in Black (1997). Similarly, some main-stream superhero comics and blockbust-er films are more edgy and psychologi-cally/thematically interesting than their graphic novel-art house film equivalent; compare, for example, Hulk, based on the most fight-oriented of Marvel com-ics, with The League of Extraordinary Gentleman (2003), adapted from the work of comic book auteur Alan Moore. Both Hulk and Dick Tracy (1990) explic-itly attempt to copy the unique medium characteristics of comics; like Sin City, they bring unique color motifs and frame compositions to film (Cohen).

Mainstream films may also use the credibility of alternative comics, which could further erode the independent-main-stream polarization. The 1989 Batman’s darker vision of the superhero especially

when compared with the campy TV ver-sion was not only encouraged by the alter-nate/adult market for comics, but also by the Frank Miller Dark Knight version pro-duced by DC in the mid-1980s. Meehan argues that, via this graphic novel, Warner “essentially test marketed a dark reinter-pretation of Batman with an adult read-ership” that would lead the way for the Tim Burton-directed version (53). That a major subplot of this film involved Joker-created terrorism via product tampering not exactly a conducive environment for heavy product placement also may have indicated that the film’s dark tone pre-vented it from being the ideal commercial blockbuster. With its themes of infanti-cide (via Penguin) and sadomasochism (via Catwoman), the “Dark Knight” trope continued with Batman Returns, much to the discomfort of cross-promotional part-ners like McDonald’s. The two later ver-sions, Batman Forever and Batman and Robin, more distant from their graphic novel influences but more connected to a corporate blockbuster model, “sanitize[d] the Dark Knight, making him more kid-friendly and wooing back corporate spon-sors in the process” (Terrill 494).

Conclusion

Both films and comic books have been influenced by their dealings and interactions with each other. With comic books, for example, there is evi-dence that the larger comics companies could be moving in a medium-redefin-ing direction with their additional focus on filmmaking, and their deemphasis on the nuts-and-bolts of comics creation. As they dig deeper for movie characters without resources devoted to cultivat-ing new characters, the future of the mainstream comic book industry may be in doubt. One comic book industry analyst asked in a pessimistic article in Variety, “Where are the next DC and Marvel characters coming from?”; another remarked, ”Marvel and DC talk about all these characters they have, but some of them are so old they have no built-in audience” (Zeitchik 5).

Films, on the other hand, look to com-ics as inspiration for additional commer-cial and aesthetic inspirations. In some ways, this has encouraged or at least facil-itated a movement toward the commercial

114 JPF&T—Journal of Popular Film and Television

blockbuster, where the main focus is on economic predictability and long term licensing potential. On the other hand, comics both adult graphic novels and the superhero fanboy variety may lead to cin-ematic innovations, visual and thematic, as one medium is translated into another.

However, the relationship of Holly-wood to graphic novels and other more sophisticated comics forms may be a double-edged sword. A hypercommercial Hollywood seems to tolerate sex and violence more than political edginess and character complexity. As film adaptations become a more institutionalized part of graphic novels and other alternative comic productions, one wonders if Hollywood’s flirtation could also bring unfortunate les-sons about the dangers of seduction.

WORKS CITED

Angwin, Julie. “News Corp. Wields Powers for X-Men.” Wall Street Journal 26 May 2006: B3.

Box Office Mojo. 7 June 2006 <http://www.boxofficemojo.com/>.

Bruck, Connie. Master of the Game: Steve Ross and the Creation of Time Warner. New York: Simon, 1994.

Cohen, Michael. “Panel Beating: Drawing a Comic Aesthetic in Dick Tracy.” Gordon, Jancovich, and McAllister.

Contra Costa Times. “Getting Graphic; Filmic Adaptations Boost Popularity of Comic Nov-els.” Chicago Tribune, 3 Apr. 2006: 36.

Denby, David. “Violent Times: The Current Cinema.” New Yorker, 5 June 2006: 90.

Denison, Rayna. “It’s a Bird! It’s a Plane! No, It’s DVD!: Superman, Smallville, and the Production (of) Melodrama.” Gordon, Jancovich, and McAllister.

Els, Frik. “Remember, Remember V for Vendetta.” Finweek 23 Mar. 2006: 86.

Flanagan, Martin. “Teen Trajectories in Spider-Man and Ghost World.” Gordon, Jancovich, and McAllister.

Germain, David. “Fantastic Four KO’s Hol-lywood Doldrums.” Houston Chronicle 11 July 2005: 2.

Giles, Jeff. “Anarchy in the UK: ‘V for Ven-detta’ ‘Tries Talkin’ about a Revolution.” Newsweek 20 Mar. 2006: 69.

Gomery, Douglas. “The Hollywood Block-buster: Industrial Analysis and Practice.” Movie Blockbusters. Ed. Julian Stringer. London: Routledge, 2003. 72–83.

Gordon, Ian. “Nostalgia, Myth and Ideolo-gy: Visions of Superman at the End of the ‘American Century.’” Comics and Ideol-ogy. Ed. Matthew P. McAllister, Edward

H. Sewell, Jr., and Ian Gordon. New York: Peter Lang, 2001. 177–193.

Gordon, Ian, Mark Jancovich, and Matthew P. McAllister, eds. Film and Comics. Jack-son: UP of Mississippi (forthcoming).

Gustines, George Gene. “Even Superheroes Can Use Some Buffing of the Brand.” New York Times 9 May 2005: 8.

Hammer, Susanna. “Is Marvel Ready for Its Close-up?” Business 2.0 May 2006: 112.

Hatfield, Charles. Alternative Comics: An Emerging Literature. Jackson: UP of Mississippi, 2005.

Hight, Craig. “American Splendor: Trans-lating Comic Autobiography into Drama Documentary.” Gordon, Jancovich, and McAllister.

“Hoping to Soar with Superman.” Business Week 11 Dec. 1978: 147, 151.

Jancovich, Mark. “Cult Fictions: Cult Mov-ies, Subcultural Capital and the Produc-tion of Cultural Distinctions.” Cultural Studies 16.2 (2002): 306–22.

Johnson, Derek. “Will the Real Wolverine Please Stand Up?”: Marvel’s Mutation from Monthlies to Movies.” Gordon, Jan-covich, and McAllister.

Jones, Gerard. Men of Tomorrow: Geeks, Gangsters, and the Birth of the Comic Book. New York: Basic, 2004.

Kaltenbach, Chris. “Long Weekend Marks ‘X-Men’ as a Box-Office Superhero.” Knight-Ridder Tribune Business News 31 May 2006: 1.

Kapell, Matthew Wilhelm, and John Shelton Lawrence, eds. Finding the Force of the Star Wars Franchise: Fans, Merchan-dise, and Critics. New York: Peter Lang, 2006.

Karnitschnig, Matthew. “That’s All Folks”: After Years of Pushing Synergy, Time Warner Inc. Says Enough.” Wall Street Journal 2 June 2006: A1.

“Kinney Plans to Acquire National Peri-odical in Exchange of Stock.” Wall Street Journal, 24 July 1967: B1.

Kleinschrodt, Michael. H. “Cynicism Mires ‘Art School’ in Mediocrity.” New Orleans Times Picayune 12 May 2006: 10.

Lim, Dennis. “The Way of the Gun.” Village Voice 21–27 Sept. 2005: 34–35.

Marr, Merissa, and Kate Kelly. “Budget Buster.” Wall Street Journal 12 May 2006: Al

Martin, Sue, and Pat. H. Broeske “Batmanjuice.” Los Angeles Times 11 Sept. 1988: 20.

“Marvel Studios’ Arad Steps Down as CEO.” Wall Street Journal 1 June 2006: B7.

McAllister, Matthew P. “From Flick to Flack: The Increased Emphasis on Marketing by Media Entertainment Corporations.” Crit-ical Studies in Media Commercialism. Ed. Robin Andersen and Lance A. Strate. New York: Oxford UP, 2000. 101–22.

Meehan, Eileen. “‘Holy Commodity Fetish, Batman!’”: The Political Economy of a Commercial Intertext.” The Many Lives of the Batman: Critical Approaches to a Superhero and His Media. Ed. Roberta E. Pearson and William Uricchio. New York: Routledge, 1991. 47–65.

Mehta, Stephanie N. “Money Men.” For-tune 29 May 2006: 120–24.

Olsen, Mark. “Sneaks ’05.” Los Angeles Times 16 Jan. 2005: E12.

Phillips, Michael. “‘Art School’ Tinted with a Dark Palette.” Chicago Tribune, 12 May 2006: 1.

Prince, Stephen. “Introduction: World Film-making and the Hollywood Blockbuster.” World Literature Today 77.3–4: 3–7.

Russo, Tom. “Sequels Ahead of Their Time.” Boston Globe 2 Feb. 2003: N20.

Sabin, Roger. Adult Comics: An Introduc-tion. New York: Routledge. 2003.

Schatz, Thomas. “The New Hollywood.” Movie Blockbusters. Ed. Julian Stringer. London: Routledge, 2003. 15–44.

Segrave, Kerry. Product Placement in Hol-lywood Films: A History. Jefferson: McFarland, 2004.

Steinberg, Brian. “Look—Up in the Sky! Product Placement!” Wall Street Journal 18 Apr. 2006: Bl.

Stringer, Julian. Introduction. Movie Block-busters. Ed. Julian Stringer. London: Routledge, 2003. 1–14.

———“Neither One Thing Nor the Other: Blockbusters at Film Festivals.” Movie Blockbusters. Ed. Stringer. London: Rout-ledge, 2003. 202–13.

Taubin, Amy. “Model Citizens.” Film Com-ment 41.5 (2005): 24–28.

Terrill, Robert. E. “Spectacular Repression: Sanitizing the Batman.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 17.4 (2000): 493–509.

Warren, James. “Some Stars Demand, ‘Show Me the Money.’” Chicago Tribune 3 Mar. 2000: 3.

Wasko, Janet. Hollywood in the Information Age: Beyond the Silver Screen. Austin: U of Texas P, 1994.

Witek, Joseph. Comic Books as History: The Narrative Art of Jack Jackson, Art Spiegelman, and Harvey Pekar. Jackson: UP of Mississippi, 1989.

Zeitchik, Steven. “Kryptonite for Comic Pics?” Variety 28 Jan. 2006: 5.

Matthew P. McAllister is an associate pro-fessor of film/video and media studies at Penn State. Ian Gordon is an associate professor of history at the National Uni-versity of Singapore. Mark Jancovich is a professor of film and television studies at the University of East Anglia.

Blockbuster Meets Comics 115

�����������

�������������������������������������������������������������������

���

���������������������������������������������������

����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

������ �������� ���� ���������� ��� ������������ ��������� ����� ��������� ����������� ��� ������ ����������������������� ������� ���� �������� ������������������������� ��� ���� ��� ����� ���� ������� ����������� ��� �������������� �������� ������������ ������� ���������� ���� ������������ ������ ��� ���� ����� ��������� �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������