The Marvel Cinematic Universe continues to be a focal point for film criticism, but both its defenders and detractors routinely fail to make convincing arguments regarding its success, failures, or even just its overall quality. One of the primary claims in opposition to the MCU as a major cultural element is that the series of films and shows it produces are homogenous, and have decreased a diversity of style, tone, and theming within the zeitgeist. This claim fails to hold up to scrutiny however as the individual entires into the MCU do range extensively in these and most other areas in which a piece of media or art would be critiqued. Why then has the particular claim of homogeneity remain so consistently applied to the MCU? We believe it is because the claim itself is correct, but there isn’t an existing film criticism lens that can articulate why. Looking at the style, tone, and theming within the films will reveal a plethora of approaches from a wide variety of directors, writers, and cinematographers; however, looking at the film through the perspective of exclusively the marketing reveals why and how these films and shows are labeled as homogenous. Marketing Film Theory should be a new form of film criticism that looks at films exclusively through the lens of how they are marketed.
To understand Marketing Film Theory we will look at a singular major test case: The Marvel Cinematic Universe. By looking at exclusively the marketing of these films we can reveal trends, cultural impacts, and better understand the zeitgeist of their era. Marketing Film Theory will utilize existing lens such as new historicism, cultural materialism, and formalism to come to conclusions about these films and their impacts. However, unlike these previous schools of thought, Marketing Film Theory is unique in its focus exclusively on deliberate advertisement of the films themselves, rather than any analysis of the actual text or content found within. The reason for this crucial distinction is two fold: first, we believe that these films make a significant cultural impact worth exploring via their existence and the marketing that follows alone; for instance: the previously mentioned discourse about the Marvel movies is often being litigated by those that haven’t actually seen the films, which we believe is largely a result of the marketing and does not thus make their opinions invalid. Second, the distinction between marketing and the actual text of the films being marketed has become far more pronounced as a result of both the more global reach of films as a consumer product, and the increasing pervasiveness of advertising that occurs in concurrence with an increasingly digital and vertically integrated world; movies are marketed more, and more people are exposed to advertising than ever before, and so a movie can form an identity prior to its release or even creation. For these reasons we think Marketing Film Theory is a new and necessary approach to understand the film landscape, and by diving into these examples we believe we can fully articulate its necessity as a new school of thought.
This concept was born out of primarily the idea that the authors had when looking at reactions to the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) and how it represented a media franchise that was homogenous. This term propped up with some frequency, especially around people who felt there was some culpability that the MCU shared in the perceived degradation of the film industry as a whole. However, these claims were unique to us in that they simultaneously felt correct yet unsubstantiated. Unlike many of the people making this claim, both authors have seen all or most (at the time of writing this) of the film entires into the MCU as well as several of the shows; while there was certainly an undeniable similarity in some, others proved to be distinct offerings. However, that did not preclude them from being homogenous culturally. How can this be the case? How can a film like Werwolf By Night feel like yet another droll entry into a waining franchise while simultaneously being tonally and visually distinctive from the rest of the MCU to the point where some viewers didn’t even realize it was part of the franchise? It’s certainly not a consistency of quality either, as Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning is as mediocre as any MCU movie, yet could never be confused to be a part of the franchise, and the MCU films themselves range heavily in quality. Marketing Film Theory is the lens through which to look to have these questions answered.
First, to understand Marketing Film Theory it’s crucial to understand what it is not. Marketing Film Theory specifically wants to look at films through exclusively their marketing, but it also is not limiting marketing to only active and deliberate marketing attempts, or any specific mediums in which marketing might occur. This is not simply looking at a film based on its trailers, although of course they play a major role; it’s also not just looking at a film through its advertising. It also must include any marketing and media that supports discussion of the film as well; for instance: a YouTube channel dedicated to decoding MCU film theories, even if they aren’t directly paid by Disney, is a type of marketing born out of the broader cultural milieu that franchise film making has created. Branding and franchising has several benefits for production studios outside of just it’s easier for movie goers to buy tickets for well known brands; they also create a specific type of culture that results in various online places dedicating themselves to discussing these franchises; even negative criticism still benefits these brands. While not substantiated by Disney, some speculated that viewings of Star Wars movies actually went up after the television show South Park made an episode critical of the franchise. The point of Marketing Film Theory is to look at a film through the way its marketed and the resulting cultural impact as a means to assess the film’s place in the culture.
When using Marketing Film Theory on the MCU it is crucial to start at the end credits of the first Iron Man. Released in 2008, Iron Man was marketed in a pretty traditional manner. Its first trailer only mentioned Tony Stark’s name, withholding the various other comic book characters that fans might recognize. Almost no one in 2008 relative to now knew who Tony Stark was. The trailer was cut and trimmed like any action movie, and despite the red of the Iron Man suit, the pallet was relatively muted and not dissimilar to the Nolan Batman films whose popularity assisted in getting Iron Man the green light. Aside from a desert landscape, most of the colors are blacks and grays, and the action scenes feature almost no humans at all. The various twists and last scene of the movie are revealed in the trailer as well, suggesting there was no real effort to bait out fan theorizing in the way that would become the norm later. The first real MCU advertisement wasn’t at all related to Iron Man except that it was featured after their end credits.
When Samuel L. Jackson came on screen with an eye patch, in 2008, few knew who he was or what The Avengers Initiative meant. It was not meant to capitalize on fan knowledge but in fact fan ignorance; could this vague reference generate curiosity that would lead to people wanting to see more. The success of the first film lead to the rest and by the end of the first phase, the way Marvel sorts their films, the trailers had become totally distinctive. The trailer for The Avengers, the last film of the first phase, starts with a narrator that fans will recognize as Loki, a villain from a previous film who was ostensibly dead, and then features Samuel L. Jackson immediately explaining the concept of the Avengers. Then the trailer, which only features a few action scenes, cuts to as many faces as it possibly can, with literally every member of the superhero team at that point being shown. It desperately wants to emphasize the number of characters that would appear in this film. This is the trend that would continue for sometime, with only Ant-Man, and The Eternals standing out as films with trailers that didn’t do a massive character rush as a main feature.
The fan theorizing also became a mainstay online. With massive YouTube and Reddit channels and communities propping up to discuss and debate the films and swap guesses as to what would come next. Everything from analyzing villains’ suits to going frame by frame in trailers to try and get a shot of reflections in mirrors, windows, or water to see different appearances became such a focal point that the practices themselves would generate memes. Around the end of the second phase is when so-called Whedon Speak began to become the subject of ridicule as well, with the criticism only heightening from there. A common practice on TikTok is to make fake Marvel type quotes that are mocking the often sarcastic or cliche comments made by characters, such as “he’s right behind me, isn’t he?” or “So that just happened.” Whether those quotes appear in the films or shows or not is immaterial to the meme, the point is that’s what the dialogue feels like to many fans or people who are just aware of the MCU.
Another noteworthy element here is that, because of the massive marketing campaigns and the permeation of the MCU into all elements of culture and the longevity of the franchise, essentially everyone who is even slightly aware of Western cultural outputs is aware of the MCU. It’s no longer stuck in the esoteric world of comic books but is now subjected to criticism from people who aren’t fans and were never likely to be fans, but nonetheless are reacting like fans because proximity to the MCU is nearly global. It’s inescapable and thus demands remarking upon from people from various places within the culture. This is another reason the reactions to the MCU can come off so hostile and people can make claims to the homogeneity of the films or shows without having scene many or even any of them: the marketing is so pervasive in gives people enough exposure to make claims about the franchise’s quality.
Again, this isn’t to say these statements are unfair, they are in fact very well founded. Disney certainly made the choice to conduct these massive marketing campaigns with consistent, homogenous structures, and encourage or at least allow in a variety of ways those campaigns to drift in and out of different parts of the culture. A natural consequence to massive exposure is massive reactions. This isn’t a defense of the films as being unworthy of the criticism, simply an attempt to better articulate why that criticism occurs regardless of who is actually viewing the films. Marketing Film Theory looks at the way and to whom the MCU has been marketed and comes to the conclusion that the accusations of homogeneity are well founded based on what these people and fans have been shown.
Marketing Film Theory is a useful lens primarily because of its ability to see films the way most people see them: exclusively as they exist in the culture. While mega franchises like the MCU may seem like monster hits, only a small percentage of people actually see them, and a fractional number of those see even a majority of their output. Yet they remain a cultural fixture worthy of analysis because of their massive impact, even on those that have not seen all or most of the entries into the franchise. Marketing Film Theory is the tool to best understand a work’s place in the zeitgeist.