Marvel vs.

DC
Mergers, Acquisitions and Corporate Rebranding
in the New Millennium
Caitlin Foster

12 CINEPHILE / Vol. 9, No. 1 / Spring 2013

Superhero comics, which were once to broader socio-cultural events, but can also be read as
relegated to the fringe subcultures of a product of the company’s drastic corporate overhauls
society, have recently exploded into and its utilization of blockbuster filmmaking practices,
mainstream popular culture. generic conventions, and familiar narrative structures. In
While “[i]n 1998, only two of America’s 50 highest- the mid 2000s, Marvel developed its own independent
grossing films were based on a comic book” (Bloom 9), film studio, Marvel Studios, which marked their transi-
the years since have seen comic book adaptations – spe- tion from the licensors to controlling producers of Mar-
cifically of the superhero subgenre – become an integral vel properties (Johnson 1). Marvel’s newfound success
part of Hollywood’s summer ‘tent-pole’ releases. In order during this time was also bolstered by its adherence to
to account for the recent dominance of Marvel’s film ad- universally-appealing blockbuster narratives and its use of
aptations over DC’s, this article will examine how each aggressive cross-promotional marketing strategies. Con-
company’s internal corporate structures, production, and versely, after the acquisition of Time Warner by AOL in
marketing practices have worked in conjunction with re- 2001, DC’s once tightly controlled corporate structure
cent socio-cultural factors to influence the success of its struggled to exploit its new synergistic opportunities.
adaptations. Arguably, one of the most important fac- Most of the recent scholarly and historical studies of the
tors that greatly contributed to Marvel’s success was its comic book superhero have taken one of two critical ap-
ability to use the action blockbuster formula to produce proaches: they either trace the socio-cultural resonance
films that resonated with the early post-9/11 socio-po- of the comic book throughout history or they produce
litical climate. Marvel’s millennial superheroes both di- historical overviews of the industrial development of the
rectly and allegorically responded to a post 9/11 climate. comic book medium. This study intends to demonstrate
These narratives, when combined with the blockbuster how the success or failure of a particular superhero ad-
aesthetic, also provided audiences with classical escap- aptation is also a product of each company’s corporate
ist fantasy entertainment, creating universal stories that structure and industrially constructed brand of heroism.
would be popular both at home and abroad. Further- Between 2000 and 2006, Marvel had licensed twelve
more, instead of conforming to the rigidly pre-modern major motion pictures based on its comic heroes and had
and god-like heroism perpetuated by DC, Marvel’s he- grossed about $3.6 billion worldwide (Hamner). In an
roes often appeared as flawed characters whose powers attempt to recoup more of their profits, Marvel under-
were the product of hostile socio-cultural environments went “one of the most radical business-model overhauls
or the gruesome side-effects of modern science and tech- in Hollywood history” and redefined itself as an indepen-
nology gone awry. This distinctly human and realistically dent film production studio (Hamner). Between 2006
flawed quality of Marvel’s heroes, combined with Mar- and 2007, Marvel began to develop its new subsidiary,
vel’s blockbuster formula for commercial success, also Marvel Studios, by borrowing over $500 million from
resonated with audiences, inspiring pathos and sympa- Merrill Lynch in order to finance its own filmmaking
thy with their real world struggles, while simultaneously projects, the first of which was Jon Favreau’s Iron Man
spawning multi-billion dollar franchises. in 2008 (McAllister et. all 111). Of the films produced
The simple good versus evil narratives and depic- after this restructuring deal, Marvel Studios made sure to
tions of America under foreign attack presented in films control their most iconic characters, which included Iron
such as Marvel’s The Avengers (Joss Whedon, 2012) and Man, the Incredible Hulk, Thor and Captain America.
DC’s Man of Steel (Zack Snyder, 2013) remind us that Marvel’s decision to maintain control over these particu-
the post-9/11 cultural affect that undoubtedly led to lar properties was no accident, as the introduction of each
the resurgence of the comic book superhero figure con- character was designed to slowly generate audience and
tinues to permeate the American cinematic landscape. fan excitement that would eventually culminate in the
However, socio-cultural analysis alone seems insufficient release of Marvel’s The Avengers in 2012, which featured
to account for the widespread industrial and commer- all four of these heroes in one highly anticipated sum-
cial success of Marvel over DC – a trend that can be mer blockbuster. By maintaining corporate control and
traced back well before 9/111. Within the last two de- creative continuity throughout each of these independent
cades, Marvel’s continued success in its film adaptations series, Marvel exploited their intricately connected uni-
can be linked not only to how its texts have responded verse of heroes to maximize fan interest, and reaped the
majority of the commercial profits in the process. Here,
1. By the early 1990s, Marvel had already begun to outsell DC in
terms of circulation, capturing over 50% of the overall comic market Marvel’s cross-promotional strategies were markedly dif-
share (ComiChron.com). ferent from DC’s, whose characters and universes (at least

The Superhero Film / Articles 13

This distinctly human and realistically cross-promotion and desire for complete market satura-
tion was also further emphasized by the film’s production
flawed quality of Marvel’s heroes, company, 20th Century Fox. By licensing the film to 20th
combined with their blockbuster Century, Marvel was able to utilize “the full promotional
power of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp” (McAllister et.
formula for commercial success, also all 108). As a result of this licensing deal, the promotional
resonated with audiences, inspiring material for Marvel’s X-Men appeared throughout Fox’s
pathos and sympathy with their real network television programs and affiliate stations.
Throughout the early to mid 2000s, Marvel had seem-
world struggles. while simultaneously ingly recovered from the corporate and financial turmoil of
spawning multi-billion dollar franchises. its past. In fact, during the initial comic film boom of the
2000s, Marvel managed to license at least ten adaptations
on film) remained largely self-contained. Emerging after before DC and Warner Bros. were able to compete. Even
a somewhat rocky start, the widespread success of Mar- though DC had typically been the major producer of comic
vel’s early comic book films clearly demonstrated how the film blockbusters in the 1980s and ‘90s, they had begun to
company’s overarching corporate structure greatly im- feel some of the negative consequences of such rapid cor-
pacted its overall success. After overcoming the corporate porate expansion. One possible explanation for DC’s falter-
turmoil caused by Ronald Perelman’s years of mismanage- ing success during the outset of the 2000s could have been
ment, Marvel was now more able to cultivate the creative the AOL-Time Warner merger that occurred in early 2001
properties it had amassed over the past four decades.2 (Craft and Quick 54). This merger seemingly united two of
Another major factor that contributed to Marvel’s the world’s largest telecom giants, yet, unfortunately for the
success during this period was its newfound ability to uti- companies and their investors, the ‘dot com bubble burst’
lize the action-movie blockbuster formula. In addition to cost AOL Time Warner $4.9 billion and plunged DC into
exploring the biological and technological anxieties that disarray (Goldsmith 36).3 In addition to these economic and
characterized the early 2000s in the wake of the Y2K scare industrial setbacks, DC’s commercial success and popular-
and emerging debates on genetic modification, films such ity was also impacted by Joel Schumacher’s Batman sequels
as Marvel’s X-Men (Bryan Singer, 2000) and Spider-Man produced in 1995 and 1997. While these films adhered to
(Sam Raimi, 2002) also relied on big budgets, CGI en- certain blockbuster principles by using big budgets and star-
hanced action sequences and aggressive promotional studded casts, some critics argued that Schumacher’s over
campaigns in order to maximize their box office returns. the top style and slapstick antics returned the superhero ad-
While these franchises were developed by Fox and Sony aptation film to its campier 1960s incarnation, which may
respectively prior to the creation of Marvel Studios, they have alienated mainstream movie-going audiences expecting
are an early example of how Marvel’s texts have been tai- a more conventional action-oriented blockbuster narrative
lored specifically for mainstream blockbuster consump- (Lacey C1). Even though DC had been a dominant pop
tion. For example, the marketing campaign for X-Men, cultural presence in the superhero adaptation market, the
the first comic book adaptation of the new millennium, company’s departure from a simple, more familiar block-
featured three trailers, nine TV spots and twelve inter- buster structure was one of the major contributing factors
net promos intended to target every possible movie-going to the relative decline in DC’s box-office returns during the
demographic. While each of these trailers attempted to late 1990s. More importantly, the narrative and stylizations
appeal to slightly different audience groups such as the of Schumacher’s films also worked against the proliferation
pre-existing comic book fans or the intellectual sci-fi or of DC’s dark and brooding brand-image that the comics and
drama fans, each trailer also inevitably ended with the films of the 1980s worked to construct, further alienating
same action-packed sequences and special effects driven both comic fans and the mainstream movie-going public.
character introductions. Marvel’s manipulation of these In 2004, Warner Bros. and DC finally made their way
promos emphasized their desire to maximize audience in- back to the big screen with the release of Catwoman, directed
terest before the release of the film. The film’s synergistic
3. Between the late 1990s and early 2000s, widespread market specula-
2. In 1988, Perelman purchased Marvel for $82.5 million. Under his tion about the value of new, web-based companies prompted shareholders
leadership, Marvel failed to continue capitalizing on its multimedia po- to invest millions in the burgeoning ‘dot com’ industry. However, such
tential as it had in the 1970s. Instead, Marvel became a platform for investments led to the rapid proliferation of industrial competition and
selling junk bonds, a near-fraudulent means of generating funds, which not every new company was successful. Many of them failed completely,
eventually led the company to file for bankruptcy protection in 1996 burning through their venture capital long before making a profit, thus
(Raviv 9). bursting the market bubble (Munro 421).

14 CINEPHILE / Vol. 9, No. 2 / Fall 2013

 ages of constant movement and symbolized DC’s desire to
move forward and distance itself from both its static heroes
and its static “bullet” logo. Ultimately, DC’s 2005 re-launch
was an attempt to re-define its brand identity and position
DC as the producer of serious, introspective heroes. By pair-
ing the release of their new logo with the release of the darkest
re-imagining of the Caped Crusader since Tim Burton’s Bat-
man in 1989, Warner and DC were able to heighten audience
expectation not only for Batman Begins, but for every subse-
quent DC film adaptation as well. The success of Batman Be-
gins and the following two Dark Knight sequels (2008; 2012),
also directed by Christopher Nolan, proved that maintaining
a tightly organized corporate structure was an important part
of Warner Bros. and DC’s comeback in both the comic film
adaptation market and the publishing market. 5
by Pitof and starring Halle Berry. Unfortunately for DC,
this film was a surprising box office disappointment.4
While it had all the makings of a blockbuster, Catwom-
an also lacked a well-developed storyline and failed to
take advantage of the pre-existing comic book fan au-
dience, as Catwoman’s character bore little resemblance
to the original comic book creation, in which she was
part hero and part femme fatale to Batman. Addition-
ally, unlike DC’s previous film adaptations, which fea-
tured multi-million dollar cross-promotional advertising
campaigns directed at the pre-existing comic fan as well
as the action blockbuster audience, Catwoman lacked The importance of the action blockbuster formula to the
such widespread commercial support and did little else success of any comic book adaptation film can be seen not
to re-establish DC as a major force in the production of only in the successful films, but in the failures as well. In the
authentic or faithful superhero adaptation films. Even films produced by Marvel and DC, the comic films that were
Warner Bros. executive Kevin Tsujihara admitted that less popular with audiences and critics and that performed
Catwoman was a “misstep” on their part (Gustines). poorly at the box-office all shared a significant deviation from
Determined not to dwell on their box office fail- the action blockbuster formula. For example, Ang Lee’s Hulk
ures, Warner Bros. and DC continued their attempt to (2003), a quiet, contemplative character study filled with emo-
revamp their image, which culminated in 2005 with the tional pathos for the misunderstood monster, paled financial-
release of Batman Begins (Christopher Nolan, 2005), ly and critically in comparison to The Incredible Hulk (Louis
and DC’s first new logo design since 1976. Here, DC’s Leterrier, 2008). This later adaptation brought the character
brand re-launch served two major purposes: first, as Dan back to his violent conflicted roots, but it was still primar-
DiDio (DC’s editorial VP) noted, the release of Batman ily framed and promoted as an action film. While Ang Lee’s
Begins was an attempt to connect DC’s characters with Hulk does conform to the action blockbuster in several ways,
the emerging older, more critically-aware audiences. Di- with its heavy use of CGI and action sequences particularly
Dio and other executives hoped that these grittier he- in the final half of the film, these sequences seemed trapped
roes, inspired largely by the work of Frank Miller and by the “sluggish and over thought” progression of the film’s
Alan Moore, would appeal to both comic and film audi- narrative (Holman 72). The film’s opening sequence, for ex-
ences that were now looking for “more complexity and ample, was an uncommonly slow pseudo-flashback sequence
depth” from their pulp heroes (Gustines). Finally, to fur- that attempted to establish Bruce Banner’s psychologically
ther emphasize their commitment to changing and re- traumatic childhood. The success of the 2008 Hulk reboot
vitalizing their brand, DC unveiled their new “swoosh” can be credited to director Louis Leterrier’s radical departure
logo “just weeks ahead of the Batman Begins opening” from Ang Lee’s ambitious, yet ultimately ill-conceived project
(Schiller 6). The inclusion of the ‘swoosh’ conjured im- that defied both audience expectation and generic familiar-
4. Catwoman’s production budget was $100 million, yet the film 5. Following DC’s brand-image overhaul, DC’s market share rose from
made only $40,202,379 at the box-office. (BoxOfficeMojo.com). 32.23% in 2004 to 36.95% in 2006 (ComicChron.com).

The Superhero Film / Articles 15

 rier’s film, the audience benefits from Marvel’s blockbuster
formula which strikes a balance between the drama of its
emotionally tortured heroes and the widespread commer-
cial appeal of bringing those comic book action sequences
from the page to the screen.
The importance of using the blockbuster aesthetic to
cultivate emotional and cultural resonance for the audi-
ence can similarly be seen through a comparison between
Marvel’s The Avengers and DC’s Man of Steel. While the
presence of an alien terrorist attack is used in both films
to evoke feelings of post-9/11 pathos, nationalistic pride,
hope and togetherness, each company expressed these feel-
ings from two rather distinct viewpoints. Many critics have
argued that the relative decline in DC’s popularity can
be attributed to the company’s decidedly dark, gritty and
ultimately pessimistic world view, compared to the opti-
Hulk (Ang Lee, 2003). Below: The Incredible Hulk (Louis Leterrier, 2008). mism and uplift offered by Marvel’s narratives. While Man
of Steel was definitely the most action-oriented Superman
ity. As audiences and critics have noted, the key difference film produced within the last ten years, which undoubtedly
between these two films was the latter’s extensive use of the contributed to its strong box office performance, its dis-
action genre to bring the original spirit of the Hulk com- jointed narrative structure failed to create an emotional link
ics to life. As Kirk Honeycutt of The Hollywood Reporter between DC’s iconic character and the audience. By focus-
notes, the film “emphasizes action over introspection, but ing too heavily on the cinematic grandeur of high powered
[…] makes certain the hero still broods over the curse of his explosions and destruction, Man of Steel has been regarded
cells poisoned by gamma radiation” (14). While the open- by some harsher critics as a “crass attempt by Warner Bros.
ing of Leterrier’s film proceeds slowly to introduce Banner’s to cash in on the Marvel magic” (Bardi 72). Conversely, the
character, it is also framed by the number of days he has success of Marvel’s The Avengers has been credited to the
gone “without incident” or without turning into the Hulk. film’s unprecedented narrative potential, creating a cohe-
The slow progression of watching Banner try to master his sive universe which provided the audience with multiple,
outbursts is countered by the audience’s expectation that emotionally varied points of access and identification. The
with every provocation, Banner may explode. With Leter- relative critical and commercial disappointment of DC’s

16 CINEPHILE / Vol. 9, No. 2 / Fall 2013

most recent adaptation may also be linked to the company’s The fact that this was DC’s third major
overall struggle to maintain a cohesive brand identity in
the face of the competition posed by Marvel. Due to DC’s corporate overhaul in a decade seemed to
desire to showcase the darker, more complex realities of its indicate that the company was struggling
brand of heroism, many of its franchises shifted to portray
heroes that visibly struggled with their actions and roles in
to remain relevant in an ever-changing
society. However, while the anti-heroic treatment of Bat- market.
man in DC’s more successful Dark Knight series, despite its
inherent pessimism, is used to produce a symbol of hope can be read as an expert corporately-controlled response to
that the people of Gotham and the audience can identify Marvel’s competition. On the other hand, however, the fact
with, the final battle sequences of Man of Steel left Snyder’s that this was DC’s third major corporate overhaul in a de-
angst-ridden Superman alienated from American society. cade seemed to indicate that DC was struggling to remain
While both The Dark Knight and Man of Steel represented relevant in an ever-changing market. The mission state-
the increasingly pessimistic viewpoints of the late post-9/11 ment of this new company – which was virtually identical
film cycle, the lack of a conventionally uplifting message to the statement from four years prior – maintained that
and a hero with whom the audience can easily identity ul- Warner Bros. and DC were committed to the mainstream
timately caused Man of Steel to be less successful than oth- proliferation of its comic book characters. However, as a
er, more conventional comic book adaptations, especially sign of their renewed commitment, this corporate re-design
those produced by Marvel. installed Diane Nelson as the DC Entertainment’s new
Throughout the 2000s, two of the major corporate president. Nelson, who had overseen Warner’s wildly suc-
changes that also had a significant impact on each compa- cessful Harry Potter franchise (2001-2011), was expected to
ny’s performance were Disney’s buy-out of Marvel in 2009, increase Warner’s output of blockbuster films and franchis-
and DC’s creation of DC Entertainment that occurred in es using DC’s stable of characters. To Nelson’s credit, DC
direct response to Marvel’s announcement. In August of significantly increased its production of comic film adapta-
2009, The Walt Disney Company announced its buy-out tions with the release of Watchmen (Zack Snyder, 2009), Jo-
of Marvel Entertainment for $4 billion (“Of Mouse and nah Hex (Jimmy Hayward, 2010), Green Lantern (Martin
X-Men” 71). Disney’s previously established franchising Campbell, 2011), The Dark Knight Rises, and Man of Steel.
power promised to be a great asset for Marvel. Shortly after Unfortunately for DC, not many of them were successful.
Disney’s takeover, Marvel began co-producing Disney/Pix- Jonah Hex was a very loose adaptation of a comic book series
ar Presents, a magazine that reproduced the animated he- that was initially published in 1977-87. It was only revived
roes of Disney and Pixar in comic book form. Even today, in 2006 in an attempt to regenerate audience interest for
Marvel’s merger continues to keep the comics and televi- DC’s potential franchising opportunities. The critical and
sion industries buzzing with excitement over the company’s commercial failure of Green Lantern also points to DC’s
development of a digital comics platform and its release of inability to successfully parlay its lesser known characters
Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D on ABC in September 2013 (Dove to the big screen. In light of these set-backs, DC revamped
2013). In just a few short years after the merger, Disney’s its brand identity with the release of the DC ‘peel’ logo.
acquisition of Marvel seemed to be the perfect model of
corporate synergy at work: Marvel benefits from Disney’s
extensive network of multimedia outlets, and Disney uti-
lizes Marvel’s edgier character bank to “fill a hole in [their]
much cuddlier portfolio” (“Of Mouse and X-Men” 71).
In direct response to the media attention as well as the
critical and commercial success that Marvel received fol-
lowing the Disney buy-out, DC countered with a corporate
restructuring plan of its own. A mere month after Marvel’s
announcement, Warner Bros. Entertainment announced
that it would be “revamping its DC comics franchise into
a new company, DC Entertainment” (Wyatt B5). While After “ruining” their company’s previous re-brand with a
the deal had been in development in January, before Mar- series of unsuccessful adaptations, DC seemingly cut their
vel’s announcement, DC timed their re-launch to dimin- losses and attempted to distance themselves from their now
ish Marvel’s newfound success and media attention (Wyatt tarnished image. The company focused instead on its pre-
B5). On the one hand, this strategically timed re-launch

The Superhero Film / Articles 17

viously established franchises, and The Dark Knight Rises As the effect of each company’s latest mergers, acquisi-
became the first film to carry the new logo. tions and restructurings continue to be felt throughout the
In the midst of the social and political upheavals of the industry, the success of their upcoming projects will play
2000s, the escapist wish fulfillment fantasies of the comic a crucial role in determining whether Marvel will main-
book narrative flourished in popular Hollywood cinema. tain its market lead. Despite its somewhat lackluster criti-
While both companies managed to produce films that re- cal reception, current box-office reports place DC’s latest
flected the various needs of the post-9/11 commercial land- adaptation, Man of Steel as the tenth most popular super-
scape, the films that balanced meaningful socio-cultural hero adaptation of all time, and a number of upcoming
critiques with the action blockbuster genre were the most sequels, including Superman vs. Batman have already been
successful. For Marvel, such socio-cultural impacts can be confirmed, suggesting that DC may well be poised for a
seen in early post 9/11 superhero films such as Spider-Man. comeback (BoxOfficeMojo.com; ComingSoon.net). In-
While the initial release of the film was delayed in order to terestingly, DC’s properties with the most potential for a
alter the New York skyline and remove a scene in which new franchise or series reboot are those that have begun
Spider-Man spins a web between the twin towers of the to mimic the blockbuster formula pioneered by Marvel in
World Trade Center, the film itself actually goes out of its the last two decades. In fact, it was only after the success of
way to avoid any direct political address. Instead, the film Marvel’s The Avengers that DC announced the production
used the dangers of technology and biological enhancement of its own multi-character cross-over film, Justice League
to create the villain of the story, while turning Peter Parker of America, which has yet to be further developed. DC’s
(Tobey Maguire) into an All-American boyhood hero that production strategy is indicative of a larger industrial shift
the entire audience could identify with. In Spider-Man’s toward a hybrid understanding of heroism, in which each
final confrontation with the Green Goblin (Willem Da- company’s distinct brand identities are made increasingly
foe), the Goblin is attacked by a mob of New Yorkers who similar through blockbuster filmmaking practices.
are trying to give Spider-Man more time to rescue Mary- As the superhero adaptation trend continues to be re-
Jane (Kirsten Dunst) and the children. While assaulting the cycled through the Hollywood studio system, both Marvel
Goblin, the crowd shouts slogans like “you mess with one and DC are facing some potentially troubling corporate
of us, you mess with all of us,” which echoed the united shifts that may affect the production, marketing, perfor-
spirit of New York City and America as a whole in the wake mance and reception of these future projects as well. For
of 9/11. Without addressing the context of 9/11 directly, example, Marvel’s buyout by Disney will supersede the
Spider-Man functioned as an angst-filled coming of age company’s previous marketing and distribution deals with
action film in which Spider-Man’s unyielding virtue tri- Paramount Pictures and Hasbro toys, which may have sig-
umphed over evil in a simple, morally instructive tale. In nificant drawbacks to Marvel’s creative and commercial
more recent years, with its transition from property licen- continuity. Likewise, according to Variety, none of DC’s
sor to producer, Marvel found success across a much larger upcoming projects will be financed by Legendary Pictures,
number of film series including Thor (Kenneth Branagh, which was once DC’s primary investor. Legendary was
2011), The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man, and The Avengers. By responsible for the production of Batman Begins, which
maintaining corporate control and creative continuity over arguably sparked DC’s major commercial comeback fol-
their properties, Marvel effectively exploited their charac- lowing their relative disappearance after the Superman and
ters using the company’s intricately connected universe of Batman adaptations of the 1980s and ‘90s (Abrams 24).
superheroes in order to maximize fan interest in its films.
The creation of Marvel Studios enabled the company to
maximize its commercial gain from these properties as well.
In addition to these corporate shifts, Marvel marketed its
superheroes through the use of the Hollywood blockbuster
format and produced action-driven films with straightfor-
ward, broadly appealing narratives that expanded Marvel’s
audience well beyond the fans of the company’s original
comic texts. As a result of these corporate shifts, Marvel’s
superhero adaptations have, on average, been more success-
ful at the box office than anything produced by DC.6
6. When adjusted for ticket price inflation, Marvel’s films gross an aver-
age of $214,347,600, whereas DC averages only 195,605,500 per film
(BoxOfficeMojo.com).

18 CINEPHILE / Vol. 9, No. 2 / Fall 2013

Thus, it is not enough for Marvel and DC’s properties to Gustines, George Gene. “Even Superheroes can use some Buffing of
continue being culturally relevant or popular among fans the Brand.” New York Times 9 May 2005: C8. Print.
in the comic industry alone; each company must maintain ---. “Recalibrating DC Heroes for a Grittier Century.” New York Times.
the pop cultural visibility of its adaptations through aggres- Web. 12 Oct. 2005. 10 Sept. 2012.
sive cross-promotional marketing strategies and corporate Hamner, Susanna. “Is Marvel Ready for its Close-up?” Business 2:1
structures. However, with Marvel’s latest release, Thor: The (Jun. 2006). N.p. Web. 9 Sept. 2012.
Dark World (Alan Taylor, 2013) already grossing over half Holman, Curt. “The Incredible Hulk.” Creative Loafing. Web. 25 Jun.
a billion dollars worldwide (BoxOfficeMojo.com), and the 2008.
upcoming release of Captain America: The Winter Soldier Honeycutt, Kirk. “The Incredible Hulk.” Hollywood Reporter 405
(Anthony Russo) set for early 2014, it seems as though the (2008): 14-16. Print.
Marvel formula will continue to captivate audiences and Johnson, Derek. “Cinematic Destiny: Marvel Studios and the Trade
dominate the box office – especially in the absence of any Stories of Industrial Convergence.” Cinema Journal 52.1 (2012):
competition from DC. 1-24.
Lacey, Liam. “Holy Loss of Altitude!” The Globe and Mail 20 (June
Works Cited 1997): C1.
Lichtenfeld, Eric. Action Speaks Louder: Violence, Spectacle and the Ameri
Abrams, Rachel. “Deep Pockets & Long View.” Variety Dec. 19, 2012: can Action Movie. Westport: Praeger, 2004.
1, 24. Print. McAllister, Matt, Ian Gordon, and Mark Jancovich. “Blockbuster
Bardi, Joe. “Movies of Steel.” Creative Loafing Jun. 13, 2013: 72. Meets Superhero Comic, or Art House Meets Graphic Novel?”
Bloom, David. “Film: Comic Capers Captivate Studios: Hollywood Journal of Popular Film & Television 34.3 (Fall 2006): 108-14.
Hung up on Adapting Strips.” Variety Jun. 24, 2002: 9, 16. Print.
Chang, Justin and Peter Debruge. “Does Man of Steel Exploit Disasters Munro, Neil. “When the Dot-Com Bubble Burst.” National Journal
Like 9/11?” Variety 17 Jun. 2013. 33.6 (2001): 420-21. Print.
Craft, Donna, and Amanda Quick (eds). Company Profiles for Students. “Of Mouse and X-Men; Walt Disney buys Marvel Entertainment.” The
(Vol. 3). Detroit: Gale, 2002. Economist 392.8647 (2009): 71. Print.
Dove, Steve. “Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D at Comic-Con Internation Raviv, Dan. Comic Wars. New York: Broadway Books, 2002. Print.
al 2013.” ABC. Web. 20 Jun. 2013. 21 Jun. 2013 Schiller, Gail. “Warners raising DC Comics profile.” Hollywood Report
Goldsmith, Jill. “AOL Time Warner Sinks.” Video Business 23.5 (2003): er 389 (2005): 6, 82.
36. Print. Wyatt, Edward. “DC Comics Revamped Under a New President.” New
York Times (10 Sep. 2009): B5.

The Superhero Film / Articles 19