Structuralism in Superhero Movies

Superheroes are among the most prominent figures in American society, despite them being just fictional characters. Children and adults both admire, become fascinated, and even obsess over these characters (including myself), partly because they possess extraordinary superhuman strengths, fight crime, and have the goal to protect and better humanity. It is not a surprise then, that due to the popularity of comic books, movies based off of them soon came about. One should note however, that all superhero movies follow a certain structure, patterns that are seen in almost all of these movies. This can also include both myths (social concepts and attitudes determined by history) and binary oppositions, (arguments between two oppositions against each other).

Superhero movies wouldn’t be complete without some type of conflict, whether by a person, a situation, or an environmental factor. In most cases the binary opposition for these types of movies includes a hero vs. a villain, almost like good vs. evil. This structure is evident in almost all superhero movies otherwise it wouldn’t have a strong enough plot without the addition of a villain. According to Will Wright’s essay, “The Structure of Myth & The Structure of the Western Film”, a myth contains structure so that they can be understood correctly. A myth to this binary opposition could be that there is just one hero and just one villain in superhero movies, and this would be wrong. Yes, there are some movies that have just one hero vs. one villain, such as 2002’s,”Spiderman”, which had the hero, Spiderman, and the villain, the Green Goblin. Other movies may have more heroes than villains, or vice versa, like “Fantastic Four”, which has four superheroes against one villain, Victor Doom. An example of the opposite is found in “Spiderman 3”, which has Spiderman the hero vs. Venom, Sandman, and New Goblin, the villains. (Towards the end of the movie ,the New Goblin represents the good side with Spiderman).Sometimes the ratio of heroes and villains can be balanced, like in the movie, “ Batman Forever”, which has Batman and Robin vs. the Joker and Two face.

When it comes to the characteristics of being a superhero in these movies, myths are common , often referring to one being characterized as possessing superhuman strengths and having the ability to fly .To have superhuman strengths is one thing, but the way in which each superhero defines those strengths can vary incredibly. For one, not all superheroes include the characteristic of flying. In “Superman Returns”, Clark Kent otherwise known as “Superman” has the capabilities to fly, as well as the Marvel superhero, Ironman who flies by releasing fire through the palms of his suit in both “Ironman” and “Ironman 2”. Spiderman can somewhat fly, but with the help of his webs, and the same goes for Batman, who uses special gadgets and his infamous bat mobile to get around. How these heroes get their powers also contains a myriad of explanations; the characters from “Fantastic Four”, took a flight into space using a device that Reed Richards created, which ends up breaking down and exposes the members in the rocket to cosmic radiation. This results in them gaining their amazing super abilities; Susan (Invisible girl) is able to become invisible, Johnny (The human torch) can fly and become a flame; Reed ( Mr. Fantastic) can stretch incredibly, and Ben ( The Thing) has great strength and durability. Bruce Banner from the movie, “The Incredible Hulk”, gains his strengths after supervising an experiment of a gamma bomb. He doesn’t gain specific superhero powers that are “positive” per say, but does include the ability to transform into the Hulk once his adrenalin is rushed, in which he becomes aggravated.

Another myth when it comes to superhero movies is that they all wear spandex. Although this statement is true for movies like; “X Men”, “Batman”, “Superman”, “Supergirl”, “Captain America”, “ Kick Ass” and the “Fantastic Four”, the only outlier to this myth is the movie ”Ironman”, with its main character sporting steel instead of spandex.

With all the superhero movies in the world, and for those to come, it is quite evident that the basis of these movies will always include the hero vs. villain. Not only that, but they will also include different ways in which they gain their superhuman strengths, how they fight their villains, and will still have the same sole purpose in the end: to save the day and protect humanity.

Referenced From:
Storey, John, and John Storey. Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: a Reader. “The Structure of Myth & The Structure of the Western Film”, Harlow, England: Pearson Longman, 2009. Print.

Image from:http://www.collider.com/2009/11/25/justice-league-crisis-on-two-earths-trailer/

Getting informed is not just a mainstream thing, its a comedy thing too

The introduction to television journalism has enabled the public to be informed in a unique way; by allowing them to use both their visual and auditory senses. According to Mitchell Stephens, author of the essay, “Television Transforms the News”, journalists in the United States had a, “moderating influence from corporate owners and government regulators”. This prompted television news to become fascinating to the public. This fascination of television news comes from the organization of it all, with information coming from main television anchors, weather persons and sportscasters. People began to enjoy news that was “personally delivered to them by familiar human presence” (Stephens 250). Today there is not just one type of news, there’s two; mainstream and comedic forms. There are both benefits and limitations to mainstream news and comedic news but as far as “truthfulness” goes, I believe that Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show”, does a better job at conquering this. Not only does he give you truthful coverage, but also validity when it comes to news representation compared to mainstream television.

Recently in the news, the rescue of the 33 Chilean Miners has been the topic of discussion. While watching CNN’s coverage on the rescue, they informed the public on: how they were rescued and what occurred during those 69 days trapped underground; what physical and health problems they would now have to face; and what lies for the miners ahead. They explained how on August 5th, the miners were caved in and were living off of fish and water during their time underground. CNN interviewed one of the miners who said that they didn’t turn on each other, and used a democratic approach when making decisions while holding onto their faith. Following their rescue, a media blitz soon evolved, with offers of movie deals surfacing and suggestions on what the miners would be in for when it came to their so called “second honeymoons’. They shown a clip of the President of Chile speaking in front of the media and was praised for taking control of the situation, carrying out a successfully executed operation.

Comedy Central’s coverage of the Chilean Miners rescue on “The Daily Show” gave a brief overview of the incident. Jon Stewart pointed out what the mainstream news failed to showcase, which included how they were not enduring harsh living conditions that prevented them from detachment of the world. Instead they had a television underground that allowed them to watch soccer games. Not only that, but they did have some nourishment even though it was scarce, but not to the point where they would die from not eating. (Your body can go 40 days without food before it breaks down.) As far as what lied ahead for the miners once they got home, Stewart wasn’t hesitant in saying that the men were going to get, “laid”. In terms of the movie deals offered to the miners, the show pointed out how the miners requested books on how to deal with fame, and how they were well enough to jump around with full blown euphoria despite being trapped for 69 days.

Both television news forms did inform the public on the heroic story of the trapped Chilean Miners, but to a certain extent. CNN’s coverage was very informative and included thick description on the events that occurred during and following the rescue of the miners. This allowed viewers to see the whole picture. Jon Stewarts coverage was not as informative and only focused on the post rescue of the miners, after briefly sharing their heroic rescue. When it came to how the news was presented overall, CNN didn’t have much flexibility to state what they really thought went on with the miners or what would happen afterwards. This is based on the fact that newscasters just burrow facts, which makes them limited to say things outside of realm. “The Daily Show” as commented by Venise Wagner from Rachel Smolkin’s article, “What the Mainstream Media Can Learn from Jon Stewart”, gives a “balance in showing you what’s really going on”. A prime example of this would be Jon Stewart showing a clip of the miners watching soccer on television, to say that they were not living as badly as we thought. Some critics say that “The Daily Show” lacks accuracy since they just get a “whiff of the news and then work with what they have”, whereas mainstream media tells you more accurate information without commentary. Mainstream television takes a more serious approach on presenting the news, which can be beneficial and negative at the same time. It is not bad to focus on the seriousness of certain situations but who wants to listen to depressing stories every day? Stewarts show adds humor to current events, making the news more enjoyable rather than depressing.

When it comes to truthfulness however, “The Daily Show” does do a better job at achieving this, one thing that mainstream television doesn’t. Jon Stewart is bold, and is this is the reason why viewers find him credible and substantive according to an IUP study. If his show didn’t achieve this, than he wouldn’t have been honored with Television Critics Association Award, for Outstanding Achievement in news and information. The times in which we live in are depressing enough so why reiterate this through the media when you can get informed the same thing but adding humor to it? They say humor is the medicine so why not watch a news show that does just that?


Referenced from:

"What the Mainstream Media Can Learn from Jon Stewart." American Journalsim Review. Ed. Rachel Smolkin. June-July 2007. Web. 17 Oct. 2010. .

Stephans Mitchell,"Television Transforms the News" Communication in History: Technology, Culture, Society, 6th edition. Boston. Pearson, 2010.

The Evolution of Print and the Future Ahead

The history of the printing press has not been a clear one, even with someone saying “printing was an integral part of the general history of civilization”(78). This statement alone doesn’t suffice, instead Eisentein points out that the history of printing is excluded from other forms of historical literature, thus resulting in the criticized belief of its lack of historical importance. Despite its influence on the political, social and economic movements, we still don’t “know how print materials affected human behavior” (79), even with introducing the concept of standardization. The printing press was in essence, the perquisite for a historians work and in recent years have been the topic of conversation on whether or not we need to about re-developing printed materials. Culturally, print has become uniform; diverse in its own way. It did not however, introduce “silent reading”, but as Eisentein states, “it did encourage “silent instructors” (83). Textbooks during this time became popular, and even with this new popularity, lectures still continued. With book demands, came bible needs, which presented itself as a guide to living a Godly lifestyle. With any profound technology, limitations are almost inevitable. The printing press promoted the increase of individualism: people now wanting to read alone instead of reading with a group. In the same token some populations did benefit from the printing press like the urban populations, enabling them to link together because of this new wave of communication.

In the, “Future in Reading” article by Kevin Kelly, the new print revolution is considered to be “changing”, what we consider books and what it means to be literate(Kelly). What is being presented is a “living book”, where everything can be easily accessible. Because of the increasing book technologies, many bookstores are going out of business, and there is less of a demand for published books. It goes to show you that the digital world is getting its hands on everything. Videos and other new digital devices are created simply to, “project the emotions of the book” (Vook), which (if willing), will cause the increase in more reading thanks to multimedia. New E-books allows readers to read aloud. These new devices are surprisingly beneficial to authors in terms of reader responses suggestions and cash revenues. One user of the E-book says, “it’s like having a huge library at your fingertips, but with stuff you would never think to look at. (Helen black) In a sense it allows you to broaden your horizons.

With all of this information alone, I can already assure you that the current state of our society is consumed with these technologies, and soon it will be impossible to ignore them. I personally wouldn’t spend over $800.00 on an electronic reading device, when I can easily check books out for free or pay less at a bookstore. The article “future of reading”, includes a remark made by an e-book user who says, “It’s like having a huge library at your finger tips, but with stuff you would never think to look at”, but couldn’t you get the same effect by entering a library and exploring it? Don’t get me wrong, but the iPads and e-books are known and praised for being compatible but one can ask for how long? Its not like you can take those devices to the beach and not get it fires, whereas if you take a regular printed book you wouldn’t have to worry about that, or whether or not it has enough battery life. At this rate, there is no turning back to simplistic things, but rather a demand for high tech devices only to do more damage on your wallet. If new technologies continue (which it will) it will only encourage sedentary lifestyles; if you have a “huge library at your finger tips”, then what’s the need in getting up to go to a library?

Referenced from:

Pham, By Alex. "The Future of Reading." PhysOrg.com - Science News, Technology, Physics, Nanotechnology, Space Science, Earth Science, Medicine. Web. 09 Oct. 2010. http://www.physorg.com/news198955146.html;

Crowley, David and Paul Heyer. Communication in History: Technology,

Culture, Society, 5^th edition. “ Aspects of Printing Revolution” Boston: Pearson, 2007, originally published in 2003.

Print vs. Oral & Visual

Recently in my Media Studies class we have discussed various views on whether or not our society has improved, based on the advances of communication. From our analysis of other articles and points of view, society has improved according to some critics but others suggest that we are lacking some key components, this occurring as we progress to the next stage of technology. I personally believe that our society today has shifted from a print based society to an oral and visual one due to the amount of technological advances we now have access to today.

Back in 700 B.C Greek letters paved the way for what we now know today as the alphabet. This new development not only organized the way we thought, but also the way we communicated since the alphabets main intent was for human conversation. According to Eric Havelock, author of the essay, "The Greek Legacy, “the alphabet encouraged the production of unfamiliar statement, stimulating the thinking of novel thought” (p.40). Havelock also explains in his essay that “books and documentation multiplied in the Hellenistic and Roman periods” (p.43). From this assertion alone, one can conclude that as people became more equipped with how to write and use the alphabet, there was a high demand for books (which included writings), and documentation (people now having the ability to write). Today however, there is no longer a high demand for books and documentation since we now have access to other forms of communication such as laptops where we can easily send an email in an instant, rather than wait a couple days to receive something on paper.

As communication techniques began to increase, the concept of living in an oral society became the center of attention in reference to Walter Ongs essay, "Orality, Literacy, and Modern Media". Living in a primary orality culture meant that everything was done verbally and things depended on sound. This particular culture had no previous knowledge of writing; therefore they did not honor it. The importance of sound allowed people to connect with one another since sound alone can capture anyone’s attention, whether it’s a child screaming in the middle of the mall or a teacher clapping to get a student’s attention, we all seem to instantaneously look at where the sound is coming from. Story telling became popular during this primary stage, along with using mnemonic devices as an organizational approach to improving memory, It wasn’t long after that, that a secondary oral culture came into play which included an introduction to radio and television. This new society was based on "writing and print, which were essential for the manufacturing and operation of equipment" (p. 54), two things that were missing from the previous oral culture. Even with the emphasis on writing in the new culture we still advanced, which is why radio was created that dealt with sound and listening, as well as the television. Sound itself catches attention, so it makes sense for these new technologies to arise so as to broaden our horizons and keep our interests rather than it coming from printed forms.

In the Washington post essay, “The End of Literacy”, Howard Gardner suggests that our society is approaching “Doomsday”, thanks to the technological takeover. In return, adults are reading less which takes them away from entering, “fascinating worlds we could only imagine”. During the earlier centuries, books played a vital role in shaping our society which allowed us to expand our minds and enhance our creativity. Gardner also declares that this, “threatening shift” in society, comes from the need to remain in constant communication with other people. But is it really a bad thing to remain in constant communication with each other? I think not, as a matter of fact it helps us become more aware of our society and what it has to offer in terms of technology. If we have the ability to communicate via phone, email, text message, or radio then why not use it to our advantage? Instead of being focused on one thing, we can now be considered as multi-taskers with all that there is to offer.

The last article from the Washington post entitled the, “Dumbing of America”, by Susan Jacoby argues that Americans are” losing their intellect”, and “suffering from ignorance”. She blames the shift from a print society to a visual one as the burden, along with the lack of willingness to obtain knowledgeable information. Another supporting evidence to her claim includes the sudden decline in book reading and the increase in using media devices as technology increases. Jacoby concludes by saying that there is no “quick cure for being an anti-rationalist and an anti-intellectual society”. I beg to differ on this essay only because having a decline in book purchases doesn’t mean that we are becoming “dumber”, but rather we are finding other ways to gain information and get educated. There are countless educational shows, eBooks, and language cassette tapes that allow us to become more knowledge of certain things we wish to learn, it goes to show you that reading isn’t the only way to acquire knowledge. Besides, if you were in a rush, would you really want to sit down and read a newspaper which takes up time, or would you rather watch the news which includes one voice at a time, and where there isn’t a bunch of ads being thrown at you at once?

Teachers and professors both are proving that this new society isn’t hindering our brains because they use it to their benefits by using things like YOUTUBE to display certain topics of discussion among other things in class. Every class that I took last year minus my math course, always included a clip from YOUTUBE to further or knowledge, and actually by watching these clips it helped improve my biology grade to a high “B”. It would be a surprise if teachers and professors soon will become dependent on YOUTUBE in the future showing that there are positives to this oral and visual society.

In any sense, the value of print will never be disregarded because if it wasn’t for the print society we wouldn’t be where we are today, since everything builds off of everything else. It is evident that we do live a predominantly oral and visual culture, yet we still incorporate literacy in things that we do .

Referenced from:

Gardner, Howard. "End of Literacy:Dont Stop Reading." Washington Post (2008): n. pg. Web. 3 Oct 2010. <>. (Web article)

Havelock Eric, “The Greek Legacy", Communication in History: Technology, Culture, Society, 6th edition. Boston. Pearson, 2010.

Jacoby , Susan. "Dumbing of America." Washington Post (2008): n. pag. Web. 3 Oct 2010. <> (web article)


Ong Walter, " Orality, Literacy and Modern Media",Communication in History: Technology, Culture, Society, 6th edition. Boston. Pearson, 2010.