Want to see more Marketing Analysis, Reviews of Movies, TV Shows and more? Then you will find it here at The Archive. Want to be know what I am up to? Then you can find me on Facebook or Twitter!
The Mandarin Paradigm
The Meaning of Cinematic Change
WARNING!
This article contains spoilers for Iron Man 3, if you have not yet seen the film than read on at your own risk. I will state it once again there will be spoilers!
Introduction
Quite fascinating to consider how much we, as fans or human beings, resist change. This is nothing new in our society, as it simply became a part of who we are. Yet not out of desire towards conformity but due to the safety of what regularity offers. Over the years we do try out new and innovative things as while we fear change to a certain degree we also strive for it. It is a clear contradiction between our various desires for simplicity as well as complexity. Our fear towards change is a result of consequences that we believe will haunt us as soon as we make that pivotal decision. On the other hand, the reason we desire it lies in the fact that conformity can become quite dull.
This factor has become even more apparent when it comes to the film industry, especially when it has a vocal fan base. Take into consideration the blockbuster “Iron Man 3”, which has taken in quite some controversy since it was brought out on the 3rd May 2013. Marvel Studios was famous for sticking to its source material and bringing those characters to the big screen. All of a sudden they took the arch nemesis of Tony Stark and turned him into a punch line. If one agrees with this decision or not, it was a rather risky move for Shane Black and Kevin Feige. At the moment it had brought upon quite some controversy as well as raised some torches and pitchforks towards the companies decisions. Probably, their first venture into television with Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D has been faced with some rather mixed opinions, which may be the result of a slight distrust between the company and its viewers.
Why the Mandarin Paradigm?
Before I got into the juicy details this article aims to combine theoretic basics in change management with cinematic decisions. In its theory this is inspired by internal corporate change. Still, there are strong similarities between these managerial theories on employee resistance as well as consumer resistance towards change. From an economical standpoint it is interesting to take into consideration why specific actions were taken from high-level studios. Before I further venture into the topic I want to state something clearly, I am not taking any sides here and won’t state if the decision is correct or not, simply taking a simplistic economic standpoint on the matter.
I will try to help visualize why Marvel Studios saw the need to make such a risky endeavor as well as on the three dimensions how people feel about change. My example was the Mandarin twist to help visualize why exactly the fans were split. So, you might be wondering, why I am calling it the “Mandarin Paradigm”? Am I trying to coin a new term alongside the “MacGuffin”? Actually, it is more of a visualize using a recent, or at least almost recent event, of change that lead to quite a resistance of change. If anyone would like to coin another term there is also the possibility of “Khan Paradigm” due to “Star Trek Into Darkness”. It seems I couldn’t completely avoid subjectivity as anyone who follows my articles knows I am a avid follower of Marvel Studios and it seemed to be the most vocal reaction that sustained up to this day with the upcoming release of “Thor – The Dark World”.
The Need for Change
Ignoring the cultural impact of this drastic departure of the original question we must ask ourselves the question, why exactly did they decide to change? In one way, you could consider it a form of social and economic pressure. Consider you are a film distributor that had made it into the market with a marginal success. Let us see how the films have done up to the release of its breakout success through the team-up “Marvel’s The Avengers”.
∑ Worldwide
Iron Man - $ 585,174,222
The Incredible Hulk - $ 263,427,551
Iron Man 2 - $ 623,933,331
Thor - $ 449,326,618
Captain America - $ 370,569,774
The movies were successful, and this was a time were they were still distributing mainly with the help of Paramount Pictures. Some movies certainly were more profitable than others, as can be seen with the marginal differences with “The Incredible Hulk” as well as with “Captain America”. Still, they were a moderate success for the company and were slowly building up towards their team-up. One has to consider that bringing these distinctive franchises together to a culmination of a film is also quite a change for many moviegoers. Most world buildings were due to one distinct franchise of films, to give an example Star Wars or The Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit franchises. Suddenly the company was faced with an incredible jump in box office results when “The Avengers” reached a total of $ 1,511,757,910, while the domestic income was just as high as that of “Iron Man 2”.
What do all these numbers have to do with the decision to change things up with Stark’s third adventure? A daring change brought them an incredible success, which pushed them towards organizational self-renewal. This concept was created to allow an understanding why companies are compelled to desire change. Under organizational self-renewal one understands when a company tries to challenge old assumptions due to a change in rules with a strong competition. DC has been trying to reach the same success with their own Cinematic Universe by forcing the company to think outside of the box to make themselves standing out. It is a drive for constant innovation that will allow a sufficient and efficient success for the company. Iron Man 3 was supposed to stand for something in Phase 2, which seems to be a sort of “risk”. Especially when you consider they hired James Gunn to direct “Guardians of the Galaxy”, which is a considerable step outside of the norm in comic book movies, or superhero movies overall. This may seem as a change of second order, which is the description for a radical shift in the basics of the company, or their business practices. Still, no matter how different these movies seem to be, they still adhere to the overall corporate design of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. There may seem to be some rather darker tones overall, but it is still keeping its purpose and original direction.
Overall, the need of change is mainly due to profits as well as a way for companies to survive. In this sense, one has to admire Marvel Studios for trying to not only keep their product fresh but are also taking some considerable risks. While it can seem as a rather rational decision to change so many elements yet I am rather curious why they started so early instead of focusing on the success. Quite commendable if you think that most companies would try to milk the cash cow until it is completely dried out. Their main focus seems to be “sustainability” rather than actual “profit”.
Origin of Resistance
Taking in a rather theoretical perspective people react towards change can be seen as tridimensional. First of all, it focuses on how people feel about the change that was implemented, which is known as Affective. Everyone seemed to have loved the first superhero team-up when it hit the theaters with many critics raving about the film and the average moviegoer pushing it across the billion mark. Until the release of Iron Man’s third installment everyone put a lot of trust into the company until the twist was revealed. From a marketing standpoint, it was brilliantly executed as no one had any idea what to expect and the marketing turned the Mandarin into quite a menace. Honestly, for most of the film it does leave quite an impression in your head even after the reveal, because it is a very strong message. Still, people felt betrayed due to the trailers not even allowing any hints towards this reveal, which do exist subtly in the movie, and due to the fact that the original character seemed butchered.
Secondly, we have the
Cognitive element of how people think about the change. From my previous statement many people felt betrayed and felt quite negative towards this sudden change. Ignoring the box office for the film this time around, some still felt quite betrayed by not only the company, but also mainly their own expectations. A mindset of an incredible interpretation of a character portrayed by a very respective actor like Sir Ben Kingsley was turned into a joke. Is this the result of a choice of the director, Shane Black, or did Marvel Studios make this decision due to their business partnership with the Chinese company DMG Entertainment. No matter what was the reason behind this change we have to consider Joss Whedon was aware of this and may have had his own thoughts on this development. In the end, he may have seen something we missed.
Lastly, there is the dimension known as Behavioural, which is our own active or passive action when we face change. Most people will probably write about their disapproval online, or in articles. People will become vocal that it creates its own word-of-mouth marketing that lead people into the cinema to see whatever they were told was true. One has to say a lot of people were quite active in their opinion towards the film, something the Internet had allowed us to do. Communication flows quite freely nowadays that it is actually an over abundance on information. Fan bases can be quite vocal towards their distrust in a product, which can leave quite a negative impact not only on the studios but also at the audience itself.
Conclusion
Change is quite a difficult thing to explain. All I could do was try and help understand why we started resisting a change when it comes to our favorite movies, televisions or any other medium one can think of. Any economic person is seeking to profit from his investments, and when considering how much cash flow exists with the production of films and naturally there are quite some risks if the movie doesn’t return with the box office it should. Take “The Lone Ranger” or “Kick-Ass 2” as an example of quite box office bombs. These are 200 million dollar investments nowadays, some with smaller budgets, where they expect to make not only their money back but also receive a considerable margin in profit. As long as something makes cash they will milk that cow until there is nothing left but dusty heaves.
After all these things about theories it seems I have tortured you enough, dear reader. I will keep this simple. Change is a natural occurrence just as much as resisting such decisions is. There are many similarities on how a company reacts to change as we do, as viewers and fans of their products. Not only is it a difficult thing to take in but also a complex decision to make. In some way we seek change within conformity while both these elements are dependant on each other. In a way conformity creates a need for change as well as vice versa. Fascinating if you consider that a variable like change is a constant element in our life. Now, if only I could finally throw the hammer down on what follows after change.