Welcome back! We’re going to change things up a bit for this week’s blog. We’re not going to talk about Marvel. *Insert shocked expression here.* Marvel made my favorite character cry in the last movie, so this is my justification for cheating on them this week. While I am a giant Marvel nerd, I am also a giant sports nerd. I shamelessly watch a combined 25 hours of sports a week. Specifically, in sports, we’re going to discuss this guy.
His name is Le’Veon Bell. Le’Veon is a running back for the Pittsburg Steelers. Since his entry into the league in 2013, Le’Veon has run for 5,336 yards and 35 touchdowns while surrendering only 6 fumbles. Pretty good numbers right? Le’Veon thinks so. And I would have to agree. As much as it pains me to say, he is was arguably the best back in the league. But here’s the issue: Le’Veon thinks those numbers warrant a max-contract, and to that, I have to laugh. I don’t think Le’Veon realizes that the day of the running back is dead. It’s all about the passing game. The quarterback is the only position that makes sense to throw $43 million a year at. Despite Le’Veon’s request for a max dollar extension, the Steelers refused to give him more money. So what did he do about it? Basically this.
He sidelined himself and refused to play. Yesterday’s Thursday night game kicked off Week 13 of this NFL season, and Le’Veon still hasn’t looked in the direction of Heinz Field. This situation has been a huge topic of discussion this year and considering my hatred for Pittsburg sports (Philly is superior), this controversy has to be of high significance for me to bare discussing the Steelers for more than a second. So is this topic relevant in pop culture? I would say so. Why don’t we take a look at this through communication theory?
ATTITUDE IS EVERYTHING
This week’s theory is the social judgment theory. The social judgment theory seeks to understand why people respond differently to messages. This theory is all about attitudes. As you can tell, this theory is a model of judgment which is built on the premise that an audience interprets the message of a speaker through their attitude. The theory also believes that a listener’s level of interaction with the topic is an essential factor in attitude change. So how does this apply to Le’Veon Bell? Well, though Le’Veon is keeping himself out of the media’s spotlight, no message is a message in itself. Football fans have generally reacted one of the two following ways. One, Le’Veon Bell has every right a demand more money and sit out. Man’s gotta eat right? Or two, Le’Veon is a greedy child who is wasting his talent, hurting his team, and squandering his opportunity to play in the NFL. Fans received the message Le’Veon left on the field—or I guess I should say didn’t leave on the field—and have contrasting reactions because they either agree or disagree with the speaker based on their viewpoints. Interestingly, those who have supported Le’Veon’s decision have generally been rich professional athletes, believing he has the right to get a high return on his high field performance. Those who disagree are your common middle-class sports fans, who see his active lucrative $14 million salary and view his efforts as childish.
MATTHEW 6:21
“For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”
To filter this situation through a biblical worldview, we have to go back to Matthew 6:21. If Le’Veon’s made football the desire of his heart, he would be on the field contributing to His team’s success. Le’Veon actually explains this best himself. Let’s take a look at an old tweet of his, shall we?
Hmmmm… this aged well.
Funny enough, the Steelers replacement for their vagabond running back—namely James Conner—has been a rather suitable and I would argue equivalent substitute for Le’Veon Bell. He is on pace to oust Le’Veon in both yards and touchdowns. To compare this to the Christain walk, the Lord tells us through the Apostle Paul in Romans 8:28 that He calls people to carry out His will on earth; however, we are often blinded by desires of our heart that contradict the desires of God. These distractions hinder us from allowing God to use our earthly lives to further His kingdom. Though, the Lord makes it clear in Scripture that he is sovereign and that His will shall be carried out, even if He must use the next-man-up mentality. So in a world full of Le’Veon Bells, be a James Conner, and take the opportunity to serve Christ in areas that others fail.
P.S.
If any NFL general managers are reading this: Don’t pick up Le’Veon in free agency. Save your cap space for someone else.
Wanda is a genetically enhanced orphan from the fictional Eastern Europe country of Sokovia which, of course, warrants a thick accent. Her first appearance in Avengers: 
Wanda’s adaption would fall under the convergence strategy because she is becoming more similar to those around her by modifying her tone of speech. The adaptation might also be symbolic of Wanda repenting from her former life as a bitter orphan and becoming a loving member of the Avengers family.
While communication adaptation might be prevalent in the movie characters, does Marvel also use accommodation to gain approval and increase their audience? My opinion? Not consciously. If Marvel wanted to reach more audiences, they would significantly deviate from the comics. While the comics and movies are separate entities for sure, all twenty movies to date use homegrown plots from the mother comics. An argument could be made for Black Panther (2018), but that movie reached more people because of African representation, not because Marvel modified the character or plotline. By staying true to the comics, Marvel is appealing to their fanbase; anything less than the comic standards would send most fans into turmoil and rioting worse than Philadelphia sports fans.
While it is plainly obvious these characters will be revived in the next Avengers movie, Marvel took the opportunity to distinguish themselves from other studios by taking a bold risk to shock their audience and subvert expectations.
The uses and gratification theory transition from answering the question of what media does to people to what people do with media. While the effect of media fluctuates between different people, the theory seeks to understand why people consume media, believing they need for gratification to be the driving motivation. However, media isn’t the only time-consuming source of gratification. Also, the theory analyzes the tug of war between media and non-media for your attention and time. 
So, if this theory does hold weight, then the audience must be analyzed. What reasons do people engage with Marvel movies for? What aspects of these movies does the audience find gratification in? Why are Marvel movies a preferred form of media?
First, let’s tackle a few of the reasons why people might find gratification with Marvel movies. First, all the movies feature intense, well-choreographed action. Unless sitting at a desk or 7 o’clock Wheel of Fortune is enough excitement for some people, the vast majority of us most likely do not have much action happen in our lives. But no matter how much action we have or lack in our lives, we all crave it. It’s why we slow down to rubberneck when we see an accident on the side of the road. This need is fulfilled by superhero movies because nothing cures an action craving like superheroes throwing shields and lightning blasts at bad guys.
We value love because we are created in God’s image; the Bible explicitly refers to God as the physical embodiment of love. Jesus’ greatest commandment was even a call to love. Romance in any movie suffices our need for love by witnessing the emotion through characters as we form an attachment to them.
The media ecology theory was developed on the premise that social and personal environments are dramatically altered by electronic media. The theory strives to explain how people interact with media and how those interactions sculpt our culture. As technology develops, the symbolic environment—the socially constructed, sensory world of meanings that in turn shapes our perceptions, experiences, attitudes, and behavior—changes. While we have been conditioned to perceive the delivered message as separate from the medium, media ecologists see them as the same entity. Using this theory, we will analyze the medium of Marvel movies, the level of engagement with the medium, and how media has affected individuals engaging with these films.
First, let’s determine the medium of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Before we get started, let’s define the word medium. Not quite the same as the McDonald’s french fry size or the math term, this kind of medium is a specific type of media. Because Marvel releases its content in the form of movies sent to theaters, our medium is film. 
Specifically, one message that we discussed last week was that it is always right to fight for what you believe in regardless of the perception or potential resentment of others. Marvel fans widely embraced this message; the proof is in their response to the movie. Instead of dividing the fanbase in half as a civil war should, fans walked out of the theater generally respecting both characters decisions because they were both acting on what they believed was right, even though they both executed differently. 
One particular behavior Marvel has conditioned its audience to normalize is sitting through endless credits for a mere thirty-second scene. After every Marvel film to date, at least one post-credit scene—usually containing content like easter eggs or glimpses of future movies—airs. 
This week we will use our theory to analyze the film Captain America: Civil War (2016). In a year where three separate superhero film franchises released a movie featuring the good guys in the middle of a civil war, Marvel stands out from the rest by directly including “Civil War” in the movie title. The movie centralizes on the relationship between Iron Man and Captain America. The two Avengers find themselves in the middle of a feud when the United Nations decide to sign an accord requiring the superheroes to take action only under the authority of the government instead of their own discernment. 
While Iron Man believes the Avengers should be above reproach by allowing the government to regulate and take responsibility for the Avengers’ actions, Captain America wholeheartedly disagrees. Cap rebels against the government believing that the United Nations are not trustworthy and that the Avengers are more capable of handling crisis situations. By the end of the movie, Cap has recruited the fallen angels of the Avengers, become a fugitive of the United States government by escaping to Scottland, and left Iron Man and the remainder of the heroes with the guilt of the team’s division.
While the dispute between these two beloved characters splintered the hearts of fans, Marvel successfully communicated a message that persuaded the whole of the fanbase. Marvel was able to persuade their audience because they found common ground. Many of us have gone through a situation where we were faced with the decision of compromising our beliefs when clashing with someone of a different mindset. 
The most frequent occurrence of this is between parent and rebellious teenagers. Through Captain America: Civil War, Marvel encourages fans to stand up for what they believe in, even if it means sacrificing everything. Cap acted on what he thought was right for the protection of the earth, but in turn, he sacrificed his mantle and his vibranium shield; Iron Man stood up for what he believed to be fairest for innocent citizens but lost the team he had created.
.
This past April, Marvel released a lesser-known film called Avengers: Infinity War. Absolutely kidding. This movie raked in almost two billion dollars. The studio’s most ambitious film yet, Infinity War featured over 50 characters from the previous 19 films. Specifically, the couple Tony Stark and Pepper Potts were featured at the beginning of the movie. Ten total years and six movies together, this duo has become wildly popular within Marvel’s audience members. I am the first to admit that I am entertained by Tony and Pepper and have been rooting for their relationship since the first Iron Man came out in 2008. In Infinity War, the characters share a scene walking through a public park in New York City. During their stroll, Tony turns to Pepper and tells her about his dream the prior night; he dreams that he and Pepper had a child. Tony goes on to propose that the couple makes the dream a reality, but Pepper quickly silences the issue, saying that his high-risk job of saving the world makes him ineligible to be a father. While I was sitting in the theater, I found myself imagining the couple raising a child and found myself in full support of the idea. I mean, babies are cute right? It was not too long after when I realized that my support of their proposed parenthood did not align with my beliefs.
Ant-Man, the most light-hearted of the superheroes, is well… let’s just say we’re glad that he isn’t really defending the earth because unless the villain can be defeated with Guitar Hero, we might be in trouble.
Upon release from prison, Scott attempts to visit Cassie unannounced at her birthday party and is kicked out of his ex-wife, Maggie’s house upon arrival, but not before being chastised for failing to provide child support. Already, we see a contradiction between Scott and Cassie’s mother. Scott sees his love for Cassie as a sufficient reason for him to be allowed to visit his daughter, but Maggie demands that he put his love into action by finding work to help raise their child.
Luis hears of a loaded safe inside a rich retired man’s house and encourages Scott to help him loot it. Now torn between wanting to be a better man and wanting to provide for her, Scott gets desperate and decides to give in to his thieving ways. In this situation, Scott is struggling with an internal contradiction. He knows that reverting back to crime is not something his daughter can be proud of, but views the costs of getting caught and feeling guilty inferior to the benefits of being able to provide for his daughter.
In Captain America: Civil War (2016), Ant-Man gets recruited by Steve Rodgers, a.k.a. Captain America, to join his resistance against Iron Man’s team amid a feud that splits the Avengers down the middle. But, this is not just any feud; this one has legal implications. Scott Lang once again finds himself pitted against the law. He either rejects Cap’s offer and avoids more time behind bars, or he accepts the offer and risks the safety of his friends and losing the ability to see his daughter again. In the end, Scott allows his newly found superhero complex to control him as he decides to suit up as Ant-Man to fight and in turn realizes the weight of the costs, receiving two years of house arrest and causing the arrest of his girlfriend’s family.
Because God created us in His image, we have a law of morals written on our hearts. These laws conflict with our sinful nature and cause us to struggle between different choices. In addition to an internal contradiction, different people have different worldviews that influence their values and goals. Whether between friends or family, the diversity of worldviews causes tension in relationships. I believe that my niche is popular in pop culture because Marvel movies highlight this human struggle both within ourselves and between others. Because we relate, we can easily connect with characters on-screen who play tug-of-war with themselves or others. Specifically, with the character Scott Lang, we see his internal and external tensions and how they affected his decisions. In the end, we all struggle with contradictions and seeing characters succeed in the midst of them gives us hope.
Going back to the beginning of their relationship in Thor (2011), we see the brothers in a golden palace room before Thor’s coronation to be king of Asgard in. The brothers exchange lighthearted banter, and then Thor makes an interesting statement in response to a compliment Loki gave to Thor. “You are incapable of sincerity.” Right off the bat, we see a flaw in the brother’s communication. Judging Thor’s doubtful reaction to Loki’s compliment, we as an audience receive the message that Loki is not often vulnerable which will be expounded upon throughout the films.
Later in the movie, Loki is told the words no child wants to hear: you’re adopted, and oh, yeah, you’re real father is the overlord of an evil planet. Loki has been living a lie of a life for over 1,000 years, and he does not react calmly. The character goes on to plan the extinction of an entire planet. Specifically, the planet of evil frost giants that he is from in an attempt to destroy his true identity and earn his father’s respect. This misguided attempt of heroism creates a chasm between Loki and Thor’s relationship as the characters soon become a symbol of good versus evil.
While Loki never loses his love for Thor, he makes a conscious effort to conceal his feelings and quickly develops a habitual talent of masking his emotion. But deep down, Loki is terrified of Thor’s indifference to him and wishes that Thor can accept him as his brother again despite his mistakes.
Two Thor films, six years and two faked deaths later, Loki is still unwilling to be vulnerable. He is not willing to risk the costs of self-disclosure for the potential benefits of the relationship. That is until his greatest fear comes true. Loki realizes that his brother has grown indifferent to him. Thor’s comments cause Loki to realize that the costs of being vulnerable are far less than not having his brother at all.
After the cosmic invasions of the first Avengers, Tony Stark (a.k.a. Iron Man) is in a long-term limbo between house parties and PTSD attacks. He is terrified that if extraterrestrials or Norse gods return, the Avengers will not be able to defend earth. Tony’s fear becomes a paralytic and causes him to plan a domestic, global defense system named Ultron, a nearly indestructible army of bots. When the team captures a powerful scepter, capable of cognitive thinking, from an enemy base, Tony uses the scepter to program his bots.
While Tony thought he was creating the earth’s savior, he accidentally created her exterminator. You see, Tony programmed Ultron with the goal of “ending the Avengers”, but the word ending can be taken multiple ways. In modern English, we use the word “end” to mean many different things of both positive and negative connotation including a conclusion, termination, running out of, and to kill. By “end”, Tony meant to speak a more powerful hero into existence, one who could adequately protect the earth from any more harm and was more effective than the Avengers; however, Ultron interpreted his protocol to be on the other end of the spectrum.
Ultron took the threat to create an even more extreme protocol. Would the world even be safe if humans were the only threat to the planet? Ultron twisted the faults of man to the point of wanting to exterminate mankind in its entirety. The only way to protect the earth was to protect it from all life, showing that he did not believe there was value to humans. Even though humans desire peace on their planet, they were still hopeless, and that was not honorable to Ultron.
Marvelous 