I guess my need to write this was kicked off by my intrigue at an online article titled, “Disney is only paying comics creators $5,000 for work it’s adapted for billions”.

During an interview with the Guardian, comic book writer Ed Brubaker states “For the most part, all Steve and I have got for creating the Winter Soldier and his storyline is a ‘thanks’ here or there, and over the years that’s become harder and harder to live with… I have a great life as a writer and much of it is because of Cap and the Winter Soldier bringing so many readers to my other work. But, I also can’t deny feeling a bit sick to my stomach sometimes when my inbox fills up with people wanting comments on the show”. To top it off, Brubaker stated he wasn’t actually invited to the premiere events of Captain America: The Winter Soldier either. That’s very sad, unnecessary and shameful. It’s shameful that the artists and creative minds behind the thing that’s being loved is causing some kind of inner conflict due to a lack of recognition, despite the global platform Disney have. Recognition can be presented in many ways: not just being on the end credits as an individual who has provided a service, but to ensure that its successes are not unbalanced to the creators in favour of those who produce the movie. It’s widely known that they don’t even want to pay their leading actors a ‘fair share’ either – most recently, Scarlett Johansson proved this to be the case when she took Disney to court over a pay dispute. Don Rosa is another example of how poorly Disney treat their staff. He is a comic book writer and illustrator, best known for Donald Duck and Scrooge McDuck. In 1989, Rosa ceased work at Duck comics because Disney did not allow for the return of original art for a story to its creators. Cough, cough, intellectual property, cough, cough. This is not dissimilar to Tim Burton’s experience working at Disney too, concerning the adaptation of Tim Burton’s The Nightmare Before Christmas. A 1993 documentary featuring Tim Burton provides a behind-the-scenes look at the making of the movie, details the constraints of making the stop-motion picture and the lack of involvement from Tim Burton in the production process at the hands of Disney.

Whilst researching Marvel deals and contracts, I ended up learning a lot more about the United States government than intended for some reason. Not that I’m complaining about free knowledge. The DOD (US Department of Defence) has long had an arrangement that, if a producer wants to feature actual US military equipment in their movie, the department will provide them funding and resources in exchange for strict military portrayal. It’s funny how dresses, shoes, endless merchandise can be supplied to filmmakers in order contribute to culture in a non transactional way. For example, I’m sure a fashion designer would not withhold providing a piece in order to showcase abilities and talents, regardless of how said item is used in how ever many scenes. I doubt that if Manolo Blahnik provided a free pair of shoes to an actress for a movie, specific portrayal of the shoes would not be required, all that is included in the transaction is that the shoe is seen on the specific person and gets air time. Sure, it’s transactional to a degree as the piece of clothing is given in exchange for something else, in this case, to provide a platform for the artists creation in order to gain a larger audience, and maybe increase sales along the way – but that fashion designer isn’t a government entity who’s main directive is to ensure compliance and law enforcement. That’s the difference: power and influence. Why do you even want a strict portrayal of real life things in a completely made-up movie, which the plot does not require, or anything else related to the movie.

It’s not a secret that Marvel has partnered with the US government countless times already: the US military in all three Iron Man movies, the US Air Force in Captain Marvel, Wandavision and the FBI, with ‘special thanks’ to The Pentagon in the show’s end credits. CBR reported that a significant portion of marketing for Captain Marvel, involved “cross promotion with the United States military, in this case the Air Force.” Here’s a short excerpt of an article posted in 2018 from Air Force Times, “But it is still unmistakably an Air Force film. Scenes of Danvers in a hangar and on a flightline were filmed at Edwards Air Force Base, Disney said. The F-15Cs in those scenes were flown in from the California Air National Guard’s 144th Fighter Wing, which is based in Fresno. And a flashback to Danvers’ days on the Air Force Academy obstacle course, filmed at a park in Culver City, California, looks close enough to pass for the woods of Jacks Valley in Colorado Springs, Colorado.”. A 55 second promotional video for Captain Marvel that was released in February 2019 focuses just as much on the Air Force as it does on Brie Larson, the main character, which was extremely intentional. For such a short promo video, you expect the storyline they are portraying to take precedence over everything – whereas, as time has been allocated for a specific, direct emphasis on portraying the US military in a certain light, I was wondering which was which and what that looked like. I found myself questioning, “well, how do I know which moments are a direct enforcement of contractually obligating to paint the US gov in a specific light, and which is just the movie? Where do the lines stop?”.

The first Independence Day (1996) was rejected for military support, due to including Area 51 in the plot. The beauty of hindsight reveals its kind of telling that the powers that be were so tight about the upkeep of the secrecy around Area 51 in ‘96, when during a global pandemic of 2020, The Pentagon confirmed that a navy task force reviewed 144 Unidentified Flying Object sightings by government personnel occurred between 2004 and 2021 (extremely casually to a preoccupied nation of people, I might add).

Another example: Stranger Things was originally named Montauk (stemmed from the Montauk Project), until the US government intercepted, all of a sudden it was re-named to what we know it to be now, Stranger Things. The show’s original concept was to be set at a base in Long Island, where the alleged government experiment ‘the montauk project’ took place, before the location was changed to the fictional town, Hawkins. If you didn’t know, Stranger Things is heavily inspired by the CIA-funded project MK Ultra which introduced psychological manipulation through drugs and the mind control experiments from the Montauk Project. With all of this knowledge, piece by piece, can it therefore be argued that this issue within our movies is a political issue, too? It is one thing for the US government to collaborate with Hollywood producers, in exchange for a specific portrayal of a government branch/organisation for the global audience – but for a significant proportion of Captain Marvel’s marketing solely focusing on the US military is somewhat sinister in itself. Let’s speak hypothetically: even if Americans loved law enforcement and were pro-police (btw – who does and who is?) the level of input and influence on the media we consume is still questionable. I have been a fan of the Marvel franchise for well over 10 years now. I’ve only recently discovered, or it’s become known to me, that they are essentially in cahoots with projecting a certain government image, if beneficial to their movie. There’s something that is so sour about that. It seems a bit sell-out-ish. It’s not as if Disney is short of money.

“Yes, of course you can use our super cool public funded planes, but you gotta make the government look cool, man!”.

That is essentially as cynical and egotistical as Donald Trump’s conditional offer of allowing the filming of Home Alone 2 at his hotel, unless they gave him a cameo. Why can’t the planes be shown off for the benefit of a movie and contributing to culture, considering what they’re really used for – being fighter jets. Come on! They can’t even look at the bigger picture here, is what annoys me about this situation. The US government, with its vast amount of resources can’t even supply public funded jets for a movie set, for one day, in order to contribute to society, culture, artistry, to give back to the citizens by use of their funds spent in the form of a fighter jet to be used for art and not war, just for one day… No, it has to be advantageous for the government, that power element coming in to play again: they won’t allow access to their super cool technology (again, public funded technology) without the need to influence in yet more ways. Does everything have to have an agenda? Is everything about control? Controlling an image? Is it not beyond the US government to benefit from tourism and revenue the movie will generate, alongside notable credibility, in exchange for allowing some jets being recorded for an adaptation of a comic book?

On the topic of agendas – it has recently came to light that Disney donated money to every sponsor and co-sponsor of the “Don’t Say Gay” Bill, which backs anti-gay legislation by prohibiting discussions about sexual orientation or gender identify” in Florida’s primary schools. Ok Disney, you’re happy with shoving a pro-military, pro-government stance down a child’s throat, yet said children are unable to have classroom discussions in an educational environment regarding the human body, human relationships and love. The ignorance and utter ugliness of the fact that Disney have an established rainbow collection too, where the product descriptions boast about the product bringing pride. You really couldn’t write it at this point.

I wish it was as clear as day that the US government essentially influences certain messages in our beloved, box-office smashing Superhero movies: the idea behind it is to ultimately strengthen a ‘pro-American’ stance around the globe and at home, otherwise why would they request to be shown in a specific way? If that wasn’t the case, they would provide with no strings attached.

If you pair that alongside the fact that there is a billion dollar industry specifically with the goal of having young Americans sign up to serve their country: the NRA attend schools, colleges, universities, career days… It seems as though a pro-American stance is enforced in almost every aspect of life for American kids, especially. Think about it so simply. Kids loves superhero’s. The intended target audience for a typical Marvel movie are comic book lovers, which are stereotypically aimed at children, teens, young adults.

When you arrive at school, you sing the national anthem with your fellow class mates, then, you attend stalls at higher education/career days that promote signing up for the military and other defence branches. Later, when you are home from school, you watch your favourite Marvel movie, indirectly influencing the military appeal even more… it shouldn’t be that nefarious, but it feels it. Doesn’t it?

I suppose my entire point is, why do you want to influence our movies? Even if an entirely imaginary and fake depiction of US forces was something the US government did not necessary like, or was not beneficial (in some way) to said country – so what? It’s a movie… A Superhero movie that has a space raccoon, gem stones that control time and a talking tree that plays video games! Last time I checked, the American government prided themselves on being ‘the land of the free’. Doesn’t sound so free to me.