popular culture

We’re still tasting the spice of 1960s sci-fi

Rachel Sauer — Fri, 29 Aug 2025 13:00:00 +0000

We’re still tasting the spice of 1960s sci-fi Rachel Sauer Fri, 08/29/2025 - 07:00

Bradley Worrell

With this month marking Dune’s 60th anniversary, ��’s Benjamin Robertson discusses the book’s popular appeal while highlighting the dramatic changes science fiction experienced following its publication

Sixty years ago this month, a novel about a galactic battle over a desert planet valued for its mystical spice forever altered the face of science fiction.

Authored by Frank Herbert, Dune would go on to sell more than 20 million copies, be translated into more than 20 languages and become one of the bestselling science fiction novels of all time, spawning several sequels and movie adaptions that have further boosted its popularity.

Benjamin Robertson, a �� associate professor of English, pursues a research and teaching focus on genre fiction.

In retrospect, it’s hard to quantify how important Dune was to the genre of science fiction, says Benjamin Robertson, a �� Department of English associate professor whose areas of specialty includes contemporary literature and who teaches a science fiction class. That’s because the status Dune attained, along with other popular works at the time, helped transition science fiction from something that was primarily found in specialty magazines to a legitimate genre within the world of book publishing, he says.

Robertson says a number of factors made Dune a remarkable book upon its publication in August 1965, including Herbert’s elaborate world building; its deep philosophical exploration of religion, politics and ecology; and the fact that its plot was driven by its characters rather than by technology. Additionally, the book tapped into elements of 1960s counterculture with its focus on how consuming a spice harvested on the planet Arrakis could allow users to experience mystical visions and enhance their consciousness, Robertson says.

Journey beyond Arrakis with a different kind of dune

“There’s also the element of the chosen one narrative in the book, which is appealing to at least a certain segment of the culture,” he says. The book’s protagonist, Paul Atreides, suffers a great loss and endures many trials before emerging as the leader who amasses power and dethrones the established authorities, he notes.

While Dune found commercial success by blending many different story elements and themes in a new way that engaged readers, it’s worthwhile to consider the book in relation to other works of science fiction being produced in the 1960s, Robertson says. It was during that turbulent time that a new generation of writers emerged, creating works very different from their predecessors in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, which is often considered the Golden Age of Science Fiction.

Whereas many Golden Age science fiction writers tended to set their tales in outer space, to make technology the focus of their stories and to embrace the idea that human know-how could overcome nearly any obstacle, Robertson says many science fiction writers in the 1960s looked to reinvent the genre.

“The 1960s is probably when, for me personally, I feel like science fiction gets interesting,” he says. “I’m not a big fan of what’s called the Golden Age of Science Fiction—the fiction of Asimov or Heinlein. The ‘60s is interesting because of what’s going on culturally, with the counterculture, with student protests and the backlash to the conformities of the 1950s.”

New Wave sci-fi writers make their mark

In 1960s Great Britain, in particular, writers for New Worlds science fiction magazine came to be associated with the term New Wave, which looked inward to examine human psychology and motivations while also tackling topics like sexuality, gender roles and drug culture.

“This new generation of writers grew up reading science fiction, but they were dissatisfied with both the themes and the way it was written,” Robertson says. “One of the New World’s most notable writers, J.G. Ballard, talked about shifting away from, quote-unquote, outer space to inner space.

“That dovetailed with other writers who weren’t necessarily considered New Wave but were writing soft science fiction that was not focused on technology itself—such as space ships and time travel—but more about exploring the impact of technologies on humanity and on how it changes our relationship with the planet, the solar system and how we relate to each other.”

New Wave authors also wrote about world-ending catastrophes, including nuclear war and ecological degradation. Meanwhile, many British New Wave writers were not afraid to be seen as iconoclasts who challenged established religious and political norms.

“Michael Moorcock, the editor of New Worlds, self-identified as an anarchist, and Ballard was exemplary for challenging authority in his works. He was not just interested in saying, ‘This form of government is bad or compromised, or capitalism is bad, but actually the way we convey those ideas has been compromised,’” Robertson says. “It wasn’t enough for him to identify those systems that are oppressing us; Ballard argued we have to describe them in ways that estranges those ideas.

“And that’s what science fiction classically does—it estranges us. It shows us our world in some skewed manner, because it’s extrapolating from here to the future and imagining …what might a future look like that we couldn’t anticipate, based upon the situation we are in now.”

American science fiction writers might not have pushed the boundaries quite as far their British counterparts, Robertson says, but counterculture ideas found expression in some literature of the time. He points specifically to Harlan Ellison, author of the post-apocalyptic short story “I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream,” who also served as editor of the sci-fi anthology Dangerous Visions, a collection of short stories that were notable for their depiction of sex in science fiction.

Robertson says other American sci-fi writers of the time who embraced elements of the counterculture include Robert Heinlein, whose Stranger in a Strange Land explored the concept of free love, and Philip K. Dick, who addressed the dangers of authority and capitalism in some of his works and whose stories sometimes explored drug use, even as the author was taking illicit drugs to maintain his prolific output.

“Dune definitely broke out into the mainstream—and the fact that Hollywood is continuing to produce movies based upon the book today says something about its staying power,” says �� scholar Benjamin Robertson.

Meanwhile, Robertson notes that science fiction during the 1960s saw a more culturally diverse group of writers emerge, including Ursula K. Le Guin, the feminist author of such works as The Left Hand of Darkness and The Lathe of Heaven; Madeliene L’Engle, known for her work A Wrinkle in Time; and some lesser-known but still influential writers such as Samuel R. Delaney, one of the first African American and queer science fiction authors, known for his works Babel-17 and Nova.

At the same time, even authors from behind eastern Europe’s Iron Curtain were gaining recognition in the West, including Stanislaw Lem of Poland, author of the novel Solaris, and brothers Arkady and Boris Strugatsky in the Soviet Union, authors of the novella Ashes of Bikini and many short stories.

Impact of 1960s sci-fi remains long lasting

As the 1960s and 1970s gave way to the 1980s, a new sci-fi genre started to take hold: Cyberpunk. Sharing elements with New Wave, Cyberpunk is a dystopian science fiction subgenre combining advanced technology, including artificial intelligence, with societal collapse.

Robertson says the 1984 debut of William Gibson’s book Neuromancer is widely recognized as a foundational work of Cyberpunk.

While works of 1960s science fiction are now more than five decades old, Robertson says many of them generally have held up well over time.

“Dune definitely broke out into the mainstream—and the fact that Hollywood is continuing to produce movies based upon the book today says something about its staying power,” he says. “I think the works of Ursula K. Le Guin, particularly the Left Hand of Darkness, is a great read and a lot of fun to teach. And Philip K. Dick is always capable of shocking you, not with gore or sex but just with narrative twists and turns.”

If anything, Dick is actually more popular today than when he was writing his books and short stories back in the 1960s, Robertson says, pointing to the fact that a number of them have been made into films—most notably Minority Report and Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (which was re-titled Blade Runner).

“At the same time, I think one of the dangers of science fiction is thinking what was written in the 1960s somehow predicts what happens later,” Robertson says. “It can look that way. But, as someone who values historicism, I think it’s important to think about cultural objects in the time they were produced. So, the predictions that Philip K. Dick was making were based upon the knowledge he had in the 1960s, so saying what happened in the 1980s is what he predicted in the 1960s isn’t strictly accurate, because what was happening in the 1980s was coming out of a very different understanding of science, of politics and of technology.

“What I always ask people to remember about science fiction is that it’s about more than the time that it’s written about—it’s about what the future could be, not about what the future actually becomes.”

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to our newsletter. Passionate about English? Show your support.

With this month marking Dune’s 60th anniversary, ��’s Benjamin Robertson discusses the book’s popular appeal while highlighting the dramatic changes science fiction experienced following its publication.

Traditional

White

Top illustration: Gary Jamroz-Palma

ESPN launches a new era

Rachel Sauer — Thu, 21 Aug 2025 23:08:07 +0000

ESPN launches a new era Rachel Sauer Thu, 08/21/2025 - 17:08

Jared Bahir Browsh

Launching a new direct-to-consumer service this week and inking a recent deal to control NFL Media, ESPN continues evolving as the dominant force in sports media

On August 5, ESPN and the National Football League agreed to a deal giving ESPN control of NFL Media in exchange for a 10% stake in the sports network and media corporation. The next day, ESPN announced the deal with World Wrestling Entertainment to stream its premium events, including Wrestlemania.

There had been rumors for several years that Disney was looking to offload its sports network due to rising sports media rights expenses and challenges from streaming platforms. Tech companies like Apple and Amazon and internet providers including Comcast and Verizon were mentioned as potential partners.

The network, which is valued in the $25 billion to$30 billion range, ultimately turned its attention to partnering with a sports organization, moving forward with the NFL over other leagues, including the National Basketball Association.

Jared Bahir Browsh is the Critical Sports Studies program director in the �� Department of Ethnic Studies.

Over the last year and a half, ESPN took down its “for sale” sign and dug in its heels—first partnering with Penn Entertainment and lending its name to the betting app ESPN Bet, which launched in November 2023. A year later, ESPN enabled users to link their ESPN Bet account with ESPN+, allowing users to gamble while watching sporting events.

In February 2024, ESPN announced a joint venture with Fox Sports and TNT Sports, a streaming service known as Venu Sports. Venu was ultimately abandoned after FuboTV, a sports streaming service, filed an antitrust lawsuit. Disney eventually bought 70% of FuboTV, ending the lawsuit in January 2025.

In July 2024, ESPN renewed its partnership with the NBA, joining Amazon and NBC as broadcasters of the basketball league. In November, ESPN announced that it acquired Inside the NBA, the popular show that had aired on TNT since 1989 and featured commentators Charles Barkley, Shaquille O’Neal and Kenny Smith.

In May, ESPN announced it would launch its own direct-to-consumer service, officially signaling that its cable network would no longer be the center of its media empire. ESPN leaders turned their attention to streaming at a time when Apple, Google and Amazon have been attempting to leverage sports to increase their influence in the digital media environment. Shortly after the NFL deal, they announced a partnership to bundle ESPN and Fox One after Venu was abandoned.

A legacy of innovation

ESPN and the American Broadcasting Company have been at the forefront of innovation in sportscasting, their legacies inextricably linked when ABC purchased ESPN in 1984.

ABC launched as a radio network in 1943 when Edward Noble, the owner of Life Savers, purchased the Blue Network from NBC after the FCC recommended that RCA sell either its Red or Blue Network to promote competition in broadcasting. ABC was thought of as the “third network” behind the much larger NBC and CBS, so ABC took some programming risks to compete with the other two networks, including airing taped counterprogramming on radio in 1948 when the other networks refused to air pre-taped shows.ABC aired the 1948 NFL championship and began airing NFL regular season games in 1953. The sports production company Sports Programs, Inc., founded by TV executive and producer Edward Scherick, approached ABC about airing a weekly Saturday baseball game during the 1953 season titled “Game of the Week.” In 1955, CBS purchased the program after first balking at it two years earlier.

In 1954, ABC agreed to provide funding for Disneyland in exchange for a primetime program, Disneyland, which was later renamed the Wonderful World of Disney, forging a relationship that continues today with ABC as a subsidiary of the media giant. The network continued to think outside the box for programming, nationally broadcasting a local Philadelphia music and dance show, Bandstand (renamed American Bandstand), starting in 1957. ABC also gained audiences by airing westerns—shows like The Lone Ranger and Davy Crockett, the latter of which aired as a serial on Disneyland and became a pop culture phenomenon.

The early 1960s were a turning point for ABC as the network continued to work with partners and think outside the box for programming. In February 1960, it purchased Sports Programs, Inc. which became ABC Sports with Scherick heading up the new sports division. In June 1960, ABC purchased the rights to air American Football League games as the upstart league launched to compete with the NFL. The deal became a template for future sports media rights deals as the revenue was shared with all franchises in the AFL; the NFL followed suit in 1961. This led to the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 that allowed leagues to bargain collectively on behalf of their teams, rather than a piecemeal set of deals for individual teams and with the league for championships and all-star games. Before the act, it was against antitrust laws to pool rights contracts in sports.

Drag racer Don Nicholson gives an interview to Wide World of Sports in 1966. (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)

Three months after the AFL deal, ABC Sports broadcasted college football for the first time—a matchup between the University of Alabama and the University of Georgia played at Alabama. As ABC prepared for the game, a young production assistant, Roone Arledge, sent a memo to Scherick outlining strategies to attract casual fans to their sports broadcasts and grow female audiences for sports. The broadcast was a success and Arledge continued to help ABC leverage sports to compete with NBC and CBS

Two weeks after the first college football broadcast, ABC took a chance and aired the first regularly scheduled primetime animated program, debuting The Flintstones on Sept. 30. In early 1961, ABC signed a deal with the Amateur Athletic Union (AAU) to air track and field and other amateur events. Although there was not a huge demand for track and field coverage, Scherick and Arledge felt that people enjoyed watching games, and ABC could edit the broadcast to make it more entertaining. Since the track and field results were not widely known, they could also delay broadcast until the scheduled airtime on the weekend.

The deal with the AAU became the foundation for the program ABC’s Wide World of Sports, which debuted in April 1961, drawing audiences that embraced the drama of “the thrill of victory and agony of defeat.” It was a direct competitor to The CBS Sports Spectacular, which debuted in 1960 and featured events like NASCAR races and boxing matches.

ABC’s Wide World of Sports was a forum to test new sports programming, including college basketball, when ABC aired the NCAA Championship the day after it was played on March 24, 1962. Also in 1962, the anthology series featured events from the Professional Bowlers Association along with the Daytona 500. Two years later, the NBA was featured on Wide World of Sports as Arledge continued to seek engaging live sports programming. After a 1964 fly fishing segment on Wide World of Sports with broadcaster Curt Gowdy and fisherman Joe Brooks, Arledge created the anthology program The American Sportsman in 1965, an unscripted program featuring athletes and celebrities participating in outdoor sports.

Arledge recognized that diehard sports fans would watch their favorite sports regardless of the production elements, but casual fans were attracted to the narratives and human interest featured in Wide World of Sports and other programming from ABC Sports, which continues to be the template for sports broadcasting today. After watching videotape of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Arledge felt that instantly replaying sports action could contribute to this storytelling and explain the game to casual viewers. Although instant replay debuted in the United States during the Army-Navy Game on CBS in 1963, Arledge would soon leverage the technology to show the intricacies of football, helping casual audiences better understand the game and contributing to football’s rise as the most popular sport in the United States.

In 1964, Arledge first broadcast the Winter Olympic Games, obtaining the contract from CBS. ABC first broadcast the Summer Games in 1968 and would continue to broadcast the Summer Games for the next 20 years, with Wide World of Sports airing many of the qualifying events for both the Summer and Winter games. These broadcasts included Tommie Smith and John Carlos protesting during the medal ceremony after they won gold and bronze, respectively in the 200 meter race and the massacre in Munich in 1972. The latter event led to a closer relationship between sports and journalism, and was a turning point for Arledge who would become the first executive to oversee both a network sports and news division where he created ABC World News Tonight, Nightline and 20/20.

NFL commissioner Pete Rozelle had been looking for a way to air NFL games in primetime but was banned from Friday and Saturday night airtime since the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 protected Friday high school games and Saturday college football games from being overshadowed by NFL broadcasts. Between 1966 and 1969, CBS and NBC experimented with Monday night broadcasts of the NFL and AFL respectively. With the upcoming merger between the leagues and ABC’s weak Monday primetime schedule, ABC agreed to air a weekly game, creating Monday Night Football.

Throughout the 1970s and early 1980s, Arledge continued to take chances—with varied results—including Monday Night Baseball, which suffered from a limited choice of games during baseball’s travel days. In 1976, ABC began broadcasting the North American Soccer League as soccer exploded in popularity when Pele began playing in the league in 1975. ABC obtained exclusive rights in 1979, but interest in the league began declining the following year.

Finding a home on cable

Among the first ESPN anchors were Robin Roberts (left), Chris Berman (center) and Tom Jackson (right). (Photo: ESPN Images)

After being fired as communications director for the New England Whalers hockey team, Bill Rasmussen, his son Scott and Ed Eagan, an eye doctor and insurance agent, looked to create a regional sports network in Connecticut. When they discovered it would be cheaper to launch a national cable network over satellite, they established the Entertainment and Sports Programming Network on Sept. 7, 1979, supported by an investment from Getty Oil, which obtained 85% of the network and an advertising deal with Anheuser-Busch. Many felt there was not enough sports programming to fill 24 hours a day, but the network began airing sports and events that bigger broadcast networks thought were too niche, including the early rounds of the 1980 NCAA Basketball Tournament—launching what is now known as March Madness—and the 1982 FIFA World Cup with ABC airing the final.

In 1981, ABC SportsBeat, hosted by Howard Cosell, debuted and brought hard-hitting sports journalism, which previously had been exclusive to print journalism, to television. Although the show was not highly rated, it was one of the first on television to investigate issues like drugs and violence in sports. In 1983, the program produced a 30-minute documentary previewing the 1984 Summer Games in Los Angeles, which was critical of the Olympics’ impact and was one of the first to question the long-term feasibility of the games despite the fact that ABC had spent $225 million to broadcast them.

After Texaco bought Getty Oil in 1984, the company sold its controlling stake in ESPN to ABC, which further legitimized the cable network as a sports broadcaster. ABC had previously purchased 15% of the network before buying the remaining 85% from Texaco then selling a 20% stake to Nabisco. ESPN was able to leverage ABC’s position as a broadcast network to expand its media rights. Later that year, the Supreme Court ruled in NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma that the NCAA’s control of college football broadcast rights was an unfair restriction on competition. ABC and ESPN quickly signed a deal with the College Football Association, which represented many of the top programs outside of the Big 10 and Pac 10.

Also that fall, the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 was passed, establishing national regulation of cable and helping calm tensions between municipalities wanting to protect local media and cable providers. The act helped facilitate an expansive growth of cable, making ESPN and other cable networks available in municipalities that had previously blocked or limited cable service. In 1987, ESPN debuted Sunday Night Football, which further cemented ESPN as a legitimate competitor to the broadcast networks.

By the 1990s, ESPN became synonymous with sports coverage at a time when media ownership was being deregulated. In 1990, Hearst purchased 20% of ESPN from Nabisco as the chain newspaper owner looked to expand its business into cable television. Soon after the Telecommunications Act of 1996 passed, Disney bought ABC and all its subsidiaries, including ESPN. In 1997, the Disney (now ESPN) Wide World of Sports athletic complex opened near Disney World, and Disney took control the Los Angeles Angels, adding to its sports portfolio that included the Anaheim Mighty Ducks and planning to create an ESPN West. Ultimately, Disney abandoned those plans, selling both teams by 2005. ESPN did open a Los Angeles studio near the Staples Center in 2009, but the network is consolidating its operations back to Bristol, Connecticut, and announced the closure of both its Los Angeles and New York Studios by the end of 2025.

Monday Night Football aired for the first time on ESPN in 2006. (Photo: ESPN Images)

In 2006, ABC Sports officially merged with ESPN, with the latter taking over sports coverage from its sister network. Later that year, Monday Night Football aired for the first time on the cable network. The NFL wanted to shift the marquee primetime game from Monday to Sunday, but Disney wanted to maintain their highly rated Sunday lineup, so they moved Monday Night Football to ESPN and NBC won the contract for the Sunday night game.

Growth and criticism

ESPN’s growth has not come without criticism, including the cost to cable providers and consumers, which is more than three times higher than its closest national competitor, TNT, due to increasing rights fees and production costs. Cable companies pay over $9 dollars per subscriber to carry ESPN, compared to about $3 for TNT. In spite of these prices, increasing media rights and cable cutting have led to budget crunches that have led to several rounds of layoffs, including newsroom staff in 2017 and 2023, leading to accusations that the network was moving away from sports journalism to focus more on promoting the leagues it covers.

ESPN backed out of its partnership with PBS Frontline on the production of League of Denial, which investigated traumatic brain injuries in the NFL and how the league hid their prevalence and long-term impact. ESPN’s exit from the investigation was reportedly due to pressure from the NFL. The network’s relationship with and investment in the league, which now includes NFL Media and the league obtaining 10% of the network, has increased concerns over a lack of critical coverage of the league—including issues like violence against women, public funding of NFL stadiums and accusations of racism by team owners including Jerry Jones, who owns the network’s most covered team, the Dallas Cowboys. Some journalistic organizations like Poynter have claimed that promotion of Disney properties like Disney+ and content like Pixar and Marvel films on SportsCenter and other programs undermines the network’s remaining journalistic integrity.

ESPN has weathered this criticism and has positioned itself for the future as the top sports media company in the world. It has broadcasting rights for almost any sport imaginable and a strengthened relationship with the NFL, the most valuable sports league in the world, as it launches its direct-to-consumer service on Aug. 21 and partners with Fox for a new bundled service that will launch on Oct.2. It is a new era not just for sports media, but television as a whole as one of the last holdouts of traditional cable transitions to digital streaming.

Jared Bahir Browsh is an assistant teaching professor of critical sports studies in the �� Department of Ethnic Studies.

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to our newsletter. Passionate about critical sports studies? Show your support.

Launching a new direct-to-consumer service this week and inking a recent deal to control NFL Media, ESPN continues evolving as the dominant force in sports media.

Traditional

White

One-hit wondering: Who let the dogs out?

Rachel Sauer — Thu, 07 Aug 2025 23:32:39 +0000

One-hit wondering: Who let the dogs out? Rachel Sauer Thu, 08/07/2025 - 17:32

Jared Bahir Browsh

The Baha Men hit, released 25 years ago, occupies a distinctive spot in music and sports history, along with “Macarena” and other novelty earworms

A quarter century ago, the world was gripped by a deeply philosophical question: “Who let the dogs out?” Twenty-five years after the Baha Men hit became a cultural phenomenon, the history of the song reveals the evolution of a viral novelty song while reflecting a music industry at a transition point at the start of the millennium.

Listeners likely are most familiar with the Baha Men cover of the song that was released on July 26, 2000, but the song, and its famous hook, has a much longer history. Ben Sisto’s 2019 documentary “Who Let the Dogs Out,” traces the history of the hook, or chant, back to the 1980s, when high school teams like the Dowagiac Chieftains in Michigan and Austin Reagan Raiders in Texas would exclaim “Ooh” or “Who let the dogs out,” woofing along with the chant.

Jared Bahir Browsh is the Critical Sports Studies program director in the �� Department of Ethnic Studies.

Several other songs with a similar hook were released in the 1990s, leading to years of lawsuits over the rights to the song. Lawsuits targeted Anslem Douglas, who is credited with writing the Baha Men version of the song—which is a cover of his song “Doggie,” written as a feminist response to men catcalling women. In 1999, rapper Chuck Smooth recorded a song titled “Who Let the Dogs Out?” sampling the infamous hook and later joining the lawsuit.

Before the Baha Men recorded their version, infamous producer Jonathan King, who had several hits in the United Kingdom and helped discover Genesis, recorded his own cover of “Doggie” under the name Fat Jakk and his Pack of Pets. King brought the recording to Steve Greenberg, who is credited with discovering Hanson, the Jonas Brothers, Joss Stone and AJR. Greenberg convinced the Baha Men, whom he discovered in 1991 and signed to Atlantic Records subsidiary Big Beat, to record a cover of the song. The Baha Men hesitated because the song was already popular in the Caribbean, but Greenberg convinced them, creating the label S-Curve Records to produce the album.

Even before the Baha Men version was released, teams like the Mississippi State University Bulldogs played the Chuck Smooth recording of the song beginning in the fall of 1998, and soon other teams followed. In June 2000, and as a joke, Seattle Mariners Promotions Director Gregg Greene used the Baha Men recording as a walk-up song for backup catcher Joe Oliver, several weeks before the song was released. All-Star shortstop Alex Rodriguez then requested the song; other teams adopted the song as an anthem. The New York Mets claim they used the song first, leading to both the Mariners and Mets exchanging jabs over who popularized the song as each team made runs deep into the playoffs.

As “Who Let the Dogs Out” made its rounds in stadiums and arenas in the United States, it became a global hit, reaching number one in several countries, including Australia. The song only peaked at No. 40 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart in the United States, barely qualifying the song as a one-hit wonder. However, like other novelty songs—including Aqua’s “Barbie Girl”—its cultural impact goes far beyond its performance on the chart

The song got another boost when it was included on the “Rugrats in Paris—The Movie” soundtrack, which was released two weeks after the song peaked on the Billboard Chart, ensuring children would continue “woofing” along with the song well into the next year. The song’s charm did wane in 2001, especially as sports fans began to find the song more annoying than energizing. But it still represents a unique time in music and a shift in stadium music in sports.

From Napster to TikTok

The late 1990s saw huge changes in technology that caused significant disruptions in the music industry. Throughout the 20th century, music technology continually advanced, making music more portable and providing more avenues to cater musical tastes to individual listeners.

The 1950s provided a foundation for modern popular music, as young listeners became the target of music producers and disc jockeys—especially as other forms of programming, like scripted programs and variety shows, transitioned from radio to television. Radio stations focused more on broadcasting music, especially as rock ’n’ roll exploded in popularity thanks to DJs like Alan Freed, who helped popularize the term in 1951. Rock ’n’ roll’s growth was supported by improvement in audio technology like the electric guitar, condenser microphones and enhanced amplifiers.

Radio put a greater focus on individual hit songs or singles, separating popular songs from a larger album. Album sales in all formats remained popular through the 1990s, but the greater focus on hits shifted the audience’s listening habits, especially as DJs curated shows of hit songs from a variety of artists. The introduction of the 7-inch 45 rpm record in 1949, which ran for between 5 to 6 minutes, also promoted single sales and became standard in jukeboxes.

The popularity of rock ’n’ roll among young listeners raised criticism from parents and politicians over concerns of sexualization and the influence of Black artists promoting integration. However, by the mid-1950s, teenagers found more freedom as the transistor radio came to market in 1954, allowing radios to travel outside of the home and car. FM radio, with its higher-quality sound, also slowly spread as the FCC implemented a rule in 1964 forcing FM stations in cities to create original programming rather than simply simulcast from AM; many FM stations chose music formats.

Music continued to become more portable and individualized as magnetic tape formats, including the 8-track and then the compact cassette, offered the option to listen to singles and albums on the move. They also allowed listeners to curate their own music. Through the 1970s, 8-tracks dominated the music market, peaking in 1978 as the preferred tape format for cars and homes. In 1979, Sony introduced the Walkman, which worked with compact cassettes that were not only more portable but also allowed listeners to fast forward and rewind to listen—and relisten—to their favorite songs anywhere.

Following decades of work by scientists to develop digital audio, the compact disc introduced the format to the public in 1982, allowing for greater portability, track selection and higher-quality sound. It later allowed users to upload or “rip” music to computers, helping to expand music sharing through peer-to-peer (P2P) networks. Although P2P promoted the sharing of all types of files, Napster’s launch in 1999 and LimeWire’s in 2000 popularized the practice of downloading compressed music files as MP3s.

In spite of lawsuits brought by artists like Metallica and Dr. Dre over copyright concerns and the music industry becoming anxious over how MP3s would impact sales and revenues, Apple introduced the iPod in October 2001. It was not the first portable digital music player, but it drastically improved data capacity, battery life, functionality, the file transfer process and portability.

In 1979, Sony introduced the Walkman, which worked with compact cassettes that were not only more portable but also allowed listeners to fast forward and rewind to listen—and relisten—to their favorite songs anywhere.

Users continued to download music through file-sharing sites even as Napster fought lawsuits before shutting down in July 2001. iTunes launched eight months before the iPod debuted, allowing for computer music management, including the ability to more easily rip CDs and build both mix CDs and playlists for the iPod when it launched. The iTunes store launched in 2003, allowing for seamless purchase of songs and albums, which could be transferred easily to the iPod. However, music sharing remained popular.

The digital era increased the focus on singles over albums, as consumers have increased options to curate their playlists by selecting individual songs rather than full albums through subscription-based streaming services like Spotify and YouTube Music. A few top artists like Taylor Swift and Beyoncé have strong fanbases that may buy full albums, but their albums sales still pale in comparison to artists of the 20th century.

One-hit wonders, novelty songs and ear worms

There is no official definition of a one-hit wonder, but in his book One-Hit Wonders, music journalist Wayne Jancik defined it as "an act that has won a position on Billboard's national, pop, Top 40 just once.” The Baha Men barely meet these requirements in the United States, and because of its rise as a stadium anthem and its gimmicky hook, some see “Who Let the Dogs Out” as a novelty song. A song is considered a novelty if there is some foundation of humor or unusual hook or sounds within the song.

Throughout modern music history, there have been countless songs that can be considered novelty—with artists like The Coasters (“Yakety Yak”) and “Weird Al” Yankovic enjoying successful careers from their novelty and parody songs. Cartoon bands like Alvin and the Chipmunks, created by Ross Bagdasarian (stage name David Seville) and The Archies (“Sugar, Sugar”) are considered novelty acts despite their music hitting No. 1 on the Billboard charts. Many kids’ (or children’s) songs are considered novelty songs when they chart, including “The Ballad of Davy Crockett” from the Disneyland miniseries in 1954 and, more recently, “Baby Shark.”

Like “Who Let the Dogs Out,” another novelty song, “Macarena,” was a minor hit for other artists before catching on when it was re-recorded and reintroduced to the U.S. market in the summer of 1995. Considering listeners rarely know the lyrics of these songs beyond the catchy hook, the much-repeated eponymous lyrics could also be considered an earworm.

An earworm is a memorable piece of music that occupies someone’s mind well after the song stops playing. Earworms are often associated with advertising jingles like McDonald's "I'm Lovin' It" or Oscar Mayer's "Oscar Mayer Weiner Song," but music listeners can also develop ear worms from catchy songs—especially if the hooks are replayed and the tune is associated with particular memories like sporting events. Another example of this is Steam’s “Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye.”

Social media has placed an increased emphasis on hooks, creating ear worms that can promote a song to hit status or revitalize a song's popularity. A recent example of both of these phenomena is Doechii’s “Anxiety,” which she originally recorded in 2019. After the hook went viral on TikTok, she recorded the song again in 2025, leading to its becoming a top-ten single.

“Who Let the Dogs Out” and “Macarena” unknowingly represent a shift in the music industry at the turn of the 20th century. These pre-social media viral songs, popularized by a novel hook and gaining popularity off-radio, can be considered ahead of their time—with the “Macarena” even fostering a viral dance. Although playing these songs may result in more eye-rolls than cheers, their path to success cannot be overlooked in this modern digital music era.

Jared Bahir Browsh is an assistant teaching professor of critical sports studies in the �� Department of Ethnic Studies.

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to our newsletter. Passionate about critical sports studies? Show your support.

The Baha Men hit, released 25 years ago, occupies a distinctive spot in music and sports history, along with “Macarena” and other novelty earworms.

Traditional

White

Up, up and away … to another Superman movie

Rachel Sauer — Wed, 09 Jul 2025 13:30:00 +0000

Up, up and away … to another Superman movie Rachel Sauer Wed, 07/09/2025 - 07:30

Bradley Worrell

��’s William Kuskin, who teaches a course on comics and graphic novels, considers Superman’s enduring appeal as Hollywood debuts a new adaptation about the Man of Steel

A new Superman movie arrives in theaters Friday, raising the question: Will American moviegoers turn out in large numbers to watch it?

Some recent superhero-themed films from Marvel and DC Comics have underperformed at the box office, prompting a debate about whether moviegoers are suffering from superhero fatigue. However, there’s some reason to believe Superman will prevail against lethargy thanks in part to a dedicated, supportive fan base, says William Kuskin, �� Department of English chair, who teaches a popular course on comics and graphic novels and whose expertise includes popular culture and film.

“The comic shop boys I hang out with have been talking about this film for a bit now. To normal mortals, we’re probably all exhausted with the latest summer blockbuster movies, but I think there are going to be a good number of fans who will go see it,” he says.

�� Professor William Kuskin, chair of the Department of English, notes that the new film Superman may prevail against "superhero fatigue" thanks in part to a dedicated, supportive fan base.

Even beyond those most ardent of Superman fans, Kuskin says he believes the Man of Steel continues to enjoy approval in popular culture in part because he uses his superhuman powers to fight for “truth, justice and the American way”—making him a symbol of unity in a time when the country is deeply divided.

Additionally, Kuskin says that with this new film, DC Comics has signaled it is turning away from the dark, gritty tone that permeated its previous superhero films, most notably the Batman trilogy directed by Christopher Nolan and the 2021 Zack Snyder Justice League movie, where Batman has a dark vision of Superman being controlled by the supervillain Darkseid. Kuskin says he believes such a move could help broaden the film’s appeal as DC seeks to relaunch the franchise.

“I think the goal with the new movie is to be not so dark; it’s to brighten him (Superman) up and in some ways bring us back to the model that (Superman actor) Christopher Reeves set in the 1970s,” he says. “I think that’s also reflected in the choice to have James Gunn direct, as they (DC Studios) were looking for a director who could bring some joy to the franchise. ”

Gunn previously directed several Marvel films, including the Guardians of the Galaxy trilogy, where he earned a reputation for bringing some charm and levity to the franchise, Kuskin says. As just one example, he points to Star-Lord’s extended disco-dance scene to the tune “Come and Get Your Love” in the opening of the first film.

What’s old is new again

While DC Comics may be looking to get audiences back into theaters by recreating Superman’s positive, wholesome appeal in movies from the 1970s and 1980s, Kuskin says it’s important to note that Superman’s persona—and his superpowers—have evolved since he first debuted in Action Comics in 1938.

Upon his introduction, Superman was remarkable for being “faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive (and) able to leap tall buildings at a single bound.” However, as Kuskin notes, Superman couldn’t actually fly in the beginning, and many of his other powers were added over time to make him more formidable.

Perhaps even more notably, Kuskin says Superman could be an antagonist if the situation called for it.

“The very first Superman story has him saving a woman who has been falsely accused of murder. Superman has to break down the governor’s door and insist in no uncertain terms that the governor rescind her sentence,” he says. “His message is that the ethical choice is always obvious—even if it means turning against the government, which makes him a figure, essentially, of anarchy.

Superman debuted in Action Comics in 1938. (Art by Joe Shuster and color by Jack Adler)

“The story conveys that it takes someone with real guts to right those wrongs; it’s a really powerful message.”

As Superman entered the World War II years, Kuskin says, he joined the pantheon of superheroes who battled the Axis powers in the pages of comic books. Around that time, Superman took on the qualities of not just a hero but an American savior, Kustin adds—even though his well-known origin story has him being born on the planet Krypton.

“With the embrace of ‘truth, justice and the American way,’ that’s how Superman transforms from something of an anarchist to this figure of Americanness,” Kuskin says.

He notes it was also during that time period that Superman came to be defined as a contrast to DC Comics’ other main hero protagonist—Batman. Whereas Superman embraces authority and represents a figure of absolutism, Batman tends to operate outside of the law. In fact, in Batman’s formative years in the late 1930s and early 1940s, he used guns and operated “as a masked vigilante seeking to make (Gotham) city safe for commerce,” Kuskin says.

At the same time, Kuskin adds, with no superpowers to speak of, as a practical matter, Batman was forced to rely on his intelligence, his cunning and his gadgets.

Meanwhile, Kuskin says it’s worth noting that Batman and Superman are derivative of earlier comic book heroes, particularly Olga Mesmer, a superhero from Venus whose superpowers roughly mirrored those of Superman, including super-strength and X-ray vision, and Lee Falk’s The Phantom, who was a somewhat wealthy costumed crime fighter with no superpowers, akin to Batman, who relies on his intelligence and skill with his two handguns.

Masking and unmasking

Kuskin says one of the more interesting aspects of Superman and Batman relates to masking and unmasking, and what it means symbolically to their roles as heroes.

“Superman is a figure of extroversion, so for him it’s all about unmasking. It’s about going from glasses—which indicate a studious nature and a monastic sensibility—to no glasses,” he says. “My read of Superman is that the glasses are a signal of allowing himself a release, while Batman is the opposite. He goes from no glasses to putting on a mask, so it’s a signal of masking and turning inward.

“To put it another way, Superman is the extrovert who can’t wait to shed his suit and tie and leap out the window and proclaim his affinity for humanity with all his boundless energy. Batman is the exact opposite,” Kuskin says. “He needs to hide his external nature to deal with the world, not as himself, but as the truly dark version within himself. That expression is not very healthy, but it’s the only way he can really make a difference in the world. It’s effective, but it’s not a celebration in any way; it’s more of a revelation.”

In the end, Kuskin argues, all superheroes fall into one of those two molds, as an extrovert or the introvert. If that’s the case, it begs the question: Which one does Kuskin prefer?

“Well, I have Batman tattooed on my arm, and I don’t have one of Superman, so that probably tells you something,” he says with a laugh. “For one thing, Batman has the narrative constraint of not using guns because of his ethical position. It’s also a constraint that makes it even harder for him to be victorious, and yet Batman never loses. And then there’s the whole issue with his traumatic childhood, so he’s not even playing on a level playing field. He’s got problems and he has to deal with those, too.”

Meanwhile, back at the cineplex

While superhero movies have enjoyed a mixed reception as of late, Kuskin says he believes a lot of that has to do with the quality of the storytelling (or lack thereof) rather than audience support for the superhero genre. He gives special credit to the Marvel franchise for the strong continuity of its storylines across multiple films, and particular kudos for the storytelling in its Avengers Infinity War and Avengers Endgame movies.

“I loved Endgame and Infinity War. I thought they were wonderfully crafted and heartfelt,” he says. “After that, I didn’t find much joy in either Marvel or DC offerings. I did really like Robert Pattinson’s rendition of Batman. I felt he captured the sense of introversion that lies at the heart of Batman. And there’s a scene where he makes a public appearance as Bruce Wayne and he’s so beaten and so broken. That is the reality of Batman, so I really enjoyed that movie.

“Will I go see this new Superman movie? The jury’s still out,” Kuskin says. However, after watching the 7-minute movie trailer, he says he’s a bit underwhelmed, based upon what he sees as an over-reliance on CGI effects and slow-motion punches—seemingly at the expense of a compelling story.

“I still think Batman is king. Society has become despairing and Batman’s despair speaks so powerfully,” he says. “Still, Superman is a tremendous property, so we’ll see what DC studios can do.”

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to our newsletter. Passionate about English? Show your support.

��’s William Kuskin, who teaches a course on comics and graphic novels, considers Superman’s enduring appeal as Hollywood debuts a new adaptation about the Man of Steel.

Traditional

White

Actor David Corenswet plays Superman in the film being released July 11. (Photo: Warner Bros)

What’s more hardcore than history?

Rachel Sauer — Wed, 18 Jun 2025 22:24:13 +0000

What’s more hardcore than history? Rachel Sauer Wed, 06/18/2025 - 16:24

�� alumnus Dan Carlin brings a love of history and a punk sensibility to a new season of The Ampersand as he discusses his hit podcast, Hardcore History

Listen to The Ampersand

There are a lot of places to experience punk: in the dim, smoky basement of Club 88 in Los Angeles in 1983, listening to a then-little-known band called NOFX, but also on the ancient battlefields of Britannia, where Briton warriors drew their swords against the invading Romans.

In the first scenario, Dan Carlin was actually there wearing his signature black T-shirt and Orioles cap. The battlefield? He visits it in his vivid imagination (still in a black T-shirt and ball cap)—drinking in the details and drawing a sensory-rich narrative from historical texts and records.

�� history graduate Dan Carlin brings a punk sensibility to his wildly popular podcast, Hardcore History.

Carlin, a �� history graduate, is something of a journalist of the past—a punk rock kid who became a punk rock adult who brings that counterculture ethos to Hardcore History, among the most popular podcasts in the United States with millions of downloads per episode.

He recently joined host Erika Randall, �� interim dean of undergraduate education and professor of dance, to kick off a new season of "The Ampersand,” the College of Arts and Sciences podcast. Randall joins guests in exploring stories about “ANDing” as a “full sensory verb” that describes experience and possibility.

Their conversation covered everything from creativity to punk rock to a dog named Mrs. Brown.

DAN CARLIN: So, what makes the past interesting is not so much that it's just, oh, here's a wild story from the past. It's that even though—what did Shakespeare say? Right, "All the world's a stage, and all the people merely players"—the people in the story are people just like we are.

And so, the ability to touch base with something that is otherwise impossible for us to relate to, right, the past is a foreign country, as the saying goes. They do things differently there. Trying to imagine living in a society where they perform human sacrifice, for example, is not possible for us. But you can start to realize that the people in the story are the same as we were.

And if you took a human infant out of the incubator at your local hospital, put them in a time machine, sent them back in the past to a time where people enjoyed visiting public executions, and that child was raised in that culture, they, too, would enjoy going to public executions. So, genetically speaking, we're the same people. And I think that's the end toward understanding the past. I mean, if people ever end up on Mars someday, we might not be able to imagine what it's like to be on Mars. But we can imagine what it's like to be people, even on Mars.

ERIKA RANDALL: I teach dance history, and it really, to me, is about the people and then the context, right, and the people who are next to the people, and how going to see a World's Fair was akin to having access to the world wide web because you suddenly got to be in a moment in time. In the 1900s, all these people came together, and then the forum changed.

So, to say that with just dates and facts but not to go, “Imagine that in this moment Loie Fuller is there with Marie Curie at the same event, running into each other. And look at what that did to dance. Look how technology and art, creativity and science came together because of that confluence of human people at an event.”

And that helps to get students excited versus, “This is the kind of piece that was made at this time on this date,” but to really get into the storytelling. And then the letters, the archives, the archival material that actually brings those humans to life, I find, oh, I want students to get as excited about that as I do. What do you think we do in this generation of people who are learning with so much information that they maybe don't read the bylines perhaps the way you and I did or dive into the works cited to get into the detail of, like, what can make me feel here?

CARLIN: There's a lot to unpack in that question because I think it touches upon a lot of things that I think about but don't have any answers for. I think this is self-evident and obvious, but we're involved in a mass giant human experiment right now. And anybody who's raising kids, even my kids are late teens, early 20s, so, I mean, but they're not really kids anymore.

Dan Carlin's "The End Is Always Near" explores some of the apocalyptic moments from the past as a way to frame the challenges of the future.

But this is all part of this generation, as I tell my oldest, that cropped up literally right after she was born. I mean, once the iPhone comes around, and we're walking around with—what did Elon Musk say? We're all cyborgs now, right? Once we enter that world, we firmly leave the analog world behind.

And what I mean by that is I try to explain to people that the entire history of humanity up until about the 21st century, maybe the very, very end of the 20th, that's an analog world, right? So, if you grew up, as I did, in a pre-computer world, you lived in the same world that the people in ancient Assyria lived in, right? I mean, they came home when the metaphorical streetlights went on, just like we did, right? No way to call mom, no tracking.

But the point is so, all of a sudden, now we enter into a world where we don't know how this plays out because there hasn't been enough time. What's more, unlike ancient times, where the pace of change was slow, so that even if there was some revolutionary new discovery, right, a brand new plow is invented that's going to change the entire world, you would probably have several hundred years to incorporate that new technology and see what that was going to do to society. Even movable print, which shook up the whole world, is nothing compared to what we have now because what we have now, if you said nothing's really going to change for another 50 years, then we could sit there and try to incorporate what's happened, right?

So, there's the ability to absorb and sort of make it a part of. In other words, society redirects around the inventions so that it then becomes the society plus those inventions. But what I think we're all aware of now is that the pace of change is so quick that by the time we would incorporate, oh, my gosh, what is the world plus Facebook like…

RANDALL: It's already moved on.

CARLIN: We're off of Facebook. Yes! And so, the ability to ever get to the absorption phase is gone. What that does for society is a big unknown.

So, the question is often brought up about things like the ability to think deeply or to contemplate. Or, I mean, do people get bored without their cell phone for two minutes? Does that rob us of the ability that ancient thinkers used to have to just sit out in the open air amongst the trees and think? Or as one person pointed out—and I think there's real benefit to this, too—the counterreaction to boredom, right, what boredom makes us do.

RANDALL: Yes.

CARLIN: To not be bored ends up being…

RANDALL: It sparks creativity. It actually lights us up.

CARLIN: Yes. The games you have to invent as a kid because there is no easy access to something else, right?

RANDALL: Yeah.

CARLIN: I don't know what that means for society. I tell my kids all the time that if you happen to be somebody who bucks that trend, it reminds you of the line, "In the world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king," right? I mean, if you can do math and nobody can do math anymore, that's an advantage, right? So, I always try to turn it into, well, if you're one of the few who reads, that's going to help you.

I think doing the show when you're doing five hours of history podcasting sometimes, and that there's an audience for that, helps you go, oh, well, good. There's still that out there. But when you have more than a billion people as your potential audience, getting a few million here or there that are interested in your little niche thing is not necessarily reflective of broad societal trends.

So, I don't know that our audience is representative, and I'm not sure I can draw many conclusions from that.

RANDALL: But it doesn't make you want to go get those other billion. It makes you—like, you don't want to have to necessarily adapt your path towards those folks who want the quick flip and quick hit.

Dan Carlin has hosted Hardcore History since 2006.

CARLIN: I wouldn't do that. No, I wouldn't do that for several reasons. One, there's people who have that lane—lots of people who have that. It’s an easier lane, to be honest. But also, because it's the same thing with why I'm following the Baltimore Orioles when I live in Los Angeles, and I've never been to Baltimore. I mean, this is—I was a punk rock person. I'm a Generation X person.

There's a whole bunch of things in my biography where you just go, oh, this guy is going to do it differently. My wife would say, you just have to be different, don't you? And, yeah, I think that's what it is. So, I don't want those other people. I kind of take pride that the audience invented a name for themselves. They call themselves the "hardcorps," C-O-R-P-S.

RANDALL: Oh, I love that.

CARLIN: This is how I always was as a kid, too. It's not that I'm different and bad. I'm different, and I'm going to take pride in that. And I want my several million, instead of the billions, because it's us, right? It's our own private "hardcorps" club.

RANDALL: In the basement.

CARLIN: We're doing our own thing. You can go enjoy your 30-second TikTok pieces of entertainment.

RANDALL: I can't imagine you in that ball cap and black T-shirt as a punk rock guy. Like, who were you listening to? Were you pierced? What are we talking about? Did the visual change, or were you a contrarian there, too, when you rolled up with your Orioles cap into the basement with people with mohawks?

CARLIN: Well—and I'm speaking to people who were there now in your audience who remember—punk is a caricature of what it was then. It's hard to describe what it was like in '79 or '80 or '81.

RANDALL: In L.A., right?

CARLIN: Yeah. I mean, listen, I remember John Doe, who was the lead singer of X. He had a great line. He said punk was wearing black jeans and having a normal haircut—what we would call a normal haircut today.

If you had short hair in 1978, people would yell out the car. You know, he said people would yell out the car and yell Devo at you because that was contrary. He said, “All I had was a normal American haircut, but that was a statement in 1978.”

So, we looked more normal. A lot of times, we had a lot of hair colors. But with me, if you saw me at CU, I didn't look… I had long hair at CU.

RANDALL: Were you punk? Were you punk at CU?

CARLIN: I was always punk.

Click the button below to hear the rest of the conversation.

Listen to The Ampersand

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to our newsletter. Passionate about history? Show your support.

�� alumnus Dan Carlin brings a love of history and a punk sensibility to a new season of The Ampersand as he discusses his hit podcast, Hardcore History.

Traditional

White

We still need a bigger boat

Rachel Sauer — Tue, 17 Jun 2025 17:02:38 +0000

We still need a bigger boat Rachel Sauer Tue, 06/17/2025 - 11:02

Rachel Sauer

Fifty years after ‘Jaws’ made swimmers flee the ocean, �� cinema scholar Ernesto Acevedo-Muñoz explains how the 1975 summer hit endures as a classic

On June 19, 1975, it wasn’t such a terrible thing to feel something brush your leg while frolicking in the ocean. It was startling, sure—humans’ relationship with the ocean has long harbored a certain element of fear, says �� Professor Andrew Martin—but the rational mind could more quickly acknowledge that it was probably seaweed.

That changed the following day, when a film by a young director named Steven Spielberg opened on screens across the United States. On June 20, 1975, to feel something brush your leg in the ocean was to immediately think, “SHARK!”

Ernesto Acevedo-Muñoz, a �� professor of cinema studies and moving image arts, regularly teaches "Jaws" in Introduction to Cinema Studies.

Are sharks really as scary as their reputation?

In the 50 years since “Jaws” made people flee the water for fear of sharks, the film has become widely recognized as a cinematic landmark.

“’Jaws’ is a movie I teach regularly in Introduction to Cinema Studies—yes, it’s that important,” says Ernesto Acevedo-Muñoz, a �� professor of cinema studies and moving image arts, adding that “Jaws” also is an important case study for misconceptions, including the evolution and de-evolution, of the term “blockbuster.”

A disaster-horror movie

The cinematic landscape in which “Jaws” arrived was one of greater daring and a transition away from the focus on producers in the classical Hollywood era to a focus on a new cohort of directors—“mostly men, mostly white,” Acevedo-Muñoz acknowledges—who studied cinema in college and were greatly influenced by the French New Wave.

“With the collapse of the Hollywood studio system, suddenly there’s more opportunity for creativity, for edgy content,” he says. “In the late ‘60s, early ‘70s, you have some movies that really were trailblazers in what’s unofficially called the American New Wave. ‘Bonnie and Clyde,’ 1967, comes to mind—nobody had seen that kind of romanticization of violence and graphic violence before.”

Young directors like Spielberg, Francis Ford Coppola and Martin Scorsese were more in touch with the counterculture of the time, and old-guard producers, recognizing these young mavericks might be lucrative, green-lit projects like “The Godfather,” “Mean Streets” and “Jaws,” Acevedo-Muñoz says.

“There’s incentive to be risky in that juncture of the ‘60s to the ‘70s,” he notes. “Then to that context you add the economic crisis of the early 1970s, the recession and unemployment, plus the end of the Vietnam War, heads are getting hot and people are angry.

Creating doom in two simple notes

It’s possible for a universe of dread to exist between two notes: duu-DU … duu-DU

Just two notes, played with increasing urgency and speed, let moviegoers know that a shark is coming, and fast.

An element of the genius of John Williams’ Oscar-winning score for the film “Jaws,” released 50 years ago Friday, is how much it conveys in just those iconic two notes.

“Williams layers melodic tension in these notes with an increasing rhythmic motion—he accelerates the speed in which we hear the notes, and he accelerates their frequency,” says Michael Sy Uy, a �� associate professor of musicology and director of the American Music Research Center. “When you combine that with the emotions attached to the fear, anxiety and dread of being attacked by a shark, then we start to feel how this music is living with and entering our ears, and it makes us feel actual anxiety or dread.”

The two notes of duu-DU are separated by the closest interval in Western musical notation that our ears are trained and socialized to hear, he adds—a half step—that, when played in succession, can help listeners feel a sense of melodic tension.

In the case of the “Jaws” soundtrack, it can help listeners feel a deep dread. In fact, some scholars argue that “Jaws” would not be the cinematic landmark it is without John Williams’ score.

“It’s hard to imagine movies today and over the past five decades without their soundtracks,” Uy says. “We make music a part of the storytelling because music can add an extra layer of meaning. It can contradict what is happening in a scene between actors, or it can validate what they’re saying. Music can tell the story even when words don’t.”

Learn more about ��'s film and television soundtrack connections in the American Music Research Center's Dave Grusin collection. Grusin is a Grammy-winning composer, contemporary of John Williams and �� alumnus.

“The crises of the 1970s are one of the reasons why we have the flourishing of the disaster film at that time. I would point first to ‘The Poseidon Adventure,’ which is the best of them all, and ‘The Towering Inferno,’ ‘Earthquake.’ And to a certain extent, ‘Jaws’ is a hybrid of the classic horror monster movie and the 1970s disaster movie.”

The dire economic background of the early 1970s was important to “Jaws” and other disaster films, Acevedo-Muñoz says, because “a disaster movie, like a horror movie, tells us we are going through a really rough time, but if we all work together and we make a few sacrifices, we’re going to get out of this OK. If we follow the lead of Paul Newman or Steve McQueen or Gene Hackman, we’ll eventually get out of this all right.”

Driving the buzz

“Jaws” is often called the original summer blockbuster, but relentless repetition of this idea does not make it true, Acevedo-Muñoz says: “There’s no one movie we can point to as the original summer blockbuster.”

In fact, he adds, the term “blockbuster” really refers to the end of a classic Hollywood distribution and exhibition practice called block booking: If theaters wanted to show big-draw feature films, they also had to book smaller, cheaper, shorter films that came to be known as “B movies," which "were made quickly by 'B units' that often reused sets or even costumes from the big movies to cut costs. But scholarship on B movies has argued that because the studios weren’t paying too much attention to those units, some of the B movies were rather edgy and interesting."

Block booking meant that the producers and distributors controlled a lot of what was in exhibition venues, "but there were occasionally movies that may have broken that pattern, and those were in some ways the original blockbusters—as in busting the block of block booking practice," he says.

While “Jaws” did break box-office records of the time, it’s also noteworthy in cinema history as one of the first miracles of marketing, he says. It was based on a mega-bestselling book by Peter Benchley, one that was optioned for film while still in galleys, and the film marketing piggy-backed on the name recognition of the book.

Further, “Jaws” was one of the first films to intentionally create buzz as part of the overall publicity and marketing plan, including strategically leaked tidbits from the film’s set on Martha’s Vineyard.

On its June 20, 1975, opening day, “Jaws” was one of the most prominent films to benefit from a practice called “front loading,” which meant making more prints of the film and showing it in as many theaters as possible, rather than the previous practice of rolling openings from largest to smallest markets.

“The marketing and distribution team of Universal Pictures also decided to take a front-loading approach with ‘Jaws,’ so that it was playing everywhere,” Acevedo-Muñoz says. “Or almost everywhere. It still took months to get to my hometown, but we knew it was coming, and that anticipation was building.

“So, ‘Jaws’ is important because it was this consolidation of these different practices of marketing, creating buzz, creating anticipation, creating tie-ins—it put all these things in one place that were practices that had been around before the summer of ’75 but afterwards became the model.”

As for the film’s effect on moviegoers and their summer vacation plans? “I know a lot of people,” Acevedo-Muñoz says, “who refused to go swimming after they saw ‘Jaws.’”

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to our newsletter. Passionate about cinema studies and moving image arts? Show your support.

Fifty years after ‘Jaws’ made swimmers flee the ocean, �� cinema scholar Ernesto Acevedo-Muñoz explains how the 1975 summer hit endures as a classic.

Traditional

White

Recognizing a century of boats against the current

Rachel Sauer — Wed, 23 Apr 2025 19:17:08 +0000

Recognizing a century of boats against the current Rachel Sauer Wed, 04/23/2025 - 13:17

Collette Mace

The Great Gatsby remains relevant for modern readers by shapeshifting with the times, says �� scholar Martin Bickman

“So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”

The final words of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s classic novel, The Great Gatsby—published 100 years ago this month—are among the most known and appreciated in American literature.

Martin Bickman, a �� professor of English, notes that the intentional vagueness of The Great Gatsby helps readers of all generations connect with the characters.

And according to Martin Bickman, a �� professor of English, this line and the novel’s conclusion reflect the age in which it was written and neatly ends a novel that seems to capture the American psyche.

But why is The Great Gatsby considered the Great American Novel? Not because it’s great or because it’s American, Bickman explains—although it is both. This novel has remained relevant from generation to generation because it shapeshifts with the times, continuing to carry themes that Americans are bred to notice.

Questions of the American dream, wealth, class standing and ambition are central to American values in both 1925 and today. And while these themes look very different to the modern American, Bickman says the intentional vagueness of the novel helps readers of all generations connect with the characters.

To understand this, Bickman, a CU President’s Teaching Scholar who has taught a course called American Novel, cites “reader response theory,” a framework he emphasizes is critical in the study of literature. According to reader response theory, the reader of a text to take must take an active role in constructing the meaning within the text; if readers look only at a novel through the perspective of the author, that neglects much of the text’s meaning.

For this reason, no text can be interpreted the exact way by two different people. Readers approach texts differently as a result of their position in the world, and the experiences that have shaped them inform their understanding of what they read. The text then becomes a blank canvas for what readers project onto it, Bickman says

Seeing ourselves in Gatsby

What does this have to do with Gatsby? According to Bickman, the title character is just two-dimensional enough to serve as a perfect projection screen for readers of the novel. He’s mysterious, allowing the narrator, Nick Calloway, to cast his own assumptions about the world and the wealthy onto him, as well as vague enough to allow the reader to project their own internal thoughts and biases onto him.

As well as having characters that reflect the reader in personality and perceptions, The Great Gatsby also reflects classic American messages that are relevant today.

Because of his intentional ambiguity, Gatsby as a character can reflect what the reader thinks of many different things, including the elite, the rich and even the quintessential American dreamer.

This is how The Great Gatsby becomes a chameleon, remaining relevant in era, despite its age, Bickman says. As well as having characters that reflect the reader in personality and perceptions, the novel also reflects classic American messages that are relevant today.

The green light on Daisy’s dock, for example, represents the unattainable hopes for the future that stem from the inability to transcend the past. This feeling is still present, and most likely always will be in a country that believes in the possibility of a glowing future as long as we just work hard enough to get there—such is, in essence, the American dream, Bickman says.

It also showcases the all-to-frequent pain of the American dream. Although Bickman says the billionaires of today had no equal in Fitzgerald’s time, the uneasiness surrounding the callousness of the rich is on full display in Gatsby. Daisy, for example, named for the beautiful and delicate flower that Gatsby sees her as, is just as cruel and selfish as any of the men around her. She was the one driving the car, after all.

However, as she comes from “self-earned” money, and as someone who has seemingly “won” at the American dream, does she get a pass for her selfishness? In a way, she seems to, at least for the moment. And as time moves on, and the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer, it seems that the original questions of whether the rich can be callous changes to whether the rich can be cruel—a key difference in how the world works, according to Bickman.

“It’s a real pathology now,” he says, “I mean, these people are cruel. The richest of the rich in the 1920s were nothing like today’s billionaires.”

So the lessons of The Great Gatsby remain relevant, Bickman says, suggesting that modern readers should take a deep look between the lines and wonder what Gatsby can show us about ourselves.

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to our newsletter. Passionate about English? Show your support.

'The Great Gatsby' remains relevant for modern readers by shapeshifting with the times, says �� scholar Martin Bickman.

Traditional

White

Top image: Warner Bros.

Don’t fear the fungi

Rachel Sauer — Thu, 17 Apr 2025 13:30:00 +0000

Don’t fear the fungi Rachel Sauer Thu, 04/17/2025 - 07:30

Bradley Worrell

�� mycologist Alisha Quandt says there’s little reason to fear a fungi-zombie apocalypse like the one imagined in the HBO hit TV series ‘The Last of Us’

Alisha Quandt prepared herself in advance to be asked by students and others about Sunday’s season 2 premier of “The Last of Us”—the hit HBO series that imagines a post-apocalyptic future where a fungal infection on a massive scale turns the majority of humanity into zombie-like creatures seeking to infect the last pockets of civilization.

It’s not that Quandt is a super-fan of the TV show (“I’m not into zombies, honestly,” she confesses), but as a mycologist—a scientist who studies fungi—she is used to getting asked about the TV show, specifically whether the grim future it imagines is anything people need to be worried about, or whether it’s simply harmless entertainment.

“I’m happy if it gets people excited about fungi. They’re so incredible,” says Alisha Quandt, a �� assistant professor of ecology and evolutionary biology.

“Especially when the TV show first debuted, it was definitely a topic people wanted to discuss,” says Quandt, a �� Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology assistant professor.

“And it seems like the topic (of infectious fungi) comes up in popular culture every five to 10 years. When I was starting my PhD, people were fascinated by the ‘Planet Earth’ TV series by David Attenborough, where this ant infected by Ophiocordyceps unilateralis staggers around, being controlled by the fungus. Then later, the Last of Us videogame came out, which really got people excited about (zombie) fungi.”

Quandt did her PhD research studying Cordyceps-like fungi, which is the type of pestilence the TV show identifies as the culprit for turning civilization into a hellscape populated by zombies controlled by the spiky fungi tendrils sprouting from their heads. For the record, Quandt finds that scenario very unlikely, for a variety of reasons.

No need to panic

For starters, the TV show imagines a worldwide outbreak is caused by Cordyceps-contaminated food. However, Quandt says most fungal infections in humans are caused by inhaling spores or through contact with the eyes or skin—and not through the digestive tract. She notes that in many parts of the world, people have been ingesting Cordyceps fungi for decades without incident, because they believe they contain beneficial properties.

“I’ve eaten Cordyceps in Asia, in Korea and China,” says Quandt, who remains unzombified. “It’s considered a part of traditional Chinese medicine, especially certain species. Even here in the U.S., you can find Cordyceps in coffees and teas, for example. They sell them at stores in Boulder.”

Quandt says another reason not to be overly concerned about Cordyceps is that many of them are “specialists” that have a very narrow range of hosts that they infect, down to a specific family of ant or spider. While some Cordyceps can transition from infecting one type of arthropod to another, or to jump from infecting an insect to another fungus, she says making the leap to a healthy human being is remote.

What’s more, the average human body temperature of 97 to 99 degrees Fahrenheit is not an environment that’s hospitable for many fungi, although Quandt acknowledges there are exceptions. “The Last of Us” imagines a future in which global warming has raised Earth temperatures to a point where mutated Cordyceps zombie fungi could live comfortably in human hosts, but Quandt notes that ambient temperatures of even 90 degrees Fahrenheit are still cooler than the human body.

“That’s a hard path for me to follow,” she says of an environmental change that would allow Cordyceps to evolve in such a way. “There’s a lot of assumptions that would go into that trajectory.”

�� scientist Alisha Quandt finds the scenario from "The Last of Us" in which a Cordyceps-like fungi causes worldwide zombification very unlikely, for a variety of reasons. (Photo: HBO)

Beyond those arguments, Quandt says there is an even more important one as to why humans don’t need to start doom prepping for a fungi apocalypse.

“My argument about why we shouldn’t be worried about a fungal pandemic is that our bodies, when fully immunocompetent—meaning healthy human bodies—are extremely well equipped to deal with fungal propagules (spores) that come into contact with our bodies, mostly through our lungs,” she says. “Fungi have this cell wall that is made up of stuff that our bodies do not make. So, our bodies are really good identifying and dealing with that.”

Quant says fungal infections do pose a risk to people whose immune systems are compromised—particularly if they have taken a heavy dose of antibiotics, because those can kill off good bacteria, which can lower resistance to harmful fungi.

“Once our immune system goes away, which could handle those types of (fungi), we have so few antifungal drugs to treat fungal infections compared to the myriad of antibiotics that we have to treat bacterial diseases,” she says.

For the immunocompromised, Quandt says one of the most concerning fungi—which just cropped up in recent years and has spread worldwide—is Candida auris.

“It is a really concerning human pathogen because it is what we call nosocomial, meaning it is hospital related. People get these infections in hospitals, and once it’s in a hospital, it can be almost impossible to get rid of it,” she says.

“People will use all kinds of bleach and ethanol but it’s very hard to get rid of the yeast once it gets into a hospital room. And the fully immunocompetent, like nurses and doctors who are not sick, can end up spreading it from room to room to sick, often elderly, patients. Unfortunately, there’s not a good defense on the ground, so to speak, once Candida auris takes hold.”

But while “opportunistic pathogens” like Candida auris can pose a risk to the immunocompromised, the number of fungal diseases that could be described as “primary pathogens”—meaning they can infect and potentially cause serious health issues for healthy individuals—is less than a handful, Quandt says.

One primary pathogen that can be found in the United State is Valley Fever, which is primarily located in New Mexico, Arizona and southern California. Farming, construction or other practices that disrupt the soil can release the fungi’s spores, which people can then breathe into their lungs. Once inhaled, Valley Fever can potentially cause fever, cough, tiredness, shortness of breath and, in limited cases, serious conditions such as pneumonia and meningitis.

“But those are the rarer things, and I’m still not worried about them becoming common because they’re still not being spread from person to person,” she says.

In contrast with the way “The Last of Us” portrays fungi as an existential threat, Quandt sees a type of virus that’s already well-known to the scientific community and the public alike as a much greater risk for causing a global pandemic. The World Health Organization estimates the COVID-19 pandemic killed 14.9 million people worldwide between January 2020 and December 2021.

“As we’ve recently seen, unfortunately, there are a lot of other places to look for more likely suspects for (global pandemics). Things that were predicted by a lot of great investigative journalists and epidemiologists, like coronavirus and other zoonotic diseases (which jump from animals to humans), pose a much greater threat to mankind,” she says.

“As we’ve recently seen, unfortunately, there are a lot of other places to look for more likely suspects for (global pandemics). Things that were predicted by a lot of great investigative journalists and epidemiologists, like coronavirus and other zoonotic diseases (which jump from animals to humans), pose a much greater threat to mankind.”

And now, back to the show

Even beyond the fact she’s not into zombies, Quandt says her training as a mycologist can get in the way of her enjoyment of “The Last of Us” as entertainment, based upon the few episodes she has watched.

“I’m probably a little too close to watch the show—especially the fruiting bodies,” she says. “Sometimes they would show a person who is dead up against a wall, and the fruiting structures look life shelf fungi,” she says.

“Those are related to mushrooms—they’re not related to (fungi) that are molds, like Cordyceps. The artistry was beautiful, so they did a good job visually, but it’s just completely inaccurate. So, it does take you out of it a little bit to watch as an expert; you have to really suspend belief.”

Another scene that inspired disbelief for Quandt was a flashback episode—prior to the fungal pandemic—when a mycologist in Jakarta is asked by representatives of the country’s military to provide guidance on how to proceed after a group of workers in a building are found to be infected with early cases of the Cordyceps contagion. After surveying the infected, the mycologist gives the military members a chilling one-word answer: “Bomb!” (As in, bomb the entire country to try to prevent the infection from spreading.)

“My husband was watching the show with me. He paused it there and he’s like, ‘What should they do?’ I was like, ‘Get all the antifungals that you can. Get all the major ones and then get the rare ones—and start pumping these people with IVs, or all the people that you think might be exposed and get going on it.’ But the fact she said ‘bomb!’ I almost found it funny, but I was also like, ‘Oh, my God, that’s so dramatic.’ Still, it’s a TV show, and I acknowledge that.”

While Quandt may opt not to watch more episodes of “The Last of Us,” she says if the TV show raises public awareness about fungi—even if the details in the show are not entirely correct—she is all for it.

“I’m happy if it gets people excited about fungi,” she says. “They’re so incredible.”

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to our newsletter. Passionate about ecology and evolutionary biology? Show your support.

�� mycologist Alisha Quandt says there’s little reason to fear a fungi-zombie apocalypse like the one imagined in the HBO hit TV series ‘The Last of Us.'

Traditional

White

Top image: HBO

‘Kenough’: Is 'Barbie' more revolutionary for men than women?

Rachel Sauer — Fri, 07 Mar 2025 21:08:55 +0000

‘Kenough’: Is 'Barbie' more revolutionary for men than women? Rachel Sauer Fri, 03/07/2025 - 14:08

Clay Bonnyman Evans

�� PhD student’s paper argues that the hit film exemplifies ‘masculinity without patriarchy’ in media

M.G. Lord, author of Forever Barbie: The Unauthorized Biography of a Real Doll and co-host of the podcast LA Made: The Barbie Tapes, describes Greta Gerwig’s Oscar Award-winning, box-office behemoth Barbie as “incredibly feminist” and widely perceived as “anti-male.”

Meanwhile, conservative critics rail that the movie is “anti-man” and full of “beta males” in need of a testosterone booster. Conservative British commentator Piers Morgan called it “an assault on not just Ken, but on all men.”

�� PhD student Julie Estlick argues that Greta Gerwig's award-winning film Barbie is "a really good film for Ken."

But �� women and gender studies doctoral student Julie Estlick sees things differently. In her recent paper, “Ken’s Best Friend: Masculinities in Barbie,” published in Feminist Theory, she argues that the movie is “a really good film for Ken.”

On first viewing, Estlick noticed a woman nearby having a “very visceral, emotional response” to the now iconic monolog by actor America Ferrera, which begins, “It is literally impossible to be a woman.”

She wasn’t particularly moved by the speech, and walking out of the theater, she realized she didn’t see the movie as a clear-cut icon of feminism.

“I really questioned whether the film was actually about Barbie, and by extension, women, at least in the way people were claiming,” she says.

Once Barbie was available for streaming, Estlick took a closer look and arrived at a heterodox conclusion:

“Barbie is not anti-man; it is pro-man and is not necessarily a revolutionary film for women, at least not as much as it is for men,” she writes in the paper’s abstract. “This is because Barbie espouses non-hegemonic masculinity through cultural critiques that are rare to see in popular media.”

Hegemonic vs. toxic masculinity

For Estlick, “hegemonic masculinity” is a kind of stand-in for the “toxic masculinity” so often featured in media: superheroes, gangsters, vigilantes, killing machines who are also “lady killers.” Always strong, rarely emotional, such men are absurdly impermeable to harm, and sport chiseled features and perfectly sculpted abs, she says. Yet many are also “man children” whose “ultimate prize” is to have sex with a woman.

“That kind of media comes at the expense of women, works against women, and often oppresses women by sexualizing and objectifying them,” Estlick says.

In the film Barbie, the patriarchy ultimately doesn't serve the Kens any more than it does the Barbies, argues �� PhD student Julie Estlick. (Photo: Warner Bros. Pictures)

Non-hegemonic masculinity is strong without being oppressive, and supportive and protective of women without regard to any quid pro quo. It allows for men to openly express emotions and vulnerability and to seek help for their mental-health struggles and emotional needs without shame, while retaining their strength, vitality and masculinity.

“It does the opposite of hegemonic masculinity,” Estlick says. “It works alongside women and doesn’t harm them in any way.”

The Kens are first represented in the movie as clueless accessories to the ruling Barbies of Barbie Land. But after Beach Ken (Ryan Gosling) and Stereotypical Barbie (Margot Robbie) find a portal to our world, Beach Ken returns and establishes a patriarchal society in which women become mindless accessories to hyper-competitive men in the thrall of hegemonic masculinity.

But ultimately, the patriarchy doesn’t serve the Kens any more than the Barbies.

“As people always say, men’s worst enemy under patriarchy isn’t women. It’s other men and their expectations, who are constantly stuffing men into boxes,” Estlick says.

Which isn’t to say that women don’t also enforce strictures of hegemonic masculinity.

“When little boys are taught to suppress emotions, little girls are watching. They are watching their fathers, and fathers onscreen, acting in certain ways,” Estlick says. “Girls internalize toxic ideologies the same ways boys do.”

Allan the exception

In Barbie, there is just one male who stands apart from Kendom: Allan, played by Michael Cera.

“Allan is positioned as queer in the film in that he is othered but not less masculine in the traditional understanding of the word,” Estlick writes. He “deviates from the conventional canon of masculinity” and “uses his masculinity for feminism and to liberate women while also protesting patriarchy.”

Allan doesn’t fit into Kendom, with or without patriarchy. As the narrator (voiced by Helen Mirren) notes, “There are no multiples of Allan; he’s just Allan.”

The character is based on a discontinued Mattel doll released in 1964, intended to be a friend to Ken. Fearing the friendship might be perceived as gay, the company swiftly removed Allan from store shelves, later replacing him with a “family pack” featuring Barbie’s best friend Midge as his wife, and a backstory that the couple had twins.

In the film, non-toxic Allan is immune to patriarchal brainwashing and sides with the Barbies in re-taking Barbie Land.

“(T)he film can be understood as a vital framework for masculinity that allows for vulnerability, emotion and heterosexual intimacy among men,” says researcher Julie Estlick. (Photo: Warner Bros. Pictures)

“Right off the bat we see (Allan) as queered from the rest of the Kens and Barbies,” Estlick says.

But Beach Ken, too, eventually senses that he’s not happy in the patriarchal society has created. In one of the movie’s final scenes, a tearfully confused Beach Ken converses with Stereotypical Barbie from a literal ledge:

“You have to figure out who you are without me,” Barbie tells him kindly. “You’re not your girlfriend. You’re not your house, you’re not your mink … You’re not even beach. Maybe all the things that you thought made you aren’t … really you. Maybe it’s Barbie and … it’s Ken.”

In other words, Barbie is rooting for Ken to claim his individuality.

“Beach Ken’s house, clothes, job and girlfriend all represent boxes that society expects men to tick, but this scene illustrates that it is okay to deviate from normative behaviors of masculinity and that manhood is not solely defined through heteronormative bonds and behaviors,” Estlick writes. And “it is acceptable for men to admit to a woman that they need help.”

Barbie is pure, candy-colored fantasy. But in our world, Estlick believes it points the way toward further non-toxic media representations of masculinity and ultimately contribute to better mental health for men trapped in a “man box” — as well as women who have borne the burden of men’s self- and societally imposed strictures on their own humanity.

“(T)he film can be understood as a vital framework for masculinity that allows for vulnerability, emotion and heterosexual intimacy among men,” she concludes. It “(opens) the door to the creation of more media that subverts societal expectations of toxic masculinity.”

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to our newsletter. Passionate about women and gender studies? Show your support.

�� PhD student’s paper argues that the hit film exemplifies ‘masculinity without patriarchy’ in media.

Traditional

White

Top image: Warner Bros. Pictures

It’s a bird! It’s a plane! It’s another superhero film!

Rachel Sauer — Wed, 19 Feb 2025 20:45:54 +0000

It’s a bird! It’s a plane! It’s another superhero film! Rachel Sauer Wed, 02/19/2025 - 13:45

Doug McPherson

Following a blockbuster opening weekend for Captain America: Brave New World, ��’s Benjamin Robertson reflects on the appeal of superhero franchises and why they dominate studio release schedules

Captain America continues to conquer obstacles and crush villains―not bad for a man approaching age 85.

The comic book hero made his debut in print in December 1940, then on TV in 1966 and hit the silver screen in 2011―gaining massive momentum along with way. This past Presidents Day weekend, the fourth installment of the superhero series, “Captain America: Brave New World,” hit the top spot at the box office in the United States, and earned $192.4 million around the globe.

Benjamin Robertson, a �� assistant professor of English, notes that superhero franchises are comforting in their repetitiveness.

It’s the fourth-best Presidents Day launch on record, behind three other superhero movies: Black Panther, Deadpool and Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania.

What’s going on here? What’s giving Captain America his muscle? And why do folks keep going back to these same stories, characters and worlds over and over?

Benjamin Robertson, a �� assistant professor of English who specializes in popular culture, film and digital media, says there are two answers: “One, the genre is comforting in its repetitiveness. This is the least interesting answer, however,” he says.

The second answer appears a little more sinister. Robertson says viewers return to these stories because creators make “story worlds that solicit consumers’ attention and that must always grow and that turn increasingly inward.”

He says the first Iron Man film is about America intervening in the Middle East following Sept. 11, but later MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe, the franchise behind many superhero movies) films seem less and less about real or historical matters and more about the MCU itself.

“As a colleague once put it, every MCU film is simply the trailer for the next MCU film, the result of a strategy that seeks to create a fandom that can’t escape from the tangled narrative that the franchise tells,” he explains.

In short, Robertson says if consumers want to know the full narrative—the full world that these films and series describe—they have to go to the theater. “As this world becomes about itself rather than about external history or real-world events, a certain ‘lock in’ manifests, making it harder and harder to not see these films if one wants to understand the world they create.”

‘Flatter American identities’

Actor Anthony Mackie plays the titular Captain America in Captain America: Brave New World. (Photo: Marvel Studios)

Another trick is that MCU films tend to “flatter American identities” by celebrating militarism, focusing on charismatic heroes who try to do the right thing unconstrained by historical necessity and suggesting that everything will work out in the end, Robertson says.

“I can see the more comforting aspects of these films having appeal to many consumers. Don’t fear climate change, fear Thanos [a supervillain] and other embodiments of badness,” he says.

As to the question of whether franchises are just growing their worlds and the characters in them, or retelling the same story because it makes money, Robertson says each MCU film is a piece of intellectual property, but an individual film is far less valuable than a world.

“A film might spawn a sequel or sequels, but without developing the world, the sequels will likely be of lesser quality and, eventually, no longer be profitable or not profitable enough to warrant further investment,” Robertson says. “But if producers develop the world into a complex environment that contains numerous characters with distinct and yet intersecting story arcs, well, then you have the foundation for potentially unlimited storytelling and profit in the future.”

He adds that in that context, Captain America has obvious value as an individual character, but he has far more value as part of a world that can develop around him and allow for new actors to play him as he evolves with the world.

So, as the world grows as an intellectual property and in narrative development, "so does the potential for profit, although we may now be seeing the limits of this dynamic as some MCU films have not been doing as well at the box office over the past five years, although there are likely several factors that contribute to this decline.”

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to our newsletter. Passionate about English? Show your support.

Following a blockbuster opening weekend for ‘Captain America: Brave New World,’ ��’s Benjamin Robertson reflects on the appeal of superhero franchises and why they dominate studio release schedules.

Traditional

White

Top photo: Marvel Studios

popular culture

We’re still tasting the spice of 1960s sci-fi

Related Articles

ESPN launches a new era

Related Articles

One-hit wondering: Who let the dogs out?

Related Articles

Up, up and away … to another Superman movie

Related Articles

What’s more hardcore than history?

Related Articles

We still need a bigger boat

Are sharks really as scary as their reputation?

Related Articles

Recognizing a century of boats against the current

Related Articles

Don’t fear the fungi

Related Articles

‘Kenough’: Is 'Barbie' more revolutionary for men than women?

Related Articles

It’s a bird! It’s a plane! It’s another superhero film!

Related Articles