In this essay I will be analysing Thor: Ragnarok (2017) contexts of production and consumption using the theory of Adaption and the theory of Genre.
Thor: Ragnarok (2017) is a film produced by the American production company Marvel Studios (a division of the Walt Disney Company) and directed by New Zealand born writer / director / actor Taika Waititi. Ragnarok is based on many different source materials from Norse Mythology, Marvel Comic Books, and acts as the 17thinstalment in a multi-picture franchise known as the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU for short) – it is also the third of four films in the overall Thor franchise within the MCU. Being a part of this extensive franchise, being adapted from multiple pieces of source material, and being one of the few creator lead films in the franchise (at the time) allows this film to also fit into many different genres whilst also blending and bending genres, which I will be discussing in this essay.
Adaptation from a source material to film can be a very broad range, with many different ways of translating from source to screen. Julie Sanders tells us in her book Adaptation and Appropriation that “Adaptation is frequently involved in offering commentary on a sourcetext” and that “adaptation can also constitute a simpler attempt to make texts ‘relevant’ or easily comprehensible to new audiences and readerships via the processes of proximation and updating.”. As a film Thor: Ragnarok (2017) itself is an adaptation and does abide to the definitions stated by Julie Sanders, albeit not a conventional adaptation, with other aspects also needing to be taken into account – the Thor franchise is a unique case where it’s based on multiple sources, and those sources themselves also act as adaptations, so the films in the franchise actually exist as adaptations of adaptations (and sometimes even further). Most of the characters and basic stories for the film originate in Norse Mythology, with the film’s title being directly inspired by the character and story of the same name, but with that being said, these stories were also initially told thousands of years ago, passed through generations before then being written down – and despite this, still get changed by authors consistently. These Norse stories were then adapted by Marvel Comics throughout the 20th and 21st century, intertwining with an already established, vaster comic book world with characters not associated with the original Norse stories. These comics then get adapted by Marvel Studios into multiple feature length films set within their own established continuity that they have to adhere to, meaning that Thor: Ragnarok (especially as the third film in its own specific franchise, within a larger franchise) has a complex level of adaptation. Thomas Leitch tells us that “Because films depend on screenplays which in turn often depend on literary source material, in fact, they are doubly performative.” and that “Actors and actresses are translating into performance a written script which is itself an adaptation of a prior literary source” with there are four layers to this adaptation, Ragnarok could be classed as a Quaternary Adaptation; with the Norse stories being Primary, the Marvel Comics being Secondary, the films being Tertiary, and Ragnarok adapting itself onto the preestablished franchise as a Quaternary Adaptation.
Marvel Studios’ productions have always had a winning formula since they started their cinematic universe back in 2008 with the release of Iron Man, and with each new film (although almost always critically and commercially successful) the same criticism becomes more prevalent, now even big filmmakers such as Denis Villeneuve claim that “too many Marvel movies that are nothing more than a ‘cut and paste’ of others”. The majority of MCU films for a long time had to sit within a certain parameter set by the studio itself (a very much studio produced franchise) but when it came to Thor: Ragnarok, the studio gave director Taika Waititi full creative control of the already decided Ragnarok story allowing him to stylise the film in a way the MCU had not seen before. Although the type of story may still fit within the formula, from a visual and comedic standpoint, the film is far from cut and paste. Thor: Ragnarok has one of the most intense colour palettes of an MCU production at the time of its release – compare Ragnarok’s palette (figure 1) with that of Captain America: Civil War (figure 2) from the previous year.
Thor: Ragnarok (2017) is a film produced by the American production company Marvel Studios (a division of the Walt Disney Company) and directed by New Zealand born writer / director / actor Taika Waititi. Ragnarok is based on many different source materials from Norse Mythology, Marvel Comic Books, and acts as the 17thinstalment in a multi-picture franchise known as the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU for short) – it is also the third of four films in the overall Thor franchise within the MCU. Being a part of this extensive franchise, being adapted from multiple pieces of source material, and being one of the few creator lead films in the franchise (at the time) allows this film to also fit into many different genres whilst also blending and bending genres, which I will be discussing in this essay.
Adaptation from a source material to film can be a very broad range, with many different ways of translating from source to screen. Julie Sanders tells us in her book Adaptation and Appropriation that “Adaptation is frequently involved in offering commentary on a sourcetext” and that “adaptation can also constitute a simpler attempt to make texts ‘relevant’ or easily comprehensible to new audiences and readerships via the processes of proximation and updating.”. As a film Thor: Ragnarok (2017) itself is an adaptation and does abide to the definitions stated by Julie Sanders, albeit not a conventional adaptation, with other aspects also needing to be taken into account – the Thor franchise is a unique case where it’s based on multiple sources, and those sources themselves also act as adaptations, so the films in the franchise actually exist as adaptations of adaptations (and sometimes even further). Most of the characters and basic stories for the film originate in Norse Mythology, with the film’s title being directly inspired by the character and story of the same name, but with that being said, these stories were also initially told thousands of years ago, passed through generations before then being written down – and despite this, still get changed by authors consistently. These Norse stories were then adapted by Marvel Comics throughout the 20th and 21st century, intertwining with an already established, vaster comic book world with characters not associated with the original Norse stories. These comics then get adapted by Marvel Studios into multiple feature length films set within their own established continuity that they have to adhere to, meaning that Thor: Ragnarok (especially as the third film in its own specific franchise, within a larger franchise) has a complex level of adaptation. Thomas Leitch tells us that “Because films depend on screenplays which in turn often depend on literary source material, in fact, they are doubly performative.” and that “Actors and actresses are translating into performance a written script which is itself an adaptation of a prior literary source” with there are four layers to this adaptation, Ragnarok could be classed as a Quaternary Adaptation; with the Norse stories being Primary, the Marvel Comics being Secondary, the films being Tertiary, and Ragnarok adapting itself onto the preestablished franchise as a Quaternary Adaptation.
Marvel Studios’ productions have always had a winning formula since they started their cinematic universe back in 2008 with the release of Iron Man, and with each new film (although almost always critically and commercially successful) the same criticism becomes more prevalent, now even big filmmakers such as Denis Villeneuve claim that “too many Marvel movies that are nothing more than a ‘cut and paste’ of others”. The majority of MCU films for a long time had to sit within a certain parameter set by the studio itself (a very much studio produced franchise) but when it came to Thor: Ragnarok, the studio gave director Taika Waititi full creative control of the already decided Ragnarok story allowing him to stylise the film in a way the MCU had not seen before. Although the type of story may still fit within the formula, from a visual and comedic standpoint, the film is far from cut and paste. Thor: Ragnarok has one of the most intense colour palettes of an MCU production at the time of its release – compare Ragnarok’s palette (figure 1) with that of Captain America: Civil War (figure 2) from the previous year.
(Figure 1)
(Figure 2)
Ragnarok broke itself out of the ‘cut and paste’ MCU mould that the majority of the films in the franchise had been trapped in by studio mandates, visually being distinct from almost everything that had come before it – Taika Waititi taking inspiration, adapting the more magical, beautiful colour scheme that comes from Norse Mythology and Jack Kirby’s Marvel Comic’s artwork like all but one MCU director had done before.
Michelle Anya Anjirbag speaks about Disney (Marvel Studios’ parent company) between the years 2016 and 2018 giving “greater access to imaginary spaces to people previously underrepresented in, if not excluded from, Disney's feature films through their casting and narrative focuses” which some people would disagree with, and most would say isn’t true for all branches of the companies endeavours but when it comes to Marvel Studios, the company has taken a much larger leap in terms of its well done representation than the other branches have. Thor: Ragnarok being routed in Norse Mythology, for the most part, leans itself into Scandinavian culture, but with the New Zealand born director with Māori heritage, adapting these characters from their original source became a different idea. In Norse Mythology the Gods of Asgard are portrayed as the viewer intends, to the native Scandinavian’s that would be a much lighter skin tone but in a modern world where everyone has the opportunity to see these characters as they seem fit, Waititi ingeniously adapts them as a modern world would look, with every character looking vastly different to the next with adapting these usually light skinned characters making perfect sense in terms of narrative – personally I think Ragnarok does a very good job with its representation and inclusivity, still one of the better MCU films to do so. Characters unknown to the general public (for example, Tessa Thompson’s Valkyrie) being adapted and showcased to a larger audience differently to what the source materials originally showcase but still making perfect sense narratively is one of the reasons this film works in terms of how it adapts things.
Thor: Ragnarok is classified as a science fiction, action, adventure, superhero, buddy, comedy, fantasy film (which is a lot of genres to dive into for any film. Harry Benshoff tells us in his book Film and Television Analysis: An Introduction to Methods, Theories, and Approaches that “genre theory is primarily about labels and labeling: categorizing texts into one group or another.” so with Thor: Ragnarok the clear single genre we can categorise it as is a superhero film, but it is so much more than that, which is why we then have to also talk about subgenres and hybridisations. Previously superhero films have always been classed as a subgenre under action, but now “if a cycle remains popular enough with the public it may grow into a genre or subgenre or its own”. A clear example of superhero films now being spun off as their own genre / subgenre is Joker(2019), which, albeit still classed as a superhero film due to is comic source material, is as far from an action film you could get, being much closer to a drama. Ragnarok is a superhero film first in terms of genre, with its mixes of fantasy (via its Norse Mythology routes), adventure (its plot), comedy (its tone), and buddy (the relationship between the titular character and his adopted brother Loki). Although the films produced by Marvel Studios prior to Ragnarok all sit within multiple genres, nothing had yet to bend and blend the boundaries like Thor: Ragnarok did. Taika Waititi as a director (and writer; although not writing this film) is very much comedy driven (see What We Do In The Shadows (2014)) and still focuses on comedy whilst also being able to hold a strong balance with drama (see Jojo Rabbit (2019)) – so when given full creative control for Ragnarok, on the grounds of what James Gunn had achieved with his Guardians of the Galaxy films for the studio, Waititi chose to go the comedy first route with this film, a drastic change from the previous two instalments more serious approach. From a creative and consumptive standpoint, Thor: Ragnarok is clearly an outlier when it comes to which genre it fits in because it truly fits in more than any previous MCU film and actually, potentially, any superhero film as of its release.
Taking aside the newly attributed ‘Superhero’ film genre, Thor: Ragnarok became as successful as it did thanks to both its strong sense of adaptation mixed with its almost one of a kind genre bending (at least in terms of the films in this particular franchise). Ironically, Amy Villarejo states in her book Film Studies: The Basics that “genre is an effect of repetition” so when MCU fans flocked to the cinemas to see Ragnarok they didn’t expect much from the film thanks to its poorly received predecessors (2011’s Thor, and 2013’s Thor: The Dark World) and their perception of Marvel Studios’ films being formulaic (years later reiterated by Denis Villeneuve, amongst many other critics), but were more than pleasantly surprised when the film they watched seemed to be drastically different from their expectations. Villarejo also states when it comes to genre that “we learn its codes so that we can quickly orient ourselves to the new iteration of a given story” which actually coincides very nicely with Ragnarok’s writers, Eric Pearson, Craig Kyle, and Christopher L. Yost’s way of adapting many different source materials for the film. Albeit so far unmentioned by myself in this essay, audiences expectations for this film were subverted in many ways, the key way being in the way the film was adapted – although still using the basic Marvel Studios winning formula, the writers of Ragnarok decided to adapt multiple Marvel Comic stories that were fully unrelated, with multiple iterations of the Ragnarök event (from both Norse Mythology and Marvel Comics) and the distinctly unrelated Planet Hulk storyline that ran from April 2006 to June 2007 from Marvel Comics. This mix of unrelated stories being adapted, lacklustre predecessors, and switching of genres for Thor: Ragnarok lead to audiences (both critics and fans alike) to go into the film expecting very little and actually receiving a lot – the vast majority of the audiences believe this film to be one of the more superior Marvel Studios productions, and actually one of the better made superhero films out there, which is mostly attributed to the films different blend of genre and more unique way of adapting its many pieces of source material.
Michelle Anya Anjirbag speaks about Disney (Marvel Studios’ parent company) between the years 2016 and 2018 giving “greater access to imaginary spaces to people previously underrepresented in, if not excluded from, Disney's feature films through their casting and narrative focuses” which some people would disagree with, and most would say isn’t true for all branches of the companies endeavours but when it comes to Marvel Studios, the company has taken a much larger leap in terms of its well done representation than the other branches have. Thor: Ragnarok being routed in Norse Mythology, for the most part, leans itself into Scandinavian culture, but with the New Zealand born director with Māori heritage, adapting these characters from their original source became a different idea. In Norse Mythology the Gods of Asgard are portrayed as the viewer intends, to the native Scandinavian’s that would be a much lighter skin tone but in a modern world where everyone has the opportunity to see these characters as they seem fit, Waititi ingeniously adapts them as a modern world would look, with every character looking vastly different to the next with adapting these usually light skinned characters making perfect sense in terms of narrative – personally I think Ragnarok does a very good job with its representation and inclusivity, still one of the better MCU films to do so. Characters unknown to the general public (for example, Tessa Thompson’s Valkyrie) being adapted and showcased to a larger audience differently to what the source materials originally showcase but still making perfect sense narratively is one of the reasons this film works in terms of how it adapts things.
Thor: Ragnarok is classified as a science fiction, action, adventure, superhero, buddy, comedy, fantasy film (which is a lot of genres to dive into for any film. Harry Benshoff tells us in his book Film and Television Analysis: An Introduction to Methods, Theories, and Approaches that “genre theory is primarily about labels and labeling: categorizing texts into one group or another.” so with Thor: Ragnarok the clear single genre we can categorise it as is a superhero film, but it is so much more than that, which is why we then have to also talk about subgenres and hybridisations. Previously superhero films have always been classed as a subgenre under action, but now “if a cycle remains popular enough with the public it may grow into a genre or subgenre or its own”. A clear example of superhero films now being spun off as their own genre / subgenre is Joker(2019), which, albeit still classed as a superhero film due to is comic source material, is as far from an action film you could get, being much closer to a drama. Ragnarok is a superhero film first in terms of genre, with its mixes of fantasy (via its Norse Mythology routes), adventure (its plot), comedy (its tone), and buddy (the relationship between the titular character and his adopted brother Loki). Although the films produced by Marvel Studios prior to Ragnarok all sit within multiple genres, nothing had yet to bend and blend the boundaries like Thor: Ragnarok did. Taika Waititi as a director (and writer; although not writing this film) is very much comedy driven (see What We Do In The Shadows (2014)) and still focuses on comedy whilst also being able to hold a strong balance with drama (see Jojo Rabbit (2019)) – so when given full creative control for Ragnarok, on the grounds of what James Gunn had achieved with his Guardians of the Galaxy films for the studio, Waititi chose to go the comedy first route with this film, a drastic change from the previous two instalments more serious approach. From a creative and consumptive standpoint, Thor: Ragnarok is clearly an outlier when it comes to which genre it fits in because it truly fits in more than any previous MCU film and actually, potentially, any superhero film as of its release.
Taking aside the newly attributed ‘Superhero’ film genre, Thor: Ragnarok became as successful as it did thanks to both its strong sense of adaptation mixed with its almost one of a kind genre bending (at least in terms of the films in this particular franchise). Ironically, Amy Villarejo states in her book Film Studies: The Basics that “genre is an effect of repetition” so when MCU fans flocked to the cinemas to see Ragnarok they didn’t expect much from the film thanks to its poorly received predecessors (2011’s Thor, and 2013’s Thor: The Dark World) and their perception of Marvel Studios’ films being formulaic (years later reiterated by Denis Villeneuve, amongst many other critics), but were more than pleasantly surprised when the film they watched seemed to be drastically different from their expectations. Villarejo also states when it comes to genre that “we learn its codes so that we can quickly orient ourselves to the new iteration of a given story” which actually coincides very nicely with Ragnarok’s writers, Eric Pearson, Craig Kyle, and Christopher L. Yost’s way of adapting many different source materials for the film. Albeit so far unmentioned by myself in this essay, audiences expectations for this film were subverted in many ways, the key way being in the way the film was adapted – although still using the basic Marvel Studios winning formula, the writers of Ragnarok decided to adapt multiple Marvel Comic stories that were fully unrelated, with multiple iterations of the Ragnarök event (from both Norse Mythology and Marvel Comics) and the distinctly unrelated Planet Hulk storyline that ran from April 2006 to June 2007 from Marvel Comics. This mix of unrelated stories being adapted, lacklustre predecessors, and switching of genres for Thor: Ragnarok lead to audiences (both critics and fans alike) to go into the film expecting very little and actually receiving a lot – the vast majority of the audiences believe this film to be one of the more superior Marvel Studios productions, and actually one of the better made superhero films out there, which is mostly attributed to the films different blend of genre and more unique way of adapting its many pieces of source material.
Illustrations:
- Fig. 1 Movie Palette (2017) Thor: Ragnarok (2017) Movie Palette. At: https://moviepalette.com/products/thor-ragnarok-2017 (Accessed 27/05/2022)
- Fig 2. Movie Palette (2016) Captain America: Civil War (2016) Movie Palette. At https://moviepalette.com/products/captain-america-civil-war-2016 (Accessed 27/05/2022)
Bibliography:
- Anjirbag, Michelle Anya. (2019) Jeunesse: Young People, Texts, Cultures. Canada: University of Toronto Press Vol. 11, Issue 2
- Benshoff, Harry. (2015) Film and Television Analysis: An Introduction to Methods, Theories, and Approaches. UK: Taylor & Francis Group [p.129-131]
- Captain America: Civil War (2016) Directed by The Russo Brothers (Joe Russo & Anthony Russo). [DVD] United States
- Entertainment Desk (2021) ‘MCU Movies are nothing but a cut and paste of others’: Denis Villeneuve.At: https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/hollywood/marvel-movies-are-nothing-more-than-a-cut-and-paste-of-others-denis-villeneuve-7514413/ (Accessed: 27/05/2022)
- Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) Directed by James Gunn. [DVD] United States
- Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (2017) Directed by James Gunn. [DVD] United States
- Iron Man (2008) Directed by Jon Favreau. [DVD] United States
- Jojo Rabbit (2019) Directed by Taika Waititi. [DVD] United States
- Joker (2019) Directed by Todd Phillips. [DVD] United States
- Leitch, Thomas. (2003) Twelve Fallacies in Contemporary Adaption Theory. US: Criticism Vol. 45, Issue 2 [p.149-171]
- Pak, Greg. (2007) Hulk: Planet Hulk. US: Marvel Comics
- Sanders, Julie. (2014) Adaption and Appropriation. UK: Taylor & Francis Group [p.18-19]
- Thor (2011) Directed by Kenneth Branagh. [DVD] United States
- Thor: The Dark World (2013) Directed by Alan Taylor. [DVD] United States
- Thor: Ragnarok (2017) Directed by Taika Waititi. [DVD] United States
- Villarejo, Amy. (2021) Film Studies: The Basics. UK: Routledge [p.37]
- What We Do In The Shadows (2014) Directed by Taika Waititi. [DVD] New Zealand