In Eileen Meehan's essay "Holy Commodity Fetish, Batamn!", Meehan uses the example of the 1989 film "Batman" to talk about how a movie is made from start to finish. Meehan states that she "will argue that another dimension must be added to our analysis of media generally and of "Batman" specifically. Namely, economics must be considered if we are to fully understand the texts and intertexts of American mass culture." Meehan goes on to talk about how certain ideas, text, intertext, actors, directors, promotions, soundtracks, marketing strategies, and product lines are taken into consideration when making a film. In her essay, she does a great job of describing just how much economics comes into play when making a movie. In fact, she argues, from a studio's point of view, it is all about economics. The studio is concerned about whether their potential movie prospects will generate revenue. Because of this, Meehan concludes her essay with the statement "our discussion of economics reminds us that text, intertext, and audiences are simultaneously commodity, product line, and consumer." The question is, what exactly does this mean for us as an audience? Do we agree with Meehan's argument, or disagree? Do we believe that text and intertext are simultaneously commodity and product line? If so, what are the results of such a reality? Are they good, bad or neutral? If cultural economics transforms to economic culture, is this something that we should be concerned about, and conscientious of? Or, should be just accept this as a natural reality?