Written on Saturday, April 19, 2014 by Unknown
So Danny, what is all this business about a timeline?
Well non-existent person, I did actually have a point when I made that. I mean, it sort of got out of control and I spent far too much time on it, but I think it was worth it.
One of the points that I have been repeating like a broken record is that transmedia is freaking complicated. Just look at that timeline image. Can you even follow that without repeatedly referring to the key? (Granted, right now you can't really zoom in on it, but I'm working on that!)
Transmedia has layers and deepness that standard stories don't. They are flat. But the different levels make it confusing sometimes. And right now there is no one true way to define it and therefore no one true way to analyze it. At least not yet. I talked about kernels and satellites as a possibility, but that was quickly revealed to be problematic.
Now that isn't to say that The Scene Function Model didn't have good and usable components. For example, Porter, Larson, Harthcock, and Nellis posit that in films the plot is most important, but in TV it is the character development and continuous storylines that drive the show (24). The same characters (for the most part) return every week and we become invested in them. What is also fascinating is that in between episodes we assume that the characters keep on living their lives. I love this idea, because transmedia can take that abstract notion and make it literal. Learning what the characters do between episodes was something I never thought I needed to know, but after participating in LBD I found out how much fun that can be. And then those boundaries are broken down further when you literally interact with them through social media. How amazing is that!
There is also some validity to kernels and satellites when looking at transmedia projects, but I think it depends on said project. It can probably apply to things like the Star Wars franchise better than it could with LBD. Die hard Star Wars fans might disagree with me on that. But it is all about the setup. Social media is a big factor. And the fluidity of the pieces of media is another factor. So is the size of the universe, and the amount of audience interaction. There are so many factors.
For weeks I have been trying to come up with a way to look at transmedia that could be used generally. I wont steal these people's ideas about story bridges (and I don't know if I wholeheartedly agree with it anyway). This has been both the fun part and the hard part. These projects can be so different and transmedia seems to always be changing.
But I did come up with something. Here's my idea. My metaphor if you will. (Correction, pretty sure it's an analogy. 8th grade grammar, you have failed me.)
Meet streams and barriers.
This is my theory. I'll try to break it down as straightforwardly as possible. I actually wanted (and would have preferred) to make a video about this, but I am not at school so my resources are limited. It is entirely possible that I will end up expanding on this thesis even after the deadline, and if that is the case then I'll try to make a video.
Transmedia storytelling is essentially a series of streams and barriers. By streams I mean streams of water flowing down from a source (i.e. the creators of the media or the universe in which the narratives exist). There can be as many streams as the source is able to create, and each stream represents a particular piece of media (video, audio, social media, book, you name it). The barriers can be big or small, permanent or impermanent, good or bad, and represent the different plot devices used to move the story along or to cause conflict. Barriers can separate streams into more streams, keep streams separate, bring them back together, and keep them together. They can also serve as obstacles that a stream needs to get around (such as a problem a character needs to solve) or even something that helps the story move along faster or slower.
Streams practice divergence, convergence, and reconvergence. Water is a cohesive molecule, meaning that it is attracted to itself (because oxygen is electronegative and hydrogen is electropositive). So in general, it wants to stick together. But at the same time water is also an adhesive molecule, meaning that it likes to stick to other things (ever done the surface tension test where you put water droplets on a penny and see how many it can hold before it spills over? That is both cohesion and adhesion working at the same time). In storytelling, narrative devices can push components of the story apart thus separating a stream into two or more streams. But water is naturally attracted to itself and wants to interact, sometimes bringing streams back together (or back into the original stream, depending on the transmedia story). This can happen over and over again. Split, return, split, return. Diverge, reconverge, diverge, reconverge. The same can be said for two different streams that still emanate from the same source. They want to come together, and sometimes they will. Convergence is natural, as long as there isn't a major barrier in the way.
This might sound a bit confusing, so I made a crude drawing of LBD streams and barriers which might help. Really this is supposed to be a metaphor and not quite so literal, but I enjoy the visuals.

Like I said, it's very crude. So we have the source of the water which is the LBD universe. The stream here is the YouTube videos. And Charlotte, Lizzie, Jane, and Lydia are all moving along. They reach the first barrier which is a location change, but that is relatively smooth. Then the second barrier, another location change (and also that little brown thing I guess), causes Lydia to veer off into Mary's stream (one that was not visible until Lydia appears). Charlotte also does not go to Netherfield, nor is there any twitter activity from her, implying that she is underwater for this portion and not visible to the viewers. But she has not ceased to exist, we still assume she's up to something. Then the girls return home which causes Lydia to also return from Mary's and Charlotte makes an appearance to. Then the story continues. This is a about 35 of the core episodes and 7 of Lydia's. Obviously it isn't totally accurate and it doesn't show any other streams, but I just wanted to show some kind of example. Next time I'll make a video instead of a crappy drawing.
Moving on, we come to the outside forces. In my metaphor (or is it an analogy? yea, it's definitely an analogy) the outside forces are the weather or other natural phenomena. These are things not created by the Powers That Be but are still things that they have to deal with and factors that they have to account for. Much like the weather, outside forces can be unpredictable sometimes. You can understand them and attempt to predict them (like a weatherperson) but you will never have 100% control. The weather is one of the things that makes transmedia so much different than normal narrative storytelling.
Some forecasts:
Hot and sunny - This would be a bad thing. Seeing the sun means that you have no viewers/participants. Sun causes water to evaporate, so smaller and maybe less important streams would tend to dry up because of it and the major streams would suffer losses.
Cloudy as hell - This is excellent. You have a lot of viewers and they are crowding up the sky! Your streams remain intact and are free to flow on. And if the clouds stick around, you must be doing something right. Your streams are stable and perhaps this means you can experiment with more.
Thunder and lightning - Your audience is a rambunctious one! They like to make fandoms and fandoms like to argue. They are vocal (literally) and are reacting to your material. This chatter can be good or bad, it all depends. They may also create rainbows (fan art/fanfic, videos, songs), cloud formations (fandoms, shippers), and more.
Rain - This is one of the most significant aspect of transmedia, and that is the ability to allow your audience to participate. In this scenario, rain enters the streams and interacts with the water. It can evaporate out later, but the fact that this is even possible is a clear sign that this is an immersive transmedia project. Not everyone likes rain, and they often create barriers to keep it out. But sometimes rain is welcome, so interaction and contribution is encouraged. The audiences can be an unpredictable force though, so it is good to try to monitor some of it, or at least check in and see what's going on and what kind of feedback they might be giving you.
Freezing - When streams become frozen, they cease to move. This is a very interesting force, because it can be cause by a lot of different things. Take the '07-'08 Writers Guild Strike of America. This caused tons of shows to simply stop. No scripts were coming in, actors wouldn't act, and episodes weren't being made. Everything just hit a standstill until the problems were resolved. This wasn't a foreseen circumstance, nor was it one people could easily work around. You pretty much just had to wait it out. Eventually problems were solved, and streams can become unfrozen and move on. But you do have to account for the delay and adjust the streams and barriers accordingly. It's a tough one.
Wind - Wind can cause old (and impermanent) barriers to reappear. Wind can be created (like a fan), but it can also just appear and mix things up. Two consequences of wind are:
Pollution - Your streams can become polluted due to an unforeseen outside source. Sometimes the pollution can irreparably damage your stream and cause it to become contaminated. Other times your streams might just become a little dirty, or the pollution is fixable (e.g. oil and water can be separated). Dilution is also possible with the addition of more water. And also, water is a natural and very strong solvent, so some things can be resolved (or dissolved) with time.
Dirt - Stuff happens. Things get thrown in your way and sometimes the stones and pebbles will sink to the bottom and you can move on. But not always. Dirt and grittiness can also indicate what kind of resources you have and are working with. Pure, untainted water is usually the product of industry level production houses that have tons of money and professionals working on the story. Less clean water is usually associated with people who have less money, time, and hands on deck. They also tend to have less water in general.
And this last one isn't weather, but it is a factor:
Incline change - This is one that could be manipulated by the creators in the sense that the general trajectory of the narrative can be mapped out. An incline can cause the flow to quicken, slow, or possibly even plateau. Momentum is very important to the flow of a narrative. If a stream reaches too flat of a surface (or a really big barrier) that causes it to be unable to continue, then more water (via other streams or more content/characters/plot) needs to be added in order for it to be heavy enough to move on. This is different from a pool.
A pool can be a stationary, possibly unchanging source of content that adds substance to a narrative, but does not further the plot. So maybe a website or a guidebook that just tells you what things are but doesn't do anything else.
Alright, I think that's enough possibilities for now. If necessary, I can always make more specific examples to go along with each of those, but this is already getting a bit long. But it's really cool though, right!
After coming up with this I tried to figure out how kernels and satellites might still be used. Could you say that the barriers are the events and the streams are the existents? That doesn't seem quite right because kernels and satellites are a subcategory of events not existents and would not apply to streams at all. But it is possible to call a stream a kernel if you wanted to. If Lizzie's videos are a stream, and the videos created by other characters are other streams with characters that may pass between them, then could you not say that Lizzie's stream is a kernel and the others are satellites? What about barriers? Are particular barriers kernels and others satellites? Does it depend on how much of an impact they have? What about the ones that cause new streams to be created. Are they kernels because they create streams, or are they satellites because those streams aren't kernels themselves? So confusing.
Basically, I don't think that kernels and satellites are usable theories for examining transmedia and I don't think that they can be used in conjunction with my theory either. It just isn't the right combination of formats. Kernels and satellites are for linear narratives that lack other dimensions. If it were a chess board then TV would be a single board with set pieces, players, and rules. Transmedia stories, on the other hand, would be composed of multi-tiered boards with far more pieces, players, and possible moves due to a lack of cut and dry rules. That game is more flexible and complex, whereas TV is far more simple and set in it's ways. You could even call webseries as a medium a broader game than TV or film. It's like turning rock-paper-scissors into rock-paper-scissors-lizard-spock.
And then transmedia is like, hell no! We can do better than that! And so they play rock-paper-scissors-lizard-spock-spiderman-batman-wizard-glock. Sounds awesome, but what a mouthful. I can barely say that once without messing up, let alone five times fast.
And then when transmedia gets bored with that version, it makes something else.
Holy crap you guys. I could never play that. I don't even want to try.
But the fact that this kind of complexity is even possible just reinforces the idea that storytelling doesn't have to be the same three things over and over again. People have experimented with transmedia or other types of immersive and alternative storytelling, but ever since the 1990's this stuff has practically been on steriods and it isn't even that huge yet. Way back when you could (more) easily quantify all of the possible outcomes of a narrative trajectory. There were only a certain amount of plausible end results that could happen (unless it's just a really crappy narrative). But now it seems there are infinite amounts. Well not infinite, but way more than before. Three hand movements just became 101. It's crazy.
Well I hope this all made sense. Please let me know if it didn't. And let me know if you think this method could work when looking at transmedia stories. Just bombard me with all your thoughts! I want to know!
-Danny
P.S. I had a handful of other thoughts and examples on this but I forgot some of them. I'll check back in my notes and if I see anything I missed then I'll add it. Because I definitely had more specific examples. I just know I did.
P.P.S. And yes,
I will re-read and then edit this again for the probably numerous
spelling and grammar mistakes, but for now I just needed to post it.
Posted in
audience,
barriers,
cohesive,
kernels,
LBD,
satellites,
streams,
theory,
thesis,
transmedia,
TV,
water,
weather,
webseries
|
Written on Monday, March 17, 2014 by Unknown
"If you love something, then let it go." Said no one who ever belonged in a fandom ever.
They
also don't say things like "I accept every decision this
author/director/creator made without second guessing it or having any
kind of opinion about it."
Yep. Letting things go and accepting change are two things that die hard fans can be really bad at. And internet fandoms are just as ridiculous. They also love to use abbreviated terms. Take for example...
Ship/Shipping (other fun versions can be found here*):
This
is an abbreviation of the word "relationship" and basically means you
are rooting for a relationship to happen/continue. Ex. "I ship Stefan
and Elena." A sub category of shipping is "otp" or "one true pairing."
*for a much longer explanation go here (note to my advisor, this website claims it originated with fans of The X-Files)
Fans
are passionate. Very passionate. Borderline crazy passionate. (Okay, not all of them.) Some of
them are even like, "There's a line? Well we definitely have to step
over it then. Lines are for irl conversations only, and even then it
will still be crossed."
So the creators of The Lizzie Bennet Diaries
had an interesting dilemma. They wanted the show to be a modern
adaptation, but how modern were they allowed to make it? How far off
could they go from the original text that would a) please fans of the
novel and b) appeal to new fans (who may or may not have liked/read the
novel). As I have established, fans are freakin' passionate. They have
needs. They have feels. And messing too much with the original content
could make Janeites go berserk, but then not messing enough could make new fans roll their eyes.
The first line of Pride and Prejudice is iconic. Any English major can probably quote it to you, as could any Austen fan. LBD tried to incorporate it as best they could (honestly, I didn't exactly love what they did) because not doing so would have upset P&P fans.
The
show was also written by feminists, who don't consider the first line
to be a truth. So they changed things, the ending especially, so that it
fits into a modern feminist context. Austen was more constricted by her
time period and the ending of the novel is indicative of that, but not
really suitable to 21st century ideals. Lydia can't marry Wickham in
this era, because what he did to her in LBD's version is morally wrong and unforgivable (this, of course, is arguable—but not so much my point).
What
might happen if there was a major deviation from the original text?
Would an audience be lost? What if the deviation wasn't so "major"? To
what extent are they allowed to change? What is the audience comfortable
with?
I
know that there have been occasions where some Austen fans have been
like "Hell no, that is not supposed to happen" but then other times
where they say "I really like how you updated this particular scene."
Sometimes both of those statements exist in the same comments thread,
and other times it can be a vast majority pulling one way or the other.
There are major benefits and limitations to adapting. You have a built in audience which is a plus, but as I said you also need to appease them and new viewers too. It is certainly a predicament.
I seem to only have more questions than when I started, but that is why I am writing them out.
Time for more serious investigation...
-Danny
Posted in
adaptation,
audience,
Austen,
book,
change,
fan,
fandom,
LBD,
modern,
opinion,
passionate,
pride and prejudice,
ship,
shipping,
The Lizzie Bennet Diaries
|
Written on Thursday, December 26, 2013 by Unknown
In this post I blabbed a bit about my thoughts on transmedia categories. I said I would expand on some of those thoughts, and I've got some time now so let's get to it.
If you don't want to go back to that post, allow me to quickly summarize. If you've already saw it, then ignore the following paragraph. So Andrea Phillips discussed in her book that there were two types of transmedia, West Coast (or Hollywood) and East Coast. I disagree. Well, at least with her choice of names. I've decided that I prefer the terms industry transmedia (in place of West Coast) and creator's transmedia (in place of East Coast). Industry transmedia uses bigger pieces of media that don't heavily depend on each other (just like in Phillips' version) and is usually done as a means to an end. The end is usually dollars, exposure, shares, or something else to that effect. Creator's transmedia tends to uses more intricate and occasionally smaller pieces of media, relies more heavily on social media (again, like Phillips'), and tends to be done for the love and expansion of the story. At least, this is how I've chosen to categorize them. If I want to make them truly stand apart then I would probably call these the extremes on a transmedia spectrum, with something in between. Both of those names come from the standpoint of the producer, not the audience, so this in-between would also need to be named similarly. I have yet to figure that out.
Now, here is where I expand. I do also think that transmedia can be categorized in other ways, perhaps with terms like audience-immersive transmedia, or maybe even audience-participatory. Something that describes the experience from the other side. These labels could even be combined. So maybe like Creator's audience-immersive transmedia. Or it can be specific to the tactics/medias used. Industry ARG/Video transmedia. Regardless, I have plenty of time to make up more names later. For now I just want to stick with the industry and creator differences.
So here's what I'm thinking. It's a loose theory, and I'm just spitballing here, but that seems to be the best way to collect my thoughts. Consider this a first draft of a possible thesis argument. It is going to be long, maybe even repetitive, so you should probably get a snack.
Creator's transmedia, in general, is the more versatile form of transmedia. This is due to the fact that industry transmedia has to appease the studios, so there are more rules and constraints. It is less about the art or the story, and more about how transmedia can be used to get The Ultimate Goal (be it money, views, fame, etc.). So logically, creator's transmedia tends to take more risks and do more experimenting. Failures are inevitable, as are successes. But they have more opportunities to fail and succeed because they take more chances. Creators want to create, even if they don't have much money, and they don't have a studio that will be furious if they bomb. It is possible that they will have a kickstarter fund, but again those don't always make a lot (and when they do it's possible the money was raised after or that they are actually moving closer toward the industry side) at least when compared to the wallets of the industry. So creators can break out of the box, maybe to see how far they can go. Industry, on the other hand, can use this to their advantage. They can watch the creators and capitalize on their successes while heeding their failures. They aren't going to copy a failed creator. In fact, they might even hire a successful creator (or team of them) for an industry project.
All of this means that the industry is not the true leader. The creators are the innovators that are moving transmedia forward. They are the ones changing the game, not the industry. This is unfortunate, because the industry's efforts can reach more people, and their transmedia is more polished because more money and many professionals went into it. The east gets none of those successes nor do they get any credit. Their existence is advantageous to the industry. As my dad said, it is kind of like pure vs. applied science. Pure science is all about studying and learning. There is no goal, just experimenting. But applied science is all about the end result and they use pure science as a means. Applied science is finding a cure for cancer, and they use the results of pure science (misc. studies about cancer cells for example) as they go. Cure is the end, pure is the means. I don't really know anything about pure vs. applied other than what I was briefly told, so forgive me if I am mistaken.
I've said a lot about how creators create for the love of the story or the sake of the art. They do to do, not to get. Industry is the opposite. So does this mean that the creators fail a lot more than succeed? Yes. Does this mean they never succeed? No. But when they do succeed, do they not become industry because they got bank/audience? Not necessarily. I think it is all about intentions. But don't creators want success and viewers and maybe some money too? probably, yes. So how are they not industry? This is exactly why I need to have a middle category. This category would cover those who make choices for both the story and The Ultimate Goal. And what about those who are creators that work in/with the industry? Can we call that industry with creator's transmedia or creator's in the industry transmedia or even something like industrial creator's transmedia? Yeah, sure. The point is that this is all very blurry. There is rarely a black and white scenario. Transmedia is and probably always will be a tricky thing to define.
I think this type of categorizing can be useful for analysis. If we have names for these things then we can better understand them, discuss them, and pick them apart. The picking is fun for me anyway. Rhetoric student after all. I just need to make all of this more clear, and then possibly utilize it within my greater thesis argument. It could be the key. Or maybe it's all total bullshit. We'll see.
I think that's enough for now. Did you enjoy your snack?
-Danny
(& parents, who were nice enough to discuss this and provide the basis for some of these ideas.)
Posted in
Andrea Phillips,
argument,
audience,
categorize,
creators,
East Coast,
end,
fail,
Hollywood,
immersion,
industry,
Kickstarter,
means,
rhetoric,
risk,
science,
succeed,
thesis,
transmedia,
West Coast
|
Written on Tuesday, December 24, 2013 by Unknown
Dear Thesis,
What the hell am I going to do with you?
I'm sorry for being so brash thesis, but it's the truth. I have until Friday to come up with something for my advisor, and I've got about as many ideas as I have Christmas presents. (Just in case you were wondering Thesis, I'm Jew-ish so I have no Christmas presents.)
So what do I do? How do you throw around ideas for this kind of thing? I tried that with my parents, and while they do have some good theories and such, nothing they suggested is anything more than a long paper. And frankly Thesis, I want you to be so much more than that. Well, at least a little more than that. I want you to have some transmedia element other than this blog. I want you to have a video component or some other out-of-the-box type thing. I would love to make a web show, but how the hell do I incorporate that sort of thing? Can I do a web show that documents (or mockuments) the thesis process? Maybe, but I definitely don't want to be the subject. I'll write, direct, shoot, edit, etc. but I will not act. I mean, I want you to be good Thesis, and with me acting it would be total crap. No lies. I can tell a good story though, but that's not acting and I only have so many stories.
One video idea that I've had for some time revolves around people telling stories, but I can't think of a way to trasmedify that. Again, I could document it documentary-style. Like tweet about my process and shit, but that sounds so boring. Just thinking about it made me roll my eyes. But then again, I guess I've been doing that a lot lately with all this Christmas music playing non-stop and Christmas movies on every channel. But I guess that's what an iPod and Netflix are for.
But back to you thesis. What to do, what to do... Let's play the what if game.
- What if I made a web show?
- Ok, but it would have to be relevant.
-
What if I used that web show to help my argument?
- Ok, but it would again have to be relevant.
-
What if the web show proved some kind of point that I was trying to argue?
- Ok, that could be good because evidence is good.
-
What if the argument was about how transmedia is better for audience immersion than not transmedia?
- Ok, but can you take that a step further?
-
What if the argument was about how creators transmedia is better than industry transmedia? (see this post, and yes I know I said I would expand it)
- Ok, but you don't work for the industry and you aren't a creator yet, and besides there are plenty of existing examples that you could use to better argue this.
-
What if this was like a science experiment where you had a hypothesis and put it to the test via the show and accompanying transmedia?
- Ok, but what the hell is my hypothesis and why do I need to test it instead of relying on preexisting examples?
-
What if you were testing transmedia from the audience's standpoint instead of the creator's?
- Ok, but I basically do that every day when I participate in other peoples transmedia work and how does that help?
-
What if you were testing it from the creator's standpoint instead of the audience?
- Ok like can I get viewers, is this spreadable media, do people want to participate, how much effort is required on a weekly basis, and that sort of stuff?
-
What if your thesis was more science-y and you argued that the yet to be named in-between (creators and industry) version of transmedia is the best version because a) they care more about content and less about money, b) it is still important to get views and shares in order to keep the show going, c) anyone can do it so there are fewer rules, and d) I can do it and here were my results and the feedback that I gained from the experience?
- Ok, but I guess that isn't totally science-y because I was still looking for a hypothesis in there somewhere, but this is totally progress.
- What if you were hit by the Amazing Idea Asteroid tomorrow and got a way more concise, intelligent, and all around better version of the proposal above?
- Then my life would be complete, and so would you Thesis.
Well, at least I'm going forward.
And yes, I think transmedify should be a word. Upon googling I found "no results" so hopefully it will pick up soon.
Until next time.
-Danny
Posted in
advisor,
argue,
argument,
audience,
creators,
document,
idea,
immersion,
industry,
participate,
professor,
rhetoric,
science,
spreadable media,
thesis,
transmedia,
transmedify,
web show,
webseries,
what if game
|