Week 1 Aarseths article

Weeks 1 Aarseth’s article

In modern day cinema producers now very risk wary of the ever increasing costs of films now seek to capitalise on marketing their products through multiple means, everything from books, films, games, toys, anime/animation, shirts, phones, cars and even rides. The list is potentially endless all in production companies attempts to maximise the money they make while covering the potential loss they could make on their films.

In short it is risk verse reward.

Aarseth says that this cross media exchange goes fairly smooth between two media that’s forms are alike. His specific example is with books and film. I can see in a sense because much akin to each other both display use of the three act structure and similar narrative models. However Aarseth goes on to say this smooth transfer happens less with “forms that have strong structural differences”.

The scary thing is because of this companies no longer care for the storytelling, artform, or visionaries of the art. Gone is the need to create interesting stories and characters, replaced instead by the need to make money and desire to maximise investment while cutting risk of loss.

And now in a era where most profit even from films that are not such box office hits, through use of this cross media culture are raking in money it is becoming more a case of there are no more “stand-alone product, whether film,

game, or even comic book is worth risking the investment. The risk has to be

spread across media, and beyond, to secure the bottom line.”

David Alpert and Rick Jacobs (2004), “Movies are now no longer

free-standing IP [intellectual property]; they are one piece in a marketing assault.”

Jay Lemke (2004) “Maximizing profits compels a strategy of crossing

over across as many of these media as possible.”

Aarseth Using Cawelti’s (1976) theory of popular genres writes in this article what is and what isn’t transferable within crossmedia migration, and the role and importance of games and how they tie in with this exchange. He questions where games stand and now they with their costs very similar to Hollywood blockbuster films and have they taken/are taking the top spot of cross media heirachy or have changed the entire cycle.

Aarseth says how too often whether content is properly transferred is used in only a negative fashion. He states there are two forms synchronous and asynchronous,

which the audience may also see as the “strong” and “weak” versions of how it translates.:

One style being where all the different media adaptations are made at the same time. Where at the time of creation it was planned to be a piece on different medias/elements. These are made parallel to key pice [usually film].

The latter idea is where the piece is a adaptation. It is movement between one media to another even if at time it was made this was never considered. An example would be a Shakesphere play.

Based on successes of initial presentation of content such as book or play, usually starting in a low-costing media source, based on this it may end up being transferred into a high cost media outlet.

High cost media outlets however use simultaneous adaptations across these low cost media at same time to promote itself more. And sell itself through more and more outlets

Before our modern idea of cross media it is important to remember this is nothing new. Plays, poems in manuscripts, both able to be performed and read. Even music written on a sheet is a example as it too can be performed or read.

Just over thirty years prior to today films/movies were the main piece in this hierarchy of cross media movement. With many books, plays and such being converted into the film artform.

Games are starting now to rival film productions in their cost. They now can be considered a contender for top of the hierarchy with films. At present the way films and games are have made them a interesting pair to look at with the nature of cross media.

The very way these are put into production is possibly the most alike than any other two medias. With high definition gaming the new demand for graphics and formatting these costs are rising.

Movies now have adopted a trend for using pre existing ideas

• Comics (Spider Man)

• Games (Tomb Raider, Doom)

• Television shows (Starsky and Hutch)

• Earlier movies (Italian Job)

• Amusement park rides (Pirates of the Caribbean)

As mentioned in my week 2 piece; pre awareness reduces risk. It cheapens the costs put into marketing astronomically and in a age where a third of overall cost of a film [proven in article] can go on advertising having a product already known saves a great deal of this expenditure.

Curiously enough this trend is not limited to film. At present some of the top selling games are sequels, movie franchises or both as is often the case.

If you look at the financial logic and ideology, the way both recover their costs becomes the central focus of both.

Aarseth speculates

1. A single-medium launch is a lost opportunity, a flawed business plan.

2. The health and timeliness of the overall production and launch is more important

than the integrity of an individual piece.

3. The individual pieces should add to the total franchise–brand awareness.

4. Ease of transfer (crossability) becomes a critical aspect of the operation.

Significant is the change from cross media conetent to cross media branding. Much like a brand it is a name attached to something. Aarseth calls cross media content a romantic notion which I feel is significant as it views it as ideology and not fact or a real.

Using examples like Batman candy where the mere name of the brand attracted sales it is easy to see the upsides to using crossmedia branding however in doing this it can effect the love and “health” of a brand.

A health based on audiences expectations and satisfyment of whether those expectations are met or not. This health is the lasting ability of the brand to sell. And as those expectations are not met the brand becomes harder to sell itself.

This is also dictated to by the medium it is presented ons conventions and limitations.

Aarseth used the example with the 1989 Batman and way audience was sceptical of actors used but the product still was strong enough to succeed. And through it’s success led to sequels and the money train rolled on.

This however was not true of the Matrix Game Enter the Matrix. Many fans expressing their disappointment. Given the audiences expectations after the first film were at a all time high and that the bullet time effect USP [unique selling point] had already been used in the Max Payne 2 game it may not be as much of a surprise. Still Enter the Matrix made a profit. But after it’s terrible performance ended up beign the most returned game ever.

So bad was this adaptation a move was made by Warner that licensed games that did not meet good reviews had higher royalty fees for causing brand damage. This suggests that failure on any outlet can effect a brands marketability enough to detract from it’s other outlets.

While in Aarseths article there are limited examples used and it is not possible to fully justify these findings it is useful in looking at for ideas about the way content is transferred,

Aarseth says that adaptations alone are not always successful. In order for their to be financial success and profit there needs to be “substantial marketing and pre awareness” more so than the products quality yet at the same time their is risk of causing damage to the brand.

Production Companies now having tried multiple avenues have a idea now of what works and what doesn’t and what is likely to be their best chance for financial success. Noticably in the film to game conversions a patern has emerged. Certain types of film are being used in film to game conversions while others because of genre left on sidelines.

Action, sci fi, horror and war; things with spectacles and visual power. Many book to film genres that were easily transferable such as romance, psychodrama,

period–historical, or biography are left out. So why? What is their reasoning, obviously they want to make money but also Aarseth believes such experiences as produced in these can not be brought to games.

. In other words, we

are not witnessing cross-media storytelling, but rather cross-media spectacle making.

Aarseth uses the example of Pirates of the Carribean the ride to the film in which nothing really is transferred but the minor notion of skeletons and pirates. That the actors used had nothing to do with the subsequent games or ride. Minor things are similar and used in film [briefly] but not properly transferred.

It’s genre and themes are not in either the game or ride. With only Keira Knightlys voiceover in game. In short Aarseth argues that rides while they can take from “pre awareness of the film” but offer nothing narrative in return.” They require pre awareness of the brand name.

“To get a deeper perspective of this, let us

turn to popular fiction theorist John Cawelti (1976), who made a distinction between

two levels of popular fiction. He said the distinction is: (a) the level of

cultural convention, in which we find the stereotypes, characters, clichés, and the

environment (e.g., Europe in the Middle Ages, the Wild West) and (b) the level

of the underlying structure, which is a series of events (boy meets girls, boy

loses girl, etc.). Only the latter is where the story is actually told, but the amusement

park rides and the games contain the first level without really affording the

latter.”

^ Taken from Aarseth article

Extending film to game are the book to film to games in Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter.

Looking carefully at these though is a evident loss between books to film and film to game. So much so that the initial piece being the book and the game are very different.

Because of length of book is allowed to be longer than length of film not everything can be transferred into time a film has allocated but this is usually fairly faithful the the narrative and story of the books. Aarseth then says however this is not the casse with the transfer to games which deviate form this transfer.

Again, Cawelti’s (1976) model applies, with the layer of cultural conventions

being transferred, but the underlying narrative structure not at all or bent almost

out of recognition. Playing Gandalf in the Electronic Arts Return of the King

(2003) game involves zapping orcs (i.e., evil creatures) endlessly and performing

ninja-like moves with sword and staff, but with none of the inventiveness and dignity

that the narrative Gandalf would have displayed.

Aarseth questions are we playing as the Gandalf we saw in the film or merely his likeness. As despite appearance and powers the behaviour and subsequent character from the books is lost. Replaced for a more active fighting and less whit and diplomatic character.

On the other hand Aarseth argues Gameplay very linear, lack of ability to free roam like in middle earth you could imagion you could. This is definitely not a book trait as free roaming is going outside the story. This is more a benefit of the medium I think Aarseth is trying to argue.

Likewise in his Examination of Harry Potter despite it’s open world it to has games objectives deviate from anything in book and at times have nothing to do with it.

“Again, Cawelti (1976) can be used to

describe a transfer that, similar to chemical warfare, kills the people (or turns them

into brainless zombies) but leaves the buildings untouched.”

Aarseths’s article says according to Alpert and Jacobs (2004), there are three significant things to look for when film-to-game transfer occurs that if all three are present will make a “interesting” or good game. :

The first is Iconic characters, the Harry Potters, The Luke Skywalkers. Characters that are loved and have followings.

(b) an interesting universe, or world that we are presented with. With it’s own rules, mythology and such

(c) a “high concept” that would translate into a game play.

It is a personal thought Rocky would cover this. Rocky is a iconic character, the high concept being boxing easily can be transferred into game mechanics as a boxing game and the world/universe is the same.

Aarseth says despite all this what is missing is the story saying instead you do not need it. It isn’t necessarily useable in gameplay mechanics. Aarseth says that for a game to work it is gameplay not story that takes president.

I FEEL THIS IS NOT ALWAYS TRUE

“You can transfer characters (up to a

point), universes (non-problematically), and any kind of action gimmick such as

bullet time; but for games to work, game play (and not story) is key. A predefined

story will mess up the game if followed too slavishly. Therefore the method is to

extract the spectacular, the spatial and the idiosyncratic, and develop events and

way points that will nod to the story of the original work, whereas keeping a firm

eye on the bottom line of game play quality.”

This last quote sums up Aarseth but I feel is too loose. Yes there is importance on gameplay but also on story. Metal Gear solid seems more film than game yet follows that linear story arcitype and is one of best there is. The original works gimmicks and the extractation of the spectacular allow points to play through. And worked like star wars rogue squadron over more close to scrip games.

My arguement with Aarseth this entire time is yes films and books do not transfer perfectly to film. There is much that needs to be filled in with games. Films give a idea of a fight then skip to results at times. Games you experience the full fight. Games have to amplify film but in doing so in parts where there is nothing have to create something, though with nothing they have to make a new part that will change the character,

.

This is feel is because a game is a interactive media not liek film or book. You have to and want to make choices in that medium. A story however by it’s nature is linear and one way, there is no choice how a story is told. Because of this I feel films and games will never transfer. A article I read said that like with the Final Fantasy Seven games, the way people played as cloud in game may be very different to one another. I may have used cloud only attacking where they may have used him for magic only. So a film can’t reflect both. Likewise a game needs to reflect more than one choice they made in film.

TO end what Aarseth has said in this is that some things like those mentioned above easily transfer. While others do not. That by using Caweltis ideas it is possible to make an educated guess what will go from one to another and that books to film and similar methods of storytelling transfer best where as rides and games do not.