Class sheet, Dangers of Transmedia

One of most important things i have learnt in this subject is from the shee we were given with cartoon of people coming out of Matrix screening. It is significant to me in that it points out the danger of transmedia experiences.

While the matrix featured multiple layers of depth it at the same time had too many for any one reader of the text to possibly find. It required people to have played the games, read the comics and understood the paratext's of the bible, english literature and other things.

Not everyone had, many had just gone to see it as a film and wanted to just enjoy a film for a film without having to do all homework before seeing it. Much of the experience made no sense. Because of this it met with mixed reviews and despite the huge amount of popularity transmedia gets from it's ability to continue peoples favourite stories this proved it's danger.

Just as a film may be damaged from cross media by destroying audiences enjoyment of a brand diminishing chances of brands continued success. The other side of the coin is transmedia stop sometimes entrance to a brand. Without understanding the audiences enjoyment can be likewise diminished.

Paratexts are good in the sense they get meanings that go beyond just what your given in film saving film explaining them but at same time because the film doesn't it leaves a void to some unaware of their significance.

Research details.

How I intend to research for my main report.

THe main report will be on the subject of final fantasy films and cover the benifits and negatives of trans and cross media productions visable within the two.
The idea is to examine the two using The Spirits Within film to represent cross media branding as it is a stand alone product thats only resemblance to the genre is the name.
Representing transmedia is the FF7 related film Advent Children.

The aim is to examine the success or lack there of within each and compare. By applying the theories of Jenkins and Aarseth as steppingstones and using such to point directions of inquiry. One example is the who risk verse reward theory. By comparing revenue spent and earnt we have one element.
By comparing comments about both featured on sales websites we can get a indication of the general publics thoughts on both in general. And by way of a questionaire using samples of even amounts of fans and non fans it is possible to see how high the enjoyment is for each film and whether same amount of enjoyment can be had by non fans.

If as i suspect there is difference it may favour against transmedia proving more that it is harder for non fans to get into transmedia films as lack of prior knowledge will disrupt their pleasure of a product.

In our research we intend a detailed trailer analysis and a questionaire. In our questionaire about the trailers we look to get an idea of the audiences perception of
what they will expect from film after seeing trailer?
Which they liked the best?
Was the trailer easy to understand?
Did the film look appealing?

From trailer analysis we can theoretically get what the trailer suggests the films are about and compare to what we know.

With all this data we intend to see how well Transmedia comes across to the majority, seeing how easy it is to understand, is it liked by the more wider audience. Was it more successfully financially. Then we will look at Crossmedias representative and see how the same applies and work out which is the better approach based on all these factors combined.

It will be important to use the data of non fans because they are not biased when looking at the trailers. Their expectations will be based on it just as a film as like in real world not many people overall have all played final fantasy and this will need to be reflected in data we collect.

The trailer analysis will be a analysis and not based on any favouritism but a more systematic look at impressions each give

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.

Week 2s event movies, high concepts and marketing stratagies

Event movies are nothing new, the idea of a film becoming more than that, and being part of a murchandiing bombardment had existed for years, one needs only look back and it is clear from Lord of the Rings to Jurassic Park. They are nothing new.

The question is why make event movies? Well one answer is that films on their own do not always make back the millions of dollars that go into such blockbusters. Some films such as Godzilla which were a flop at the box office would lose millions by being a standalone product.

Transnational media corporations because of this need to safeguard their investments in such films. By implementing multiple stratagies and marketable devices of the concept they make up their loses and save their investments.

Table 1. Event Movie Franchises

Franchise Media Conglomerate Year/(Number of Films) Production Budget World Box Combined Combined Office Gross

The Lord of the Rings Time Warner (New Line) 2001/2002/2003 (3) $281 million $2.91 billion

Harry Potter Time Warner 2001/2002/2004 (3) $360 million $2.63 billion

Jurassic Park Universal (Vivendi/NBC) 1993/1997/2001 (3) $229 million $1.90 billion

Matrix Time Warner 1999/2003/2003 (3) $300 million $1.62 billion

Spider-Man Sony 2002/2004 (2) $339 million $1.59 billion

Star Wars News Corp. 1999/2002 (2) (+3) $235 million $1.57 billion

Lara Croft–Tomb Raider Viacom 2001/2003 (2) $170 million $360 million

Pirates of the Caribbean Disney 2003 $125 million $650 million

Significant about the table above is that every one of the biggest grossing is all part of franchises that have converged between numerous medias, games, books, films, toys in what is refered to as a event movie phenomenon.

The idea of a event movie is simple, one it uses a theme of already successful products. It promotes itself as a big can not miss blockbuster and keeps mainly to a high concept ideal. A script easily sumable in a single sentence.

Secondly...” Second, the

event movie as a strategy is a business model used by

TNMCs to benefit from the industry’s macro structure”

Finally the transitions between medias is to maximise audiences who prefer alternate media forms. For example to get games involved, and bring people of different target audiences together. It also tries appealing to a global audience over any specific region.

After the decline of big budget films in the late 60s films had to be made to to a cheaper budgets, the event movie however defies this. It’s goal is to be big, stand out from the competition. Before even coming out the idea you must see this film has to be presented. It has the bigger budget the bigger actors, the must see.

It must use the best technology. The aim to recoup all costs and expenses as quickly as possible as soon as the film is released. Through expensive marketing the audience is to have been bombarded so much they have the desire to see this film weeks before it is ever released.

High Concept films are the easiest to sell. They are simple and effective placing importance of visual stylistic elements while simplifying characters and narratives. Adding to this the very actors, the bands used for the soundtrack are all added to the selling points of such films.

One way such High Concept films establish a film in the audiences contiousness before it is released is by use of relying on pre existing themes or ideas. Comics, games or books are three examples of this that with the audience already aware and has a understanding of what they going to see.

Also with this comes the stratagey of sequels, prequels and such to maximise profits even more. Looking at the figures above it is very clear all the highest grossing films have been part of serieses with such prequels and sequels.

The benifits of this and the high concept nature is by simplifying the characters and narrative it is easy to advertise and promote. By breaking a script down to a single sentence it can be shown in the thirty seconds to a minute advertisements allow. By featuring more visuals like high explosions it looks better than it may or may not be. In such time it would be impossible to promote characters and deep narratives.

An interesting note is that with trend of illegal downloading of films films are spending less time at cinema for quicker release dates to maximise profits. And quickly recover costs that by waiting longer are more likely to be lost by such illegal downloads. To maximise profits further normal and special editions, are being used to incourage more consumption of the product. With the more bland vanilla original and then various extended re releases and commemorative box sets coming later.

The problem becomes such pieces can only be made by companies willing to take a initial loss on the film before making it back through these various schemes. Through the multiple sequels, throught the alternate editions, games and overall products they release from the concept they make back their money and then some in the end but such a huge amount of money is required to get the ball rolling it limits the ability of lesser financial based people within the industry to compete.

Information based upon the article below

International Journal on Media Management Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t775653657
The Event Movie: Marketing Filmed Entertainment for Transnational Media Corporations
Sven Jockel a; Thomas Dobler b a Ilmenau Technical University, Germany. b MFG Foundation, Stuttgart, Germany. Online Publication Date: 01 June 2006 To cite this Article: Jockel, Sven and Dobler, Thomas (2006) 'The Event Movie: Marketing Filmed Entertainment for Transnational Media Corporations', International Journal on Media Management, 8:2, 84 - 91 To link to this article: DOI: 10.1207/s14241250ijmm0802_4 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s14241250ijmm0802_4