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

Research for report My aims

So far my ideas to approach research have involved a questionaire, a research of better understanding of Ashford vs Jenkins, a deconstructive analysis of boths trailers. I intend to apply other theories like Alan Moore's views on adaptation and question the nature of cross media branding and transmedia.

The worth of the Artist - Discussion of Alan Moore

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/mar/01/alan-moore-profile-watchmen

Alan Moore,
HE argued that film watered down his work in graphic Novels.

"In Moore's view, the film industry as a whole is guilty of "watering down our collective cultural imagination". He has likened the cinema-going public to freshly hatched birds with mouths open as Hollywood feeds them regurgitated worms.

"It seems to be kind of a reflex these days: if something works as a novel, then it will work even better as a film and a video game and a comic book ... I try to do things in comics that cannot be repeated by television by movies by interactive entertainment.""

Both of these quotes it is obvious that Moore felt his art restrained within boundaries of a medium that was being forced to do things that could or more seeminglyy had to be made in order to work for a movie adaptation.
Moore by going againast this and trying to make things in his medium others could not replicate shows how artists want some ownership over there work and not corperations buying them out and prostituting their creations.

"It is a view shared by Terry Gilliam, one of several directors who briefly took up the challenge of bringing the epic to the screen. "Reducing the story to a two or two-and-a-half hour film seemed to me to take away the essence of what Watchmen is about," he said."

He says how by reducing a idea your taking away from it. And for someone who worked at Dc for them to say his ideas were there's shows that the industry is now so obsessed over money that the very artists and creators of concept are being ignored. No longer are they getting famous for their hard work. No longer is the artist whos passion created it coming across but instead a desire to sell and force these watered down versions down our throats.

Yes the industry of film benifits but at the expence of the artist

My Review of Matt McAllisters theories

In this article i am reviewing a article by the above, I see this as a way to try and understand and get insight on the reasons the industry world has turned it's eye on comic book adaptations. And has tried to bridge cult and mainstream to maximise profits.

Films are becomeing all about spectacles, big budgets, big stars, big revenues generated, big explosions... Tries to appear big leaning to bigger is better philosiphy. By spending more on advertising appealing to a global market and by making focus of importance a opening weekend these companies are searching for concepts and characters that are "franchise friendly" with a tendancy to go for

"...the dominance of the action-adventure, special effects-oriented "popcom" thriller."


"one could argue that the style and format of these movies--perhaps exploiting the serialized narrative structure and visual modalities of comics indirectly influenced the episodic and cliffhanger nature of the action film genre,"

THe second quote i feel enphasises the methology carried from comic to film and vice versa. In a sense film benifits from learning new visual styles and stratagies while forcing it's own upon the comics it adapts to its format

"modern comic book-based films have helped establish the industrial formula of the Hollywood popcorn blockbuster: fantastic action movie as cultural event. Comic book materials attract a youthful movie going demographic, appeal to nostalgic older audiences, and offer thrills and well-defined archetype characters, especially heroes who also have well-established track records for popularity, licensing, and sequel potential."

With both a large fanbase and easy transferable characters this quote sums up easily why companys are so keen to include comic and make them into films and media events. THe ability to sequal these as well carrying fans on a forever consuming nature devouring a concept til it has dried out


"Ang Lee-directed Hulk (2003), "the Hulk movie was a study of anger, and people wanted a popcom movie [. . . Our Hulk will be a diet Hulk. Lighter. Focusing on the love story, Hulk as hero, and his battle with the villain" (qtd. in Hammer 112).""

Perhaps the most insulting quote exploring way films sacrifice the characters they buy, the story's and plotlines for a easy selling strategy. In doing so taking a low concept film and making it high concept so it is easier to promote It is clear in this quote there is no regret for loss of character. It has become JUST BUISNESS.
I question the morality of this. In the same article Johnson argues the way the complex and heavily depth character Wolverine in film portrayals has became much more simplistic. Losing the very things that appealed to fans.
This is in a sense a betrayal on the films parts to the base material.

I'd arge that while this article says how film has taken stylistic aproaches, see no further than SIN City it is bastardising it by taking the very reasons products like this are loved and reducing them to nothing more than one more in a never ending comercial machine.


Batman first two films with their theme made sponsorship hard with cross branded work with companies like McDonalds

"hypercommercial Hollywood seems to tolerate sex and violence more than political edginess and character complexity."

This final quote is my key point and problem, Hollywood tollerates, It is not that it cares, it is that it uses what it wants. It doesn't take a product and remakes it, it takes what it wants and puts out what it wants, leaving much out. They'll leave things they dislike out but the very fans that the concept appealed to may possibly be removed.

Peopel like things for different reasons. I like the politix and character complexity of Code Geass, yet by this quote Hollywood would remove the two main interest points of my favourite product were they to make that a film. It would remove what i like to sell it to a world that moves on with films like it devours food or sleeps. Just one more in a neverending cycle.

That is my problem with this, the fans stick with and love the concepts. THe mass audience just see it cause they want to go see another film. They don't care or stick with it. By taking the thing they like and removing best parts of it they are stopping people with most heart for its passion. They remove love of film, and love of a concept for "Bums in Seats" and this is Hollywoods most unforgivable crime.

They use formulayic natures to make it easy to sell as they are afraid, and yes they will lose money, but they forget they are selling art, since when has Art every been about facts and figures. When i left school i had a choice maths or film. Film was always a risk but it is passionate, maths is cold. And that passion comes across and most films i enjoy are ones i can tell were made with love. This stratagy hollywood suggests removes that.

High Concept

High Concept,

High concept is the third thing that transfers easily,
It is most significant in that it is a easy selling point to unknown audiences.
A high concept product is one with a plot that can be summed up in a single sentance.
It reduces the idea that keeps the main story intact even in its simplified version.

Most Hollywood films are easily reducable to this. The danger is when just the High Concept is transfered much is lost. By reducing it to a simple sentance it is like saving a photo into jpeg, the idea is compressed. Keeping some of the substance but losing something.

An example in recent films is Dragonball Evolution, the characters transfered,
But the concept that went across was that it was all big ott fights, big flashy moves and seven dragonballs. Much of the minor parts were lost. While the idea of saving the world and things mentioned above were still there, all the history and greater issues that couldn't possibly be summed up in one sentance were taken out.

The danger is always there, how can something be summed up in a single sentance and have depth. How can the depth of a product be transfered in doing this? And more, should it?

I mentioned earlier the danger of Media transference is the way audience has to back track through all previous products. And media in it's growth is now getting to stage so franchises are so big you will never be able to go through every part of them.

It was flaw of matrix that while some loved it others were confused and anoyed others not getting the "IN" references.