In Defense Of Transmedia
Some weeks back, I mentioned transmedia, blah-blah-blah, and someone asked, “Hey, something-something transmedia?” And I was all like, “Shit yes I can talk about that!”
Then I probably fell asleep. Likely with a beard of vomit atop my actual beard and a squalling baby — not my own — in the other room. You’d be amazed at how often that happens to me. Damn babies. Sneaking in here at night. Drinking all my liquor. Pooping on the ceiling fan so when I turn it on — well. You see where I’m going with this. Turns the room into a shit salad. That’s truth.
Right. What was I saying? Ah. Yes. Transmedia.
Our film is considered a “transmedia” project. What does that mean? It means the film is not the sum total of the experience. It one story in our storyworld. Still not getting it?
First, feel free to hit a more “official” definition over at Ye Olde Wikipedia.
My writing partner, Lance, compares it to a bullet hole in glass. The bullet hole is the center of your storyworld, and is likely represented by a single project — in this case, our film. But all the cracks radiating outward like a spiderweb represent new paths into the storyworld, which are themselves new stories. Yes, we have the film, but it is not the end of the experience. I won’t speak specifically as to what else is coming, but we have a handful of other elements in play that are being grown organically at the same time as we grow the script — episodic content, perhaps. Software. Technology. Live experiences. Doesn’t need to end there, and it doesn’t need to be married to the convention of film. The story continues. The story wriggles free from the confines and takes a life all its own.
For the record, I do not purport to be an expert on the subject. I’m just a big fan, a fan who’s taken tentative steps into understanding how it can best serve storytelling (which means, best serving the audience, as the audience is the recipient of the story).
I will now take questions, and answer them clumsily.
Is this the future of storytelling, or is it just a gimmick?
It’s just a gimmick. Like a guy who can chew bubblegum with his butthole. Sorry to waste your time. Go home. Go home to your children and tell them it was all a dream.
No, it’s not just a gimmick. I mean, it can be. Anything can be. A whole TV show can be a gimmick if, say, you were to make a television show about a bunch of cavemen created explicitly for a series of car insurance commercials.
That said, I don’t know that it’s the future of storytelling. I distrust anything that claims to be the future of anything. Unless it drops a flying car into my driveway, I’m dubious. What it does, however, is offer us new tools for our toolbox. Once upon a time, we had a number of expected avenues for our stories to travel: film, television, games, print, and so on. Those things are merging. It is a syncretism, if you will, of the ways and philosophies of storytelling. It comes together and forms a giant blob that will eat us all.
Wait, that can’t be right. What I mean is, the combination of these elements and avenues forms and forges whole new paths. It’s all about the story, then. It’s not all about the means; it’s all about the message.
Why now? Haven’t we seen this before?
Short answer: Because technology allows it.
Long answer: Yes, we’ve seen this before, but in a limited fashion. Star Wars might be the best and earliest example of transmedia, at least in my mind. This sounds silly, but the toys and action figures are a good example of transmedia storytelling — it takes the story we know from the trilogy and places it in the hands of the audience in the form of “playtime.” (And then people shoot those stories in the back of the head by collecting action figures still in their clamshell packaging and locking them away in pressure-sealed vaults to keep The Precious ever-perfect, freeze-framing childhood in a disturbing bout of ennui-addled, banality-driven adulthood. But that is perhaps a talk for another time.)
Star Wars really didn’t have the technology to pull off the “singularity” of transmedia storytelling, though, and while we may not be quite there yet, we’re damn close. Right now, almost anything you can imagine regarding a story is possible. If you conceive of it, it can probably be done. Time and money matter, of course, but things are getting cheaper. People can develop apps with only a handful of people. You can “print” materials with greater ease (check out this MakerBot video from Radar).
We’ve no limitation that demands we bind a story to a single medium. A story can now move from screen to screen, it can leap to the page, it can be an action figure in your hands, it can be given to the audience (individual or crowd-sourced) and left to mutate and grow. That excites the hell out of me.
Ah, but.
At present, transmedia is limited by corporate interests. Transmedia is best-served (in my mind) when it grows organically together — think how a forest of trees grow together, forming an ecosystem, rather than how you might build one house, then another, then another. You conceive of the whole package, or at least a good part of it, right from the beginning. Most examples of transmedia aren’t really effective, though — sure, you see a video game and a comic book and a novelization, all orbiting the main property, a film. But most of those things are a rehash, a retelling. Further, they tend to be grown separately, by separate “teams” in the company or, more likely, by entirely separate corporate entities. The properties don’t “talk.” They don’t speak to one another. It’s like the Lost ARG that happened a few years back — it was non-canonical, because it was handled by ABC without input from the creators or writers of the actual TV show. Hence, people thought they were getting an authentic experience, but they weren’t. They might as well have been engaging in a fan-created experience. Or they might as well have all been masturbating on crackers (last one on the cracker has to eat it!). (What?) (Shut up.)
Is an ARG, an alternate-reality-game, considered transmedia?
It can be, if it crosses multiple platforms. Otherwise, it’s basically just a live-action game, or a piece of software. For me, an ARG is usually one part of the transmedia storytelling experience — either the bullet hole, or one of the cracks in the glass. It needn’t be the sum total of the experience.
Isn’t this good only for genre material?
Nope. You’d think that. But you’d be wrong. Dead wrong. Dead in the harbor wrong. Floating there, face down. Scummy shrimp nesting in your open maw. Barnacles on your inner thighs. Eels using your guts as sweaters. We’ve all been there. Am I right?
Look at Mad Men. Look at the “Mad Men Yourself” avatar creation. Look at Betty Draper on Twitter. Think about what else you could do — webisode content for lesser-tier characters, a “create-your-own-advertising-agency” game, a “create-your-own-ad-campaign” game, an ARG sponsored by a liquor company. The list goes on and on.
Need I note that Mad Men is not a genre show?
Aren’t you just watering down your story by fracturing it?
Not if it’s done well. Our film is the focus. It’s the bullet hole. We are making a film and we want to get it right. We’re not relying on the transmedia elements to carry it. We are, however, letting transmedia be a vent — if we have good ideas that don’t belong in this story, they may belong elsewhere, and now we have a place for them to live.
But the film is the film. A game is a game. Even when they talk to one another and reflect upon each other, they each still need to be good on their own terms. You’ll offer no value if each is weak; the entire storyworld is only as good as its flimsiest component.
Why? Why does this matter? Sell me on it.
Listen. Truth-telling time. People aren’t consuming media like they used to. Habits are changing. No, it’s not universal, and yes, you still have people who listen to 8-Track cassettes with religious zeal. But fact is, the Internet really did change everything. Technology has blown open the doors. People want more, and they want more now. That’s because people are dicks.
But whaddya gonna do? You’re people, I’m people, the audience is people. No robots, yet. Hence, it’s time to adapt or die, friends.
Meteor’s a coming. Are you a mammal? Or are you a dinosaur?
Okay, doomsaying aside, here’s the deal. Me, personally, when I encounter a story I like, I want to really get up in it. You give me Bioshock, and I say, “I want more, and I really want it now.” Seriously. When that game hit and I played it and it was awesome, I would’ve consumed any other materials that were of similar quality and were easy for me to get my hands on. A novel? A comic book series? Some novelty app? I wanted more. I wanted to be in that world as much as I could be — it felt deeply realized, and had they grown up a serious transmedia effort around that game from the get-go, I think people would’ve gotten on board. (Mind you, my earlier rules apply: no rehashes, no retellings — new content, new stories only.)
Further, the audience wants to be invested. They want a part of it. So, you cede a little control to them. Why do you think roleplaying games are popular? Or video games? Or fan fiction? These are all ways — sanctioned or not — that the audience grabs a hold of beloved properties and hugs them and squeezes them and calls them George. A lot of companies resist that. Some creators do, too. They don’t want to cede power to the audience. They want to be the authority. The auteur. The top dog.
Noble intention, and I’m with you — in theory.
But it’s like with piracy. Sure, it’s not fair. No, you may not like it. But conditions on the ground are changing. People are doing things differently. You can cross your arms. You can stomp your feet in a huff. It won’t help. It’s like being mad at the tides. They still come in, come out, no matter how you feel about it.
Plus, coming from a background in pen-and-paper roleplaying games, I like the option of giving the audience some measure of control. And the secret is, when you give them the tools, you’ve provided parameters for that control. You aren’t holding a leash, but you are pointing to the doors through which they may walk.
What does this mean for writers? Will this kill traditional storytelling?
No, of course it won’t kill traditional storytelling, silly. I was just being dramatic with all the doomsaying. Instead, transmedia will kill your families. It’s also the cause of global warming. Also: global awesomeing.
Ahem. No.
Seriously, think about it.
Movies didn’t kill paintings.
TV didn’t kill movies.
The Internet didn’t kill TV.
But it did change them. It did open up new avenues.
As a writer, you can only benefit by understanding these avenues. You’re writing a book? Take some time to think about what else you can do with that. This is especially true if you’re going full-on-indie and will self-publish. Think about what other materials you can use to tell deeper, different stories in your storyworld. Is it worth doing a RPG? An interactive website or comic? An app detailing the map of your fantasy realm? Do you have a third-tier character who you think could use his own series of short stories, or choose-your-own-adventure tales? Is there value in launching the book at a live event?
Point is, you have options. Every story will demand different options — and, as a storyteller, you’ll intuit which options are best.
You can only gain and offer value if you understand these things. Is it necessary? No. Will it be useful to you? Will it help you build audience? Will it give you more tools to tell the stories you want to tell?
Yes, yes, and yes.
February 23, 2010 @ 6:38 AM
The problem with transmedia as it currently stands is a lack of cross-promotion, perhaps especially in countries where shows are broadcast but do not originate. Take (all hail the glorious) Battlestar Galactica for instance.
BSG was a phenomenon that spanned multiple media platforms, each one helping the fan immerse themselves in the universe of the colonists and Cylons. There was the miniseries which kickstarted the whole thing, then the four seasons, the TV movies, the webisodes, the video games… But the problem was, unless you frequented certain websites or were fortunate enough to hear virally about them, the three webseries and the downloadable games (for mobiles, XBox and Windows) were not promoted at all in the most commonly accessed form of the media — the TV show itself. As a result, a lot of people who might otherwise have enjoyed the webisodes or the video games and didn’t have the fortune to stumble across them on their own really missed out.
And in cases like that, in which the franchise as a whole is not being appropriately marketed or cross-promoted (even a 15-second “hey, there are webisodes and video games too!” blurb during the credits would have been fine), transmedia is not being utilized to the fullest.
But it’s a young method yet, and hasn’t really hit the stride of its maturity. TV, despite all its shortcomings, its dinosaurian nature and the growing lack of faith viewers have in the networks, is still the great giant of media. The web is still considered somewhat of an experimental medium, despite the critical and commercial success of web-only shows like The Guild and Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog.
I don’t think that transmedia is necessarily the “future of storytelling” so much that it’s a currently underutilized and misunderstood method to convey more media experiences to the home viewer. And I don’t think it’s going to be the future of storytelling until media moguls get over their fear of change and fear of the unknown and learn how to spread their intellectual properties through the gamut of media options, and how to do it properly so it reaches the widest audience.
February 23, 2010 @ 6:46 AM
@Maggie —
You’ve hit on perhaps *the* critical problem:
People in the industry don’t “get” transmedia, yet. They don’t grok its power or potential. Individuals might comprehend, but the larger corporate entities do not. This isn’t surprising, given how far behind most are, technologically — but it is why you don’t see a lot of promotion or a lot of strong implementation of the idea. They just don’t get it.
It’ll happen eventually. But in the meantime, that’s where the indie DIY community has a chance to pick up the slack and knock one out of the park. I’m not suggesting that transmedia is easy to do, but it’s a lot easier now than it was even two years ago, and more affordable.
— c.
February 23, 2010 @ 8:05 AM
I like that, the idea that Mom and Pop can get on this wave before the corps do, fragging suits left and right with chainswords and psychic kabooms. Oh fuck! Pop is going nuclear!
…
I had a script I was working on in film school that I envisioned five different formats for, and I never could figure out which one I liked the best – I liked each platform for different elements, and those story points didn’t necessarily cross over, much like proton streams. That was one of the things that was maddening about it: I wanted the indepth realization of character you get in a book for this part; this part could only be displayed visually with effects that would give Lucas a happygasm; this part over here doesn’t work in a narrative like that, but toss on some gear and an interface and it would stand as a powerful video game and vehicle for exposition to another visual bit…
In the end, all the indecision with that project killed it (and because I had no discipline). I am looking forward to your film dude, and all the things that come with it.
February 23, 2010 @ 8:07 AM
@Rick —
Oresome.
This flick will definitely need proselytes — peeps who will go to the mountain and preach its craziness.
Of course, speak of that, I have to stop writing this comment and go back to rewriting the script. Draft six, baby. Draft six.
— c.
February 23, 2010 @ 8:29 AM
While I’m amused by transmedia (sorry, Transmedia) and the implications and execution (sometimes), it also inherently annoys me. When I watch a TV show, or read a book, or see a movie, I’m expecting to be given everything I need to comprehend the story right there and then. I don’t expect to have to go hunt down other parts of the story.
Sure, these extra “bits” may make the story more interesting, but they take extra effort. Being rewarded for making the effort is all well and good, as long as the story elements in the peripheral material isn’t critical to the plot.
I’ll give you an example. Way back in 1989/1990 when “The Abyss” came out, Orson Scott Card was invited on set to work on the novelization of the movie while being immersed in the film-making. He got background information on the main characters right from James Cameron, and included that information in the novel. Interesting things, like some of Coffey’s history and more about Bud and Lindsey’s marriage. That’s where you get told, clearly, that they both wore titanium wedding rings (they were both engineers, so it was symbolic for them) and that’s why his ring stopped the door from closing, saving all of their lives in the end.
Hell, it’s why I wear a titanium wedding ring.
That’s an example of transmedia working well. You didn’t NEED to read the novel, but there was extra richness in there that would have never see the light of day otherwise.
The worst sin is to require your audience to have knowledge of the Transmedia material in order to comprehend the main story.
I’m not against it, obviously – just wary.
February 23, 2010 @ 8:31 AM
@Stephen —
That wariness is reasonable. But that’s my point when I say that each piece must stand on its own — transmedia should be an open door to those who want to walk through it, but shouldn’t ever require it. Our film is a film. You watch the movie, you can stop. You’re not missing anything critical to that experience. But, if you want more — if you want to explore our storyworld further from different perspectives (perhaps even your own), then the transmedia elements are there as open doors. You merely need to walk through them.
— c.
February 23, 2010 @ 8:37 AM
So what you’re saying is that the Boggles have been lying to us all of these years.
That’s disconcerting.
February 23, 2010 @ 8:38 AM
That’s exactly what I’m saying.
(erm, what are the Boggles?)
— c.
February 23, 2010 @ 9:15 AM
They claim that video killed the radio star.
February 23, 2010 @ 9:17 AM
Oh ho ho, I see what you did there.
I see what you did.
Ahh, the good old days of music video.
Video killed the radio star.
And MTV killed the video star.
— c.
February 23, 2010 @ 9:16 AM
(My mistake, it’s the Buggles, not the Boggles.)
February 23, 2010 @ 9:30 AM
And Internet Radio killed the MTV star.
February 23, 2010 @ 9:56 AM
Ya dang whippersnappers with yer newfangled do-hickeys, you’re makin’ the atrophied regions of my brainmeats swell up. I think there may be a generational divide here, and I’m on the avuncular crumdgen side of it. I understand what you’re saying and even use most of the media you’re talking about, but for folk a decade or more younger than I am, I think there is an intuitively seamless aspect to various technologies that is hard for us old farts to get our minds around. But then I do have a Mad Men avatar, and a blog, and here I am commenting on yours. So you can teach an old dog new tricks, I suppose, but hiking up my leg to mark my territory on this or that new technological tree gets touch with the arthritic hip and all.
February 23, 2010 @ 10:08 AM
Wait, all this talk about transmedia and not ONE transgender joke?
I’m disappointed in you, Internet.
February 23, 2010 @ 10:16 AM
Transmedia storytelling also can bring in many more people to share in telling your story. I don’t just mean fanfic (which then descends into all the many variations of slashfic, which depending on your perspective is icky icky icky or pure-plutonium awesome), but I mean participatory stories. Sometimes this feeds back to the main story: fan favorites like Boba Fett get a lot more attention because they’re, um, fan favorites, despite the incredibly minor role they originally played in the main story.
Or think of the fictional universes surrounding MMORPGs (and probably other game universes, too). I play EVE Online, and the player community has created all sorts of fiction and art dwelling in the same universe, or at least an alternate version thereof. This storytelling crosses media boundaries from the original game and chronicles written by the development company, CCP, to encompass fiction blogs, novellas, flash fiction, 3D art, comics, and music. CCP has encouraged and permitted this transmedia ecosystem to flourish because it all works as part of the “sandbox” environment they originally created: if somebody sees cool stuff that another player made out of love for the game, then he’s much more likely to go check out that game. Awesome.
February 23, 2010 @ 1:13 PM
The internet didn’t kill MTV. MTV killed MTV!
BTW, did you check out There’s Something In The Sea before Bioshock 2 came out? They actually released a pretty impressive online mystery. It gave you puzzles, recordings, and other things that helped introduce you to Bioshock 2. It also gave detail to Mark Meltzer’s character from the series.
I love transmedia projects, but I’m usually let down when they try to branch into comics. Most of the time they give some really dry and poorly written comic that is supposed to tie events together but fails to do so. I’m talking about the Halo 3 comics and movie comics that are released.
February 23, 2010 @ 1:48 PM
Transmedia? Don’t you mean TRANNYMEADIA? HAHAHAHAHAHA (You’re welcome, Webb).
February 23, 2010 @ 2:09 PM
As much as I love this idea I am not 100% sure why we can’t keep calling them crossovers. I get the insistence that it be cross-media, but it feels like it willfully sets aside decades of useful past examples (or even current ones, like authors selling “epilogue” e books) for pure novelty.
That said, Bioware totally owns at this and has monetized it. Mass Effect 2’s transmedia experience includes buying a Dr. Pepper.
February 23, 2010 @ 2:30 PM
@Rob —
In my mind, a crossover indicates a single story, not a storyworld. So, when I “crossover” Wolverine and Batman (why I’d ever do that, who knows?) the intersection of that is a single story. While metaphors are inherently false, the image “crossover” conjures is, literally, an ‘X.’ Right? It’s two paths, two characters, two stories, merging into one. Transmedia is the bullet hole in the glass — stories radiating outward. It’s not about intersection, but the outer reaches.
And I don’t think it’s novelty or gimmick. Someone who watches movies may not read a book. Someone who may read the book may not check out the movie. The guy who buys the app might not be the guy who plays the ARG. Then you have the prime movers who will absorb it all because each piece contributes a facet to the whole.
Or, to clarify, it’s not a novelty in *concept* — it can end up a novelty in execution, as I note in the post.
As for Bioware — do they really own at it? Maybe I don’t know the depth, but I know the Dr. Pepper thing and… nothing else. Further, the Dr. Pepper thing is really just marketing. Which is fine, you buy a Dr. Pepper, you get a cap to get a Magical Piece of Armor or whatever, but what is that doing to further the story set in that world? If the code on the cap lead you to some episodic animated content or something, some cool little mini-movie about the Spectres or whatever, I’d buy that as an effective use of transmedia storytelling. At present, it’s just transmedia marketing, which is nothing new. (“Collect 576 7-Up caps and turn them in for a free Salacious Crumb pencil topper!”)
Though, maybe I don’t know the depth of their transmedia campaign.
— c.
February 23, 2010 @ 2:30 PM
(Not that I object to shiny new labels for marketing purposes)
February 23, 2010 @ 2:32 PM
To clarify — I’m not talking about marketing. Not for me and for other writers. Yes, that’s an application of transmedia — I’m speaking about how transmedia allows us to tell stories in new ways.
February 23, 2010 @ 2:38 PM
To clarify, I think the *name* is novelty/gimmick/marketing. The *idea* is a powerful one but its also at least as old as radio. I just worry that a new label sometimes means overlooking old awesome (or old terribleness)
February 23, 2010 @ 2:44 PM
Oh, I hear you — the name might be novelty, but I wouldn’t call it marketing. The term has academic origins rather than commercial ones.
As for — has this been done before? Ehhh. Sorta? You’re not wrong, but I don’t think it’s purely the execution. Transmedia has a philosophical component as well as a practical one.
— c.
February 23, 2010 @ 2:53 PM
Anyway, bioware. Consider dragon age, which has
A game
Character creation software
A web game
an RPG
Novels
If it doesn’t have a comic yet, it will
Other random promotions
Most of these stand on their own merits, but they also fold back into the core product with codes to redeem for in game loot.(1)
Mass effect is similar, and in both cases, bioware is vastly expanding the range of the games experience. Interestingly, from their perspective they’re building a brand rather than creating transmedia, but the overlap between these ideas is huge and fruitful – a brand is a kind of story after all.
-Rob
1 – so, I’m not comfortable with this, but a new hat for an avatar is genuinely meaningful to many people. The Wordbender tribe has real trouble seeing things that way, but modern media has no such limits.
February 23, 2010 @ 2:56 PM
I think some of the distinction depends on whether or not marketing is a dirty word. Definitely not using it as such in this context
February 23, 2010 @ 3:17 PM
Oh, the kind of key part about the bioware thing is that they put a premium on writing. Books and comics they produce fill in gaps and expand scope (though whether they do it well or poorly is something of a matter of taste. Not every crossover includes new writing (though all purchaseable expansions absolutely do) but even those that don’t have new magic hats – they know their audience.
February 23, 2010 @ 3:32 PM
@Scionical: Your point is well-articulated and inspired.
February 23, 2010 @ 3:33 PM
Have to make an add here – transmedia has been in full bloom in Japan for decades. We’re only now catching up. Manga (comics) would be released, this would sprout TV anime series or OAVs (Original Animation Videos), concurrent with video games, books, dolls, stickers, posters, fan comics, bus ads, lunch boxes, belts, towels, toilet seats (yes, they really go to town!), stuffed animals, singing tours, Drama CDs, live action films, phone cards, cross-show games and stories, on and on. It’s numbing how they can do this multi media impacts. And offshoots. Boy do they believe in offshoots if the $$ is there.
I don’t know if we’re quite ready for the immersion they do it in, but for some stories it would be the bomb!
February 23, 2010 @ 3:46 PM
@Rob — Ooh. Dragon Age. Duh. Yes, I’d say that definitely counts. Especially since it seems to have all been grown “organically” — part of the plan from the beginning. Mass Effect, I’m not so sure. But DA — heck yeah.
It’s probably worth noting at this point that I’d say transmedia comes in two flavors:
One, things that are *technically* transmedia, such as what we’ve seen with many dominant properties (Halo game, Halo novel, Halo comicbook; Avatar movie, Avatar film, Avatar novelization).
Two, things that are also *philosophically* transmedia. This usually requires a storyteller’s eye rather than a marketer’s eye. It demands that material be grown together from the ground up rather than tacked-on “value adds.” And third, it seeks to have a number of those properties be immersive and cede some control to the audience.
That’s where a lot of things fall down for me in terms of “not really transmedia.” It’s a philosophical disconnect. One does it as a value-add for marketing dollars, the other does it to grant greater access to the storyworld for the participants.
I don’t know if Japan’s efforts have been philosophically in that vein. My exposure to Japanese pop culture is through an American lens (and thus limited), but so far it doesn’t seem like it’s overly concerned with how the audience interacts with the story, and it doesn’t seem to yield much ground to them.
— c.
February 23, 2010 @ 3:33 PM
On a serious note, everything I see in video games at the moment is toward building a franchise. If you can leverage your IP into as many media as possible, that’s considered a win. So, I expect that transmedia will take a while to catch on, unless the various hybrids are themselves seen as separate media (books, ebooks, video books, audio books…)
February 23, 2010 @ 3:47 PM
The only thing that concerns me about most of the video game transmedia is that game franchises are typically based on a character, and it seems hit or miss if the world and story around the character is going to be enough to carry it.
There are exceptions (I’d say Dragon Age and Bioshock are good exceptions), but I just see the vast majority being based on characters that would be difficult to swallow in anything but a video game. The best example I can think of right now is Cole from inFamous. While I love the game (and I really do), I don’t see how that character could be anything other than a game. As much as I love the Nathan Drake character from Uncharted, I also find it hard to swallow him in anything other than the game. If he made it to a movie, it would really feel like Romancing the Stone with witty cussing.
This is completely my own view on it, I am certain there are tons of video game IP’s that could translate but haven’t made the jump – or haven’t made it well. I guess we have Uwe Boll to thank for a lot of that though.
February 23, 2010 @ 3:49 PM
@Rick —
See, though, that’s the thing. If a media property were grown from the ground up, it would be an IP designed to make that transition. Further, it’s not concerned with character necessarily, but more concerned with the storyworld. Mad Men’s storyworld is set in the ad agencies of the 1960s — Don Draper is not the storyworld, and thus transmedia efforts needn’t include him.
Make sense?
— c.
February 23, 2010 @ 3:55 PM
Totally, I am just thinking of the current slew out there that seems set in a single format. It really seems to me that setting up anything from now on should keep other media formats in mind – but that’s something that already been spoken on.
Somethings have really left a bad taste in people’s mouths though up to date. Video games about movies and movies about video games are probably the best example – let’s face it, with a few exceptions they really haven’t hit home. But that is, just like mentioned above, often a case of different teams tackling the same project without any cross-communication. That is where it really needs to happen.
Smallville did a series of web-bits called the Chloe Chronicles which are simply brilliant. Battlestar Galactica had Razor. Willow organically moved into a book series (though I personally didn’t like the books). I see where transmedia can work, and where people have already attempted to get it going – and I really hope the trend continues. But some of the places it’s failed (Enter the Matrix, the California Raisins cartoon) seem like they would make it a difficult sell.
February 23, 2010 @ 3:57 PM
I actually liked the Matrix efforts, for the most part. Moreso than the actual sequels, I think. Enter the Matrix was not a great game, but it was a very, very good example of how a game doesn’t need to be a straight-up rehash of the story, and can instead exist in the storyworld. The Animatrix was pretty dang cool, too.
My two cents, of course.
— c.
February 23, 2010 @ 4:00 PM
Alright, I will definitely give you that about Enter the Matrix. I loved the idea of it, but the execution was piss poor. And of course, the Animatrix rocked.
I was just thinking, Star Trek has to be one of the best examples of a transmedia franchise: several tv-shows, tons of movies, video games, social networking games, novels, toys, conventions, nationwide organized larps, role playing games, card games, dice games, miniature games… and I know there is more I can’t think of right now and all of it for the vast majority does its job well in forwarding the setting for the shows in multiple timelines and universes.
February 23, 2010 @ 4:01 PM
On a completely tangential note, the idea that mad men isn’t a genre property is something I’m not sure I buy. It’s a period piece, just distinctive for being a rarely used period.
That’s important because it illustrates how the property can skitters across media types without including the characters. It’s setting and tropes are strong enough to carry the interest.
Now, this doesn’t mean only genre stuff can go trans, but it raises a hard question of how to go trans without a genre crutch and without depending too much on “the further adventures of…”
February 23, 2010 @ 4:05 PM
Star Trek is interesting for how much of it *isn’t* really part of the property. Some material is Canon, but much more is a one way spinoff, which is a curious distinction.
And, of course, Abrahms wiping the slate middies it further.
February 23, 2010 @ 4:13 PM
Star Trek needs to actually release its canon at some point so we all know what is and isn’t technically part of it 🙂
February 23, 2010 @ 4:16 PM
@Rick: Heh. Star Trek is a good example of technically transmedia, but not philosophically. It’s all over the map, and has no central focus. It isn’t organically-grown; it’s grown by “need new Star Trek release!” only.
@Rob: You’re right — really, everything has a genre, I was admittedly using the genre in the more dismissive, “Genre = fantasy, sci-fi, horror, etc.” Drama is a genre. So is comedy. Transmedia usually seems like it should only apply to things that are more… well, let’s call them “geek-flavored.” I think transmedia nicely goes beyond that.
— c.
February 23, 2010 @ 4:26 PM
We do tend to use genre as a shorthand, but that’s not always a bad thing since it keeps us from needing to re-explain ourselves. That seems relevant for TM in that the question of what knowledge of X the reader has when he comes across Y is a potentially big deal.
February 24, 2010 @ 4:06 AM
@Chuck
I’m surprisedto hear mention of Star Trek as Transmedia technically, but not philosophically. Truth is, when I saw that, I smacked my head that I hadn’t thought of it sooner. I am coming from ignorance of Star Trek, but that’s valid: a good indicator of a robust storyworld is when people who’ve never dipped in a toe could still recite pertinent facts and mimic a few characters. I might have read one book, maybe, seen one movie (it had Patrick Stewart and robots in it.) and..I think someone made me watch an episode with bouncy darling murderwiggles in it because they said it was part of my Cultural Education. Or PopCultural, at least.
So from someone wholly outside, Star Trek seems very Transmedia in philosophy. Not only did it insinuate itself into the mass culture, it seems like all the bits of it I know of did wind in and around and about one another, and you could find people from the movies in the books and such. No wait, the book I had Grand Moff Tarkin. Scratch that bit. ANYHOW, it seems that way to me. Then again, early examples of things are exciting to me.
You are much more aware of pop culture and modern entertainment that I am, you know. Me, I’m inspired by this to think of Transmedia in other centuries, even. Before radio. I have a feeling Mark Twain had to’ve thought it up. I mean, he thought up the intertubes.
February 24, 2010 @ 7:41 AM
You know, I am going to go back to Trek after reading what Shoe said and say this:
I completely understand where you are coming from Chuck, when you call it on being unintentional; I don’t think that holds up in saying it didn’t become massively successful in the transmedia boat. To me, that seems like saying Magellan or Amerigo Vespucci weren’t explorers because they didn’t intentionally discover new land masses – they just kind of found the land.
To me, Star Trek seems like it would be one of the founders, one of the ways that boldy broke new ground, where no ground was broke before (alright, others had, but I had to get the reference in). Now that the transmedia cherry has been popped, its up to us to refine the idea and make it sing, sing like a little fat kid bribed with a pudding pop. We can see where franchises like Trek (and others) hit it right by accident, then replicate, refine, and expand upon those results – it’s the very basics of any new discipline. Until we do this, the old crowd will keep it’s head in the sand.
As always, that’s my 3.6 cents (adjusting for CAD).
February 24, 2010 @ 8:04 AM
I’m not saying that Star Trek is a bad example of transmedia. And I’m not dissing on the Trek in general.
Something that is philosophically transmedia has nothing to do with where it ends up, and has everything to do with where it begins. Star Trek was simply created at a time where transmedia opportunities did not exist. They weren’t on the radar. The TV show was it, just a TV show. A movie came out of that, but not because it’s what was necessary for the storyworld — it’s because the TV show failed and someone wanted to see if they could punch some life into the property.
Further, Star Trek really gets a few films under its belt before it starts to spread itself out — new TV shows, novels, and eventually games. And a lot of that comes out of licensing. Meaning, it wasn’t necessarily a centrally-driven property. The company controlled the property, not Roddenberry. He planned a second TV show, not a film. And when time came to do a second film, his film was rejected, and he was replaced. No cohesive whole, there. Nobody was identifying that “central bullet hole.”
For it to be philosophically transmedia, someone would’ve — from the ground up — conceived of how Star Trek could’ve been X, Y, and Z. It would’ve grown these things together from the beginning. Further, part of the plan from the beginning would also be how to include audience investment and some degree of audience control.
To be clear, I’m not insulting Star Trek. Technically, it’s a transmedia marvel. But philosophically, it just ain’t there.
Star Wars is perhaps a closer example to something that’s philosophically transmedia, because Lucas had unprecedented control over his property. But even with that in mind, he didn’t have a lot of room for audience involvement (though the toys might count). That’s kind of my point, ultimately: now is the time for transmedia. Not then. Now. Then, we didn’t have the tools, the understanding, the interest. Now, we do.
And to speak to Shoe’s point: transmedia, to me, has nothing to do with cultural viability or visability. Those are two separate axes — something can be transmedia without ever making a ripple, without ever selling well or worming its way into the public consciousness. Further, something that’s in the public consciousness needn’t be transmedia to do so.
— c.
February 24, 2010 @ 8:34 AM
Oh yeah? Well… you’re ugly and your mother dresses you funny.
I totally see what you’re getting at, but I still think that Star Trek – at least where it is now, counts philosophically… and probably because of fan interaction. After Next Generation came out, the word canon started getting thrown around Trekverse and questions started forming that fans wanted answers to: What is the exact timeline? Is The Motion Picture still accurate? Why did Khan recognize Chekov? Where does the Animated Series fitin?
The Trek higherups – Rick Berman especially – had to start working at where all this fit in, then they made expansions to the whole with that in mind. Voyager wasn’t an accident, it purposefully expanded a part of the universe that hadn’t been hit before and brought those themes full circle, especially where major factions like the Borg were concerned. Likewise, Enterprise fleshed out the begining of the entire thing, showing the proto-Federation moving towards the ideals that Kirk ignored and Picard upheld. It didn’t originally fit your philosophical definition (and I do not mean that to sound antagonistic, just acknowledging what you defined)but after the new shows came out it did. This is not even touching the non-visual media.
And I totally get you are not attacking Trek, and I am honestly not having a fanboi defend reaction. I do feel that it fits the philosophy of transmedia as you defined it though, and I am happy to debate it. However, that debate is also stopping me from writing, so I am gonna need to put it on hold. I will say that one of the things I dig about new areas is how debates like this is what hammers out what the topic is – I would say right now, it is very difficult to define what is right or wrong, and that all of this will contribute to the greater whole in time.
Well, not this particular conversation. The last thing I want to see is a transcript of this sitting in the Media Smithsonian for future school kids to ignore.
Exalted 3rd Edition « An Idiot's Guide to Idiocy
February 28, 2010 @ 11:44 AM
[…] I’ve been using this word a lot lately thanks to Mr. Wendig and his post about transmedia on his blog. I firmly believe that of all the White Wolf IPs, Exalted has the most varied transmedia appeal. The […]
Exalted 3rd Edition « Word Asylum
April 28, 2010 @ 9:42 PM
[…] I’ve been using this word a lot lately thanks to Mr. Wendig and his post about transmedia on his blog. I firmly believe that of all the White Wolf IPs, Exalted has the most varied transmedia appeal. The […]
February 1, 2011 @ 7:49 PM
Mad men IS a genre show – its an alt history world…
and transmedia is a marketing system, not a storytelling one
really- only genre works… you need a world, not a story. to truly succeed across disparate media.
larryr
cube3.com
February 8, 2011 @ 1:37 AM
Actually in 1965 Transmedia did exist.. GERRY ANDERSONS 21st century “universes” were definitely transmedia in method(multiple shows-mediums), as well as the MICKEY MOUSE CLUB and WONDERFUL WORLD OF DISNEY which both began in the 50s.
more on them at cubicspace.wordpress.com
larryr
cube3.com