class blog for JMC 562, Media Studies and Culture, Fall 2009
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Reading questions for 11/3/09: Jenkins, Chapter 3
Please post reading questions as comments here for our reading for 11/3/09, Jenkins, Chapter 3. Feel free to post questions for the (optional) chapter 4 if you would like to get credit for them, as well.
1. On page 97, Jenkins says that film franchises like the Matrix are "integrating multiple texts to create a narrative so large it cannot be contained within a single medium." One example is that the filmmakers plant clues in the movie that don't make sense until the viewer goes out and plays the tie-in video game. I'm wondering: does this trend contribute to the evolution of storytelling, edify the audience with wonder, and amplify the fantasy and fun? Or is this more a strategy to force people to buy more things? For instance, you have to pay to see three separate movies, buy the video games, as well as the accompanying DVD The Animatrix to learn about the whole universe. On page 106, there's a mention of smart marketing vs. smart storytelling. Which one is driving the other?
2. On page 132, Jenkins posits the idea that transmedia storytelling is better suited for children. The examples he gives included Pokemon and Yu-Gi-Oh! This makes sense to me, considering that kids like to get lost in fictional worlds perhaps more than adults, AND, this is the demographic that has the time to pursue all there is to know about Pokemon, etc. Jenkins then says that a trend will emerge with texts that appeal to adults. Soon, mature content will have transmedia outlets that older fans can search in. I'm trying to think though; aside from making websites for upcoming movies (a standard practice), not many franchises like the Matrix seem to be popping up. Is this a testament to the difficulty of constructing such a universe, or an indicator that the transmedia phenomenon isn't quite as pervasive as Jenkins imagines?
1.) On page 99, Jenkins notes that "Umberto Eco asks what, beyond being loved, transforms a film such as Casablanca (1942) into a cult artifact... Second, the work must be encyclopedic, containing a rich array of information that can be drilled, practiced, and mastered by devoted consumers." I wonder if this is different for different age demographics. For instance, Twilight, which is becoming somewhat of a cult artifact, does not have this dense encyclopedic array of information, but is embraced by the masses. So perhaps escapism plays into it?
On page 117, Jenkins notes that: "Each truly intriguing element can lead to its own product lines." I wonder why this is true, why certain background characters can yield such an embrace from the public. Conversely, why would a character such as Jar Jar Binks be so unpopular with the masses? It seems as though when a character is intended to be popular it is less likely to be popular than a character like Boba Fett who was never intended to draw a huge fanbase.
On page 101, Jenkins discusses about the secrets of the Matrix. Stating on page 101, "The deeper you drill down, the more secrets emerge, all of which can seem at any moment to be the key to the film. For example, Neo's apartment number is 101, which is the room number of the torture chamber in George Orwell's 1984." I found this interesting because I feel like when I watch a movie sometimes I'm not exactly following it, and if you miss something such as this, the key to the film is lost.
Are these secrets put into this movie so that it keeps our attention? What other movies can we think of that have these secrets that are key to a film? What would a film be like without secrets like this?
Chapter 4 On page 166 Jenkins talks about how Star Wars is supported by fans. Stating that, "Satisfying fans interests in the franchise proved challenging. Koster told me, "there's no denying it the fans know Star Wars better than the developers do. They live and breath it. They know it in an intimate way."" It seems that there are so many Star Wars fans out there, and people literally become obsessed with watching the movies, the action figures, games and so forth. I guess I never really understood what is so great about Star Wars, I have never really had an interest in it.
What is it that draws an audience to become such huge fans of Star Wars? Are there other movies or series I guess that people are huge fans of? Something that comes to mind for me is Harry Potter, or now especially the whole Twilight series. What is it that draws in these viewers so deep that they become loyal fans and literally live and breathe these series?
In the first part of the chapter Jenkins talks about how fans are fascinated with a universe that is fictional.
Why is this? What do viewers obtain from a fictional universe or fictional characters?
On p96, Jenkins discusses how the matrix relied on outside sources to help viewers understand the Matrix and goes on to say that the movie made a significant amount of money. Would the Matrix have been as successful if viewers knew beforehand that they would have to do "homework" in order to understand what was going on? He does go on to say that this does work better with younger generations, but to me it seems like too much work for a leisure activity...
While reading about all the different sub-creations such as the video games, books, etc, I was thinking about how a project like this would be approved and thinking back on the article (I forgot which one) about toys and how toy companies would rather make toys using existing characters than create new ones. How is it and why is it, that people would rather invest in something like the matrix and all of its side-projects when it would seem to have a bigger impact if it was not as successful?
I understand that the Matrix franchise is still relatively young. But I was wondering if there are any other movie franchises that have taken the Matrix's example of transmedia story telling. I know there was a few mentioned in the book but I was more curious to know if there are more plans of doing things like this in the future by other movie studios.
I always wondered if the first movie from the Matrix franchise would have flopped. Would there still be such a huge transmedia storytelling going on? I know that the movie franchise was written all together and they planned on doing the trilogy all along. But I wondered what would have happened if the first movie would have never had the success it did.
(Page 105) Jenkins mentions the idea of "co-creation" which he explains as "companies collaborate from the beginning to create content they know plays well in each of their sectors, allowing each medium to generate new experiences for the consumer and expand points of entry into the franchise."
Is this concept two-fold?: Keeping current fans happy by providing access beyond the "main text" and attracting new fans to the "main text" through "alternative/subsidiary" texts?
Is there a risk of alienating one group in favor of the other? Jenkins notes that some people didn't "get the matrix" due to perhaps an over reliance on hidden messages, etc? In other words does spreading the "main text" so thin dilute the messages/appeal of the text?
On page 116, Jenkins describes how story lines have become more complex and require broader contexts that will support future sequels, franchising, and cross media use. The book says that screenwriters used to start with a good story or character pitch. Now screenwriters find themselves "world building" as a first pitch. One screenwriter says,"And now you pitch a world because a world can support multiple characters and multiple stories across multiple media. Is world building merely a tool to create more franchising options or does it allow the writers more freedom in their creative process? Is world building strictly found in in sci-fi/action adventure media texts? Is an original/new reality,environment, or species required in world building?
On page 101 Jenkins says that "The Wachowskis wanted to wind the story of The Matrix across all of these media and have it add up to one compelling whole." My initial reaction was to be suspicious of this, similar to the critics at the time of its release. "Mike Antonucci saw it as 'smart marketing' more than 'smart storytelling'." Then again, I remember how much fun my friends and I had in watching, buying, and participating in this at the time. In fact, this was the first movie that I ever bought for myself. There is no doubt that the creators profited from this "synergistic storytelling," but is this ok if the people consuming it really enjoy it? Is there a point where this can be justified if it enriches the viewers experience? I find it interesting, because usually I think of companies exploiting people's interests and selling them more and more in terms of "dumbing them down," but in this case, it seems to be making viewers think more.
On page 130, Jenkins says that "many older consumers are left confused or uninvolved with such entertainments...though more and more stories are traveling across media and offering a depth of experience." I disagree with Jenkens suggestion that more movies will go the way of The Matrix. I suppose the only other movies I can think of right now that have done this since are Lord of the Rings and Star Wars, but once again, these are more targeted at younger audiences. I don't think that older audiences are so much "too busy" or "too confused" to participate, I think they're more aware of the marketing strategies here. I also think that as adults they are looking less to define themselves through products and associations. I suppose they're too smart to participate.
Does the concept of transmedia only apply to digital media forms, or can it apply to non-digital forms such as books? If so, are there any examples of this?
I also thought that maybe the idea of a media form only being understood completely when accessed through various forms as a way of turning people off. I wondered how the Matrix became so successful because I would think maybe people wouldn't want to bother if they have to partipate in multiple forms to truly get the idea behind it.Are there ways in which it did the opposite...made people reject the concept of the Matrix?
@ Danielle: good question about application beyond digital forms. I'd say, yes, that transmedia storytelling can include non-digital or "old" media like books as well as digital media like video games. Would be interesting to think of past and present examples along these lines.
1. On page 97, Jenkins says that film franchises like the Matrix are "integrating multiple texts to create a narrative so large it cannot be contained within a single medium." One example is that the filmmakers plant clues in the movie that don't make sense until the viewer goes out and plays the tie-in video game. I'm wondering: does this trend contribute to the evolution of storytelling, edify the audience with wonder, and amplify the fantasy and fun? Or is this more a strategy to force people to buy more things? For instance, you have to pay to see three separate movies, buy the video games, as well as the accompanying DVD The Animatrix to learn about the whole universe. On page 106, there's a mention of smart marketing vs. smart storytelling. Which one is driving the other?
ReplyDelete2. On page 132, Jenkins posits the idea that transmedia storytelling is better suited for children. The examples he gives included Pokemon and Yu-Gi-Oh! This makes sense to me, considering that kids like to get lost in fictional worlds perhaps more than adults, AND, this is the demographic that has the time to pursue all there is to know about Pokemon, etc. Jenkins then says that a trend will emerge with texts that appeal to adults. Soon, mature content will have transmedia outlets that older fans can search in. I'm trying to think though; aside from making websites for upcoming movies (a standard practice), not many franchises like the Matrix seem to be popping up. Is this a testament to the difficulty of constructing such a universe, or an indicator that the transmedia phenomenon isn't quite as pervasive as Jenkins imagines?
1.) On page 99, Jenkins notes that "Umberto Eco asks what, beyond being loved, transforms a film such as Casablanca (1942) into a cult artifact... Second, the work must be encyclopedic, containing a rich array of information that can be drilled, practiced, and mastered by devoted consumers." I wonder if this is different for different age demographics. For instance, Twilight, which is becoming somewhat of a cult artifact, does not have this dense encyclopedic array of information, but is embraced by the masses. So perhaps escapism plays into it?
ReplyDeleteOn page 117, Jenkins notes that: "Each truly intriguing element can lead to its own product lines." I wonder why this is true, why certain background characters can yield such an embrace from the public. Conversely, why would a character such as Jar Jar Binks be so unpopular with the masses? It seems as though when a character is intended to be popular it is less likely to be popular than a character like Boba Fett who was never intended to draw a huge fanbase.
On page 101, Jenkins discusses about the secrets of the Matrix. Stating on page 101, "The deeper you drill down, the more secrets emerge, all of which can seem at any moment to be the key to the film. For example, Neo's apartment number is 101, which is the room number of the torture chamber in George Orwell's 1984." I found this interesting because I feel like when I watch a movie sometimes I'm not exactly following it, and if you miss something such as this, the key to the film is lost.
ReplyDeleteAre these secrets put into this movie so that it keeps our attention? What other movies can we think of that have these secrets that are key to a film? What would a film be like without secrets like this?
Chapter 4
ReplyDeleteOn page 166 Jenkins talks about how Star Wars is supported by fans. Stating that, "Satisfying fans interests in the franchise proved challenging. Koster told me, "there's no denying it the fans know Star Wars better than the developers do. They live and breath it. They know it in an intimate way."" It seems that there are so many Star Wars fans out there, and people literally become obsessed with watching the movies, the action figures, games and so forth. I guess I never really understood what is so great about Star Wars, I have never really had an interest in it.
What is it that draws an audience to become such huge fans of Star Wars? Are there other movies or series I guess that people are huge fans of? Something that comes to mind for me is Harry Potter, or now especially the whole Twilight series. What is it that draws in these viewers so deep that they become loyal fans and literally live and breathe these series?
In the first part of the chapter Jenkins talks about how fans are fascinated with a universe that is fictional.
Why is this? What do viewers obtain from a fictional universe or fictional characters?
On p96, Jenkins discusses how the matrix relied on outside sources to help viewers understand the Matrix and goes on to say that the movie made a significant amount of money. Would the Matrix have been as successful if viewers knew beforehand that they would have to do "homework" in order to understand what was going on? He does go on to say that this does work better with younger generations, but to me it seems like too much work for a leisure activity...
ReplyDeleteWhile reading about all the different sub-creations such as the video games, books, etc, I was thinking about how a project like this would be approved and thinking back on the article (I forgot which one) about toys and how toy companies would rather make toys using existing characters than create new ones. How is it and why is it, that people would rather invest in something like the matrix and all of its side-projects when it would seem to have a bigger impact if it was not as successful?
I understand that the Matrix franchise is still relatively young. But I was wondering if there are any other movie franchises that have taken the Matrix's example of transmedia story telling. I know there was a few mentioned in the book but I was more curious to know if there are more plans of doing things like this in the future by other movie studios.
ReplyDeleteI always wondered if the first movie from the Matrix franchise would have flopped. Would there still be such a huge transmedia storytelling going on? I know that the movie franchise was written all together and they planned on doing the trilogy all along. But I wondered what would have happened if the first movie would have never had the success it did.
(Page 105) Jenkins mentions the idea of "co-creation" which he explains as "companies collaborate from the beginning to create content they know plays well in each of their sectors, allowing each medium to generate new experiences for the consumer and expand points of entry into the franchise."
ReplyDeleteIs this concept two-fold?: Keeping current fans happy by providing access beyond the "main text" and attracting new fans to the "main text" through "alternative/subsidiary" texts?
Is there a risk of alienating one group in favor of the other? Jenkins notes that some people didn't "get the matrix" due to perhaps an over reliance on hidden messages, etc? In other words does spreading the "main text" so thin dilute the messages/appeal of the text?
On page 116, Jenkins describes how story lines have become more complex and require broader contexts that will support future sequels, franchising, and cross media use. The book says that screenwriters used to start with a good story or character pitch. Now screenwriters find themselves "world building" as a first pitch. One screenwriter says,"And now you pitch a world because a world can support multiple characters and multiple stories across multiple media. Is world building merely a tool to create more franchising options or does it allow the writers more freedom in their creative process? Is world building strictly found in in sci-fi/action adventure media texts? Is an original/new reality,environment, or species required in world building?
ReplyDeleteOn page 101 Jenkins says that "The Wachowskis wanted to wind the story of The Matrix across all of these media and have it add up to one compelling whole." My initial reaction was to be suspicious of this, similar to the critics at the time of its release. "Mike Antonucci saw it as 'smart marketing' more than 'smart storytelling'." Then again, I remember how much fun my friends and I had in watching, buying, and participating in this at the time. In fact, this was the first movie that I ever bought for myself. There is no doubt that the creators profited from this "synergistic storytelling," but is this ok if the people consuming it really enjoy it? Is there a point where this can be justified if it enriches the viewers experience? I find it interesting, because usually I think of companies exploiting people's interests and selling them more and more in terms of "dumbing them down," but in this case, it seems to be making viewers think more.
ReplyDeleteOn page 130, Jenkins says that "many older consumers are left confused or uninvolved with such entertainments...though more and more stories are traveling across media and offering a depth of experience." I disagree with Jenkens suggestion that more movies will go the way of The Matrix. I suppose the only other movies I can think of right now that have done this since are Lord of the Rings and Star Wars, but once again, these are more targeted at younger audiences. I don't think that older audiences are so much "too busy" or "too confused" to participate, I think they're more aware of the marketing strategies here. I also think that as adults they are looking less to define themselves through products and associations. I suppose they're too smart to participate.
Does the concept of transmedia only apply to digital media forms, or can it apply to non-digital forms such as books? If so, are there any examples of this?
ReplyDeleteI also thought that maybe the idea of a media form only being understood completely when accessed through various forms as a way of turning people off. I wondered how the Matrix became so successful because I would think maybe people wouldn't want to bother if they have to partipate in multiple forms to truly get the idea behind it.Are there ways in which it did the opposite...made people reject the concept of the Matrix?
@ Danielle: good question about application beyond digital forms. I'd say, yes, that transmedia storytelling can include non-digital or "old" media like books as well as digital media like video games. Would be interesting to think of past and present examples along these lines.
ReplyDelete