Transmedia and the Evolution of Storytelling

Still of Bela Lugosi in Dracula

A few days ago I came across a podcast by Hollywood 2.0 called The Future of Storytelling.  The topic was “Transmedia.”  I’d never heard that term before.  Initially the word made me think of Transylvania and blood-sucking vampires.  From there my mind connected thought to the awful trend of producing brain cell-killing films that numb the senses and suck life out of an audience (funny how both relate very closely).  And so, naturally, my first gut feeling was not a positive one.  Still, I was curious.  After learning more, I can now recall seeing it around.  But you don’t know what to look for until you learn there is something worth looking for.

Amanda Lin Cost, writer for PBS.org describes Transmedia as a tool for telling stories across multiple platforms. The same story will share elements of its core across outlets like movies, apps, and gaming.  Different yet distinct parts of, say, a film are designed to engage fans on a more dynamic level. All points of the process purpose unique story contributions to stand on their own.  An application of the methodology might include producing a video game of the story, creating Webisodes of character spin offs, or generating a comic book of unanswered questions directed by fans.  Transmedia has the power to extend a film’s deep back-story and characters beyond traditional, singular exhibitions. 

Innovent’s CEO, Antonio Kaplan says their operations of this practice began before the process even had a name. He says the experience for customers is like looking through a “three-sided prism.”  Amanda Lin Cost describes the method as “breaking down the fourth wall,” and Henry Jenkins of Fast Company says Transmedia “allows gifted storytellers to expand their canvas and share more of their vision with their most dedicated fans.”  Transmedia Marketing Café compares what marketing was, and presently is, to what marketing could become through Transmedia as the difference between, “interruption to integration, from “sponsor” to “story contributor” and from a disconnected purchase path to instant commerce.” It’s important to note that Transmedia isn’t applicable to all films and forms of entertainment, but, in many cases, its relevancy is obvious. However, as the cliché goes, it’s hard to describe the taste of salt to someone who’s never had salt before.  For many, a salt-less meal is quite simply, bland.  Without Transmedia, some audiences could be deprived the pleasure of a savory viewing experience.  Translating a story into various forms of media has the power to fill that common dissatisfaction.

Collaborative Transmedia Storytelling

Summer Anderson is a up-and-coming graduate of Full Sail University's Entertainment Business Master's Program.  Her 10 years of multimedia experience provides a foundation to examine the interrelation between all forms of media while looking through the lens, specifically, of cinema.

Hear Ye! Hear Ye!

Recently I’ve come across some interesting developments in the industry.  For one, Stacey Parks of Film Specific noted from her travels around Europe that many investors say they are having a hard time finding the ‘right’ projects to invest in. Her report further indicates that, “there’s more money than we know what to do with floating around out there looking to finance ‘Hollywood Independents.’  Quite a differing perspective from the myth that funds are scarce and thinly spread across the ever-increasing numbers of “in development” films.    The problem lies not with funds availability, but in successfully securing them.  The apparent problem I’ve, and many others have observed, is that filmmakers do not treat their projects as a business nor do they conduct themselves in a business-like manner.  I’ve said this in previous posts: your film is a product that needs to be positioned as an object to monetize.  The investors and financiers you are looking for have money, but they do not cater to panhandlers looking for a handout.  I want to apologize for my bluntness, but I won’t.  There is really no excuse for not finding money to “get the job done.”

Even without investors and bank lending (which is next to impossible, given the historically low or non-existent return on investment), indie filmmakers have plenty of options for generating their own funds: IndieGoGo, Kickstarter, and other Crowd Funding platforms.  This is no big secret.  All it takes is a seriously positioned campaign worth paying attention to.  With passion and determination, this can be achieved by anyone.  Even still, there are always new options in development.  Let’s say you create a teaser to use as advertisement on Vimeo.  Well now Vimeo has the option of using something call the Tip Jar.  Here viewers can show their appreciation and support for a video by contributing tips towards whatever objective the filmmaker has. I see this as another useful tool in campaigning for feature length financing.  And after the film is completed, Vimeo now, as Kyle Rupprecht of MovieMaker.com writes,  “enable(s) aspiring moviemakers to earn money from the films and videos they share on Vimeo.” through another new feature called Pay-to-View.  This is on Vimeo.

“Hear ye, Hear ye! 

The courts are now closed to griping!”  

A Watched Pot Never Boils

No doubt every filmmaker wants their film projected to the big screen in front of a large audience.  We dream about it every time we sit watching someone else’s film, thinking, “Surely if they could do it, then so could I.”  That is 100% true.  You can and should.  Your film deserves it.  Every film does.  The big screen is where it’s meant to be.  But it may not happen in your time frame or in your way. It may take years for your film to reach even one theater, and often at a financial loss rather than gain.  The ‘screen’ may not even be the screen you envisioned.  The odds for a marketed film in the U.S. to generate financial gain is roughly 3%.  “Wow.  Thanks for being such a Debbie Downer,” you may say.  “Why don’t we tuck our tails between our legs and call it a day.”  But let’s get real: The San Diego Padres have roughly a 0.0% chance of making it to the playoffs, and the Colorado Rockies are close behind.  Odds say they should hang up their cleats and shut the team down.  The Padres haven’t entered the World Series since 1984.  Then again, the Padres went to the World Series in 1984.  So did the Rockies in 2007.  Who’s to say they won’t again?  But besides that, what keeps a ball player playing when the odds seem stacked against them and the years between keep stacking up?  The love of the game.  And even if they never made it to the World Series again, the teams keep playing games because, for one, their fans keep paying. 

So how does baseball have anything to do with filmmaking?  Nothing.  And everything.

"A League of Their Own"

We live in a magnificent time of opportunity and versatility with regards to exhibition and distribution.  Your film’s ‘premiere’ doesn’t have to wait for funding or the opportunity to theatrically release.  Instead, outlets like IndieFlix, Distribber, and Distrify provide platforms for streaming play and instant download, equating sometimes to instant revenue.  Aggregators such as these branch out to major players like Hulu, iTunes, Amazon VOD and other streaming services, delivering your content to a wide spread audience.  You could approach the outlets individually, of course, but that's your preference - your prerogative. This isn’t a new revelation, but a reminder that the resources exist to, quite frankly, eliminate excuses.  Men all over the country, including Major League ball players, were called away during WWII.  Did that mean baseball stopped? No. The league worked with what they had to “get done what they had to get doing.”  It was about the game - not about the player.  Here, it’s about the film – not the venue.   Some day you’ll have your theatrical release.  It’ll be amazing.  Your twenty-dollar tub of popcorn will have never tasted so… buttery.  But in the meantime, “get to doing what you gotta get done:” show your film.  Because, “There’s no crying in baseball.” (Columbia, 1992)

Beauty in the Breakdown (An Editorial)

Iraq, 2007

An intensely personal and poignant experience occurred in my life roughly 5 years ago.  While serving in Iraq as a Combat Cameraman, I received a “combat wound” in the form of PTSD, or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.  It directly affected my passion for the art of moviemaking and placed a huge roadblock in the path thereof. 

I bring this up because recently I was interviewed by the “Make the Connection” public awareness campaign, a representative of the Veteran’s Affairs, about my experience with PTSD.  The interview involved chronicling my service in the Navy and why I took the path I did. I joined the Navy to learn mechanical and technical skills associated with image capturing, while at the same time giving to something bigger than myself: my country.  Ironically, my central contribution was the very thing damaged the most: my passion for the moving image.   The trauma etched so deeply onto my soul, I could barely edit anything without experiencing immense stress or anxiety.  When I left the Navy the skills and passion I had did not come with me.  They were left on the cutting room floor of combat, so to speak.  At the time, it felt as if the “casualty of war” was my dream.  Tear that away from anybody and you tear out the life that is in him or her.  I was paralyzed.  The professional foundation I gained became my biggest threat as opposed to a launching point for my career.

As we talked I was reminded that certain things would never be the same.  But thankfully through treatment by way of the VA, I’ve come back to a place of passion and courage enough to give it a go again.  Things are universally much better, but not all.  The memories, echoes of caustic nausea still remain.   Still, the new skills and strength I’ve gained through unique treatment have opened doors both literally and figuratively – necessary components for me to carry on.  It was my honor to tell my story if it helps even one veteran know they are not alone and can receive help.  But the experience was also therapeutic for me.   Not only did it remind me of the pain, but it also reminded me of victory – and the victories I still have a duty to fulfill.  No matter how much extra effort it takes now for me to act, storytelling will only remain a ‘casualty’ if I leave it there.  And then the ‘enemy’ wins: the enemies of terror and fear, both physically and psychologically.  But I am not a victim of circumstances.  In spite of the subconscious apprehension I have, my service to my family, friends and community are not over.   We serve by contributing our time and talents in our own unique ways.  My unique way is through storytelling. 

Many thanks to the VA and “Make the Connection” for their help and support.  Otherwise, even this blog role would not be possible.  Keep dreaming and Press On.

The Puritanical Debate: Film versus Digital

Since its inception, digital image capturing has faced serious resistance from film professionals - both in still and motion.  The argument being film tangibly preserves an image while digital is a simple rearrangement of ones and zeros. Yet digital is heralded as the next evolution of the art form.  My point of view is that shooting films on film is the highest form of the art because it requires a higher degree of professional expertise.  But when a top director, Martin Scorsese, not only shoots digitally but also in three-dimension (something many pass off as gimmicky), it makes me think twice.  Part of me wants to scream, “Sell Out!”  While the other part, the side that reveres Scorsese, gives him a pass.  There must be something to it if Scorsese, director of the gritty film Raging Bull, takes a leap towards it.

gizmodo.com

 Even so I still prefer film to digital.  Never mind that I own three digital cameras (DLSR, HDV and iPhone 4s).  Don’t judge me.  I have what I have because of production and post-production costs.  In managing a motion media product, I am constrained to my budget – or the lack thereof.  Had I the choice –and the means - I would choose film.  Is it more complicated? Yes.  Is it more costly and time consuming?  Yes.  But I’m a purist in my opinion that images captured on film are real.  Images captured on digital are not.  You catch a crappy image on film – it is what it is.  Honesty.  You catch a crappy shot on digital?  Just hit delete and no one will know.  Janusz Kaminksi, one of Steven Spielberg’s regular cinematographers interviewed with the LA Times, saying that digital makes for a lazy photographer.  I concur – from experience.  “When I was your age….” (and I’m only 30, mind you), I learned to shoot photography with a film camera.  My training took me from black and white, to color and then to slide film, working each in the darkroom and on the light table for hours.  The smell… the feel…. The frustration of seeing my mistakes slowly reveal themselves under the chemicals… It was a process to process. But that time spent made me a better photographer by motivating me to ensure I wouldn’t make the same mistake again.  Importantly, if not more in this context, is the fact that film capturing was a very organic experience. You could literally capture a piece of life, recording it into the emulsion of the film.  Photography and filmmaking are much different now.  

photo.net

Instead of perfecting exposure and camera control, shooters “Chimp.”   ‘Chimping’ is when a photographer shoots a shot, look at the LCD screen or monitor, shoot the shot, look at the screen… adjust settings (or just leave it on auto)… shoot.  Look at screen…. Etc.  It’s why Kaminski laments digital as “the death of the cinematographer,” and creates a co-dependent relationship between the photographer and the review button.  Kaminski continues, “If you see the image on the digital screen I think people become lazy, they get satisfied with just seeing the image, they’re not going for visual panache, not getting the story through metaphors… With film there is still mystery.”  Gone is the confidence that comes with knowing what, why and how a shot is captured.  I won’t lie and say it hasn’t happened to me.   My discipline died when I drank the ‘chimping’ punch.  A ‘sin’ I will never forgive myself of.

But you can’t ignore the fact that digital is here to stay, and professionals like Scorsese and Cameron are on board.  It would not be prudent to push against a bullish trend, but maybe converge the two artfully.  Newer digital cameras are capturing on 4K sensors and projecting “as-is” onto the screen.  Examining the process of traditional 35mm filmmaking and distribution, multiple duplications and projections actually downgrade the film to 1K by the time it reaches the screen.  Audiences have never really “seen” a 4K film in the theater.  Even so, there is still something organic about seeing a movie made from film.  But according to Filmmaker Magazine (Spring 2012 Issue), there is a new generation of filmmakers who hate the texture of film grain.  They are annoyed by small imperfections or the act of looking into a separate world rather than participating in it.  I don’t see that as a bad thing.  We often watch a movie to escape… to see and feel something not akin to real life.  Digital… just makes it too real.  Maybe it’s the way we “old-timers” (again… I’m 30 years old) grew up.  The story of film-making may soon be relegated to rocking chair conversations being reminisced from the front porch.

Pro8mm.com

Fortunately there are companies still trying to preserve the art of ‘real’ filmmaking, while at the same time marrying film and digital for more efficient post-production workflows. Pro8mm out of Burbank, California is a full-service procurement, rental and processing house for 8mm and 16mm film.  They stock a self-invented Super 8 negative film (16X9) along with Super 8 and Super 16 cameras re-engineered for practical use.  Pro8mm creates digital masters of the film while preserving the look and feel of its original capture.  No I do not work for Pro8mm and no I do not get a cut for ‘selling’ them.  More or less, I am selling the idea that film is not dead.   But Super 8?  Whoa.  Who talks about Super 8 anymore?  Apparently  J.J. Abrams and Steven Spielberg do. It may take a bit more effort to proselytize its enduring viability, but making films with film is still a valid and valuable medium to work with – a resource professionals persist in using when managing the product of their film.

Links:

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/19/entertainment/la-ca-oscars-cinematography-20120219

http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/news/2012/04/good-things-in-smaller-packages-large-sensor-motion-picture-cameras-a-year-later/http://www.pro8mm.com/our-mission.php