[13:12] Andrhia the point is to define transmedia here? Guess it won't be an easy task... starting with PGA def [13:12] <~Andrhia> We don't have to start with the PGA definition [13:12] <~Andrhia> And in fact I'd rather not! [13:12] I think we really shouldn't [13:12] Good me neither ;) [13:13] <~Andrhia> How about this: Can you name a bunch of projects you think are hands-down no-controversy transmedia? [13:13] Slide from Hoodlum!!! [13:13] no controversy? ha [13:13] <~Andrhia> *No controversy* [13:13] <~Andrhia> How about Heroes? [13:14] * iglumedia (iglumedia@chat-solu-6cccc3ef.range86-150.btcentralplus.com) has joined #transmedia [13:14] <~Andrhia> TV show, online components, graphic novel, with plot elements that all fed together. [13:14] <~Andrhia> Transmedia or not? [13:14] But they didn't spurr eachother, did they? [13:14] <~Andrhia> They did, actually. [13:14] No controversies... Low lifes? [13:15] <~Andrhia> Especially through the character of Wireless, who was an interactive character online, her her own graphic novel, and appeared in the show [13:15] <~Andrhia> To really follow her arc, you had to look at all of the pieces. [13:15] <&catherwood> internally i think of the need for interconnectedness, that you can't read just the graphic novel or character blog alone -- or can you? [13:15] NIN Year Zero? Which I like as an example cos no TV or film but still (I think) noncontroversial [13:16] <~Andrhia> Album, physical events, online components? [13:16] Were the graphical novels made in a way so that they could easily be referenced in the show? [13:16] <~Andrhia> Tom: The graphic novels often filled in backstory for characters in the show — origin stories and so on [13:17] I'd say that makes them extensions until the point that they feed back into the TV-show. [13:17] * cyng (kulturvultur@chat-solu-d7454295.cable.rogers.com) has joined #transmedia [13:17] Andrhia: yup. I don't think there was anything sold as a fictional component [13:17] But again; I didn't follow the heroes campaign at all. [13:17] <~Andrhia> So you're requiring that different elements take place at precisely the same chronological point in the story? [13:17] <~Andrhia> I raise my eyebrow at you [13:18] andrhia - things can go back & forth without being in the same chronological moment [13:18] (though i agree with what you're getting at) [13:18] Not at all. They merely have to be compatible as themselves. [13:19] <~Andrhia> So if the TV show describes somebody taking extreme measures to, say, recover a piece of jewelry, and a graphic novel shows how that piece of jewelry was their mother's dying gift to them [13:19] <~Andrhia> This is inadequately tied together? [13:19] On second thought, that would exclude the show itself from the mix. [13:19] does the feedback need to be explicit? [13:19] <~Andrhia> I'm not sure what you mean by "back and forth" in this context [13:19] andrhia what about "why so serious"? movie, comic and online components... as well as real life quest.. that looks like a non-controversial transmedia project to me no? [13:19] (Andrhia just took my point :p) [13:20] <~Andrhia> I really don't see how story about the same characters at other points in time could be anything but related! [13:20] gholubowicz: the thing with WSS?... is it transmedia on its own or only when it's considered a part of the dark knight [13:20] I'd consider Heroes, Year Zero, are all transmedia, yeah... I think that most ARGs (certainly the vast majority of the bigs ones) could be considered as transmedia [13:20] i have been told that, on it's own, it's just an ARG. but as an ARG it is a part of the TDK transmedia [13:21] <~Andrhia> well I guess when it's considered with the Dark knight franchise.. [13:21] I think WSS became the industry standard of a transmedia project because of it's success. [13:22] <~Andrhia> Just the ARG part? [13:22] <~Andrhia> Though to be sure [13:22] and yet, on its own, it would not be considered for the PGA credit [13:22] <~Andrhia> I think the film is *part of the ARG* [13:22] so is it "industry standard" [13:22] <~Andrhia> Because the story is a single piece [13:23] <~Andrhia> I'm not fussed about the PGA right now. [13:23] * IRC (jaybushman@299992.C5FCD8.C0407C.465916) has joined #transmedia [13:23] i'm not either, but as a reference to "industry standard" it seemed relevant [13:23] I'm not sure if Adrian meant ARGs are transmedia even if there are no other components: but if he did I agree with him [13:23] <~Andrhia> So OK [13:23] PGA standards are a bit restrictive, 2 medias would be sufficient, but when you deal with that kind of budget, you can afford to ask for 3 channels [13:23] <~Andrhia> Let me self-link for a second with a really dumb example [13:24] I just remember that it was on everyones lips when we started having meetings for earlier projects. [13:24] howdy y'all [13:24] <&catherwood> welcome, jay bushman, try /nick jay [13:24] * IRC is now known as jaybushman [13:25] <~Andrhia> Hmmmm, the image is gone. O_O [13:25] <&catherwood> describe it, maybe i can track down a copy while you continue? [13:25] <~Andrhia> OK, I made some dumb flyers for a micro-ARG. They led to an email address, which pointed to a physical location, where if you performed the correct action, you would be rewarded. [13:26] <~Andrhia> No, it's gone because I moved my blog, I didn't realize the flyer had gone missing [13:26] push button, receive bacon [13:26] How about this: If Star Wars is transmedia, and Why So Serious is transmedia, what's the difference between them? [13:26] so in that case, you *can't* experience the full story through only one channel, correct? [13:26] <~Andrhia> So one, is that really an ARG.. and two, is it transmedia? [13:26] or even a coherent story (much less the full story) [13:27] I would say that when multiple clients contact you with WSS as their only reference - it's enough to make it a standard. I think the PGA-version came out of what some people wants transmedia to be rather than what it is or what it has been. [13:27] sorry to be late. can anybody msg me with an summary of where we are in the discussion? [13:27] Starwars universe not consistent (just like Hell boy) WSS and Dark Knight follow a strict guideline [13:27] <~Andrhia> I'm not sure consistency is it. [13:27] <~Andrhia> In fact, I'm pretty sure consistency is *not it* [13:27] yet both are 'transmedia'? Or no? [13:28] <&catherwood> correct me if i'm wrong, but is there a single "transmedia producer" overseeing all of either "the" star wars or Dark Knight "project"? [13:28] Both are (to borrow Andrhia's definition) fragmented [13:28] <~Andrhia> Not in the case of Star Wars, for sure [13:28] hypothetical anti-consistency argument: a story where each channel has a different narrator, all unreliable [13:28] how do we distinguish between these two examples? I think that would greatly help in 'defining' ... this /:) [13:28] <~Andrhia> bscofield: I like your style ~_^ [13:29] And in both cases, the process of attempting to resolve thar fragmentation is part of the pleasure of the entertainment [13:29] 'ergodic': my new favourite word :-) [13:29] <&catherwood> a person creating any single piced for a multi-media IP cannot be called a transmedia producer, right? even if the project as a whole is being called transmedia [13:29] there wasn't a single transmedia producer for The Dark Knight, either - much of the "transmedia" points were produced by a few different folks [13:29] Andrhia sorry not consistent but coherent... wrong word [13:30] <~Andrhia> Ah, I can get on board with coherent. ^_^ [13:30] <~Andrhia> Alexis: 'ergodic' is a pretty rockin' word. [13:30] Consistency is just one (popular, effective) way to entrain later defragmentation [13:30] coherent can still fail my hypothetical example [13:30] though at a certain point the 'single story' part of that example would fall apart [13:31] <~Andrhia> Yeah, that's the tricky bit. What's one story> [13:31] Bscofield: fragmentation again. The process of trying to resolve the contradictions is the fun of it [13:31] <~Andrhia> Is a sitcom with B and C-plots one story, or not? [13:31] I'd say they are. [13:31] so... why? [13:32] bscofield character & chronoligical coherence for me the basis of a story universe. Starwars has tremendous problems with that... i guess [13:32] tomliljeholm: what if it's an ensemble cast with no overlap of characters between separate plots? [13:32] Andrhia: no ergosis (how's that for a word!) in reconciling b and c plots. Everything is already edited into place [13:32] <~Andrhia> I like the idea that some sort of mental effort is required to put the pieces together [13:33] bscofield: As long as there are no faulty overlaps, I'm fine with it [13:33] AlexisKennedy: yes... resolving apparent contradictions, finding coherence, that would be the fun of it [13:33] this starts to sound like a puzzle [13:33] <~Andrhia> You're saying 'coherence' now in a way where it might as well mean 'consistency.' [13:33] bscofield: Like two characters experiencing two different scenarios in the same location in two different instances [13:34] Ok, got to go... I'll have to read back through the chat log later :) [13:34] <~Andrhia> Think of TDK and the joker talking about how he got his scars. [13:34] Transmediathis: but we still need the fragmentation too. Or a Lynch or Nolan film is transmedia [13:34] Rock on, thebruce , we love you [13:34] <~Andrhia> You don't know what is true or if any of it is true. And that's the point. So it might be with the story as a whole: Not knowing how much or what is true [13:34] tomliljeholm: so the single location joins the stories? [13:35] bscofield: In my opinion, yes [13:35] i see it as two divergent aspects of transmedia: transmedia franchising vs transmedia storytelling...the differentiation being that with franchising you can enjoy each of the pieces separately and indepentedly of one another...i.e. the Star Wars universe...but with transmedia storytelling you need to immerse yourself in the different components or you are missing out on the larger narrative [13:35] Andrhia: cf your blog about non-consistent timelines. There's an analogous point to be made about non-consistent backstory. It can be an explicit device [13:35] <~Andrhia> Yes. :) [13:36] @cyng - since Steve P. doesn't seem to be here, let me channel what he would say: "transmedia franchising ins't transmedia. it's franchising." [13:36] AlexisKennedy: I think that falls under the rule that every rule can be broken if it's done deliberately [13:36] tomliljeholm: I want to say that on the basis of a single episode, they're separate -- it's the history of characters interacting that makes a single, larger story (not the shared location) [13:36] <~Andrhia> I am still stuck on fragmentation + seeking [13:36] and franchising is, really, just branding ;) [13:37] because what if there just weren't any shared location? parents are on a date, kids are at home, never the twain meet in the single episode? [13:37] <~Andrhia> A single film can't be transmedia because the audience is never put into the position of seeking the next piece [13:37] cyng great distinction! [13:37] so it's about depth, not breadth? [13:37] i'm wall acquainted with Steve P's opinions on the matter :D [13:37] ok, andrhia, then what about a video game? [13:37] there is seeking involved and multiple media formats (video, text, etc) [13:37] Andrhia: so the after-credits portion of Thor doesn't make you seek the next piece? [13:38] or URLs and phone numbers put into a shot don't encourage you to check them out? [13:38] Tomlijeholm: the same is true about novels (cf House of Leaves, Naked Lunch) but we have a good working def for those. Breaking rules only works when there are agreed rules to break [13:38] I would agree with bscofield. Aren't we on the wrong path if we try to define transmedia according to character or location, vs. just defining it by what will help us tell a single story with a coherent plot successfully? [13:38] <~Andrhia> A video game is still a single piece and one could no more call it multiple media formats than a film, which has images, music, and osmetimes text. [13:38] Imbri: I think that's an excellent edge case [13:39] <~Andrhia> (Yeah, I think defining transmedia in any sense that tries to talk about what kind of story is a red herring.) [13:39] Imbri: irt's usually one presented, not assembled experience, but there are counterexamples [13:39] <~Andrhia> A video game isn't fragmented. You can play it through in a single piece. [13:39] <~Andrhia> The tricker case for me is *series* [13:40] series are *hard* [13:40] <~Andrhia> Yeah [13:40] Why is it a tricker? [13:40] particularly when there's no overall arc -- each season being scripted independently means the overall story is fragmented [13:40] <~Andrhia> I think if we can crack what makes a series transmedia or NOT transmedia we'd be onto something [13:40] Andrhia: no real ergosis in a series. Watching one ep after another is trivial effort. It's presented for you, you don't need to assemble [13:41] FWIW I think that some of the more successful transmedia will end up being more like those edge cases; all of this seeking can be pretty tiring (but that's not what we're talking about here) [13:41] <~Andrhia> I instinctively feel like a series of three films continuing a single story is *not transmedia* but I can't find the right piece of definition to explain why. [13:41] i agree, to a point, adrian [13:41] <~Andrhia> Likewise a series of ten epic fantasy novels is not transmedia, but I can't draw up a definition I'm satisfied with that excludes them. [13:41] Andrhia: because the breaking-up is arbitrary? [13:41] breaking-up into episodes, I mean [13:41] it's a matter of convergence and how it all comes together - perhaps in an app [13:41] Because there's no real participation? Passive viewing? Like AlexisKennedy said? [13:41] a series of three films is still uni-media. its 3 instances of one medium [13:42] Series or trilogy: you always know when or that you have the whole thing [13:42] whereas if you're crossing channels breaks are inevitable [13:42] Andrhia surely three movies can't be transmedia because it doesn't go across media [13:42] <~Andrhia> Jay: So is Cthalloween not transmedia? [13:42] surely that's what transmedia means in it's most basic sense [13:42] it will look, very much, like a video game (in the one piece, non fragmented manner) [13:42] i don't know :) [13:42] <~Andrhia> Very fragmented, but across a single platform [13:42] Transmedia: there is always something you might have missed because it might be separated in time space or media [13:42] <~Andrhia> Requires seeking behavior... [13:42] honestly, to me, cthalloween is a very cool bit of twitter theater [13:43] but it's not "transmedia" [13:43] On the same note - what is uni-platform when it comes to the web? [13:43] (i'm ok with that - things don't have to be transmedia to be awesome) [13:43] <~Andrhia> Yeah, that bothers me, too. [13:43] yeah, it's tricky [13:43] Andrhia: again, (a) trivial to assemble (b) you [13:43] …and can something on the web considered to be uni-platform? [13:43] <&catherwood> is your definition tied to the audience (did they get all the pieces?), or the producer (is the movie incomplete without the comic?) [13:43] Because the web these days doesn't mean 'a desktop computer' [13:43] yeah...to echo tom's point....some of this will become mute as platforms merge into monomedia devices [13:43] <~Andrhia> If I have a Facebook game and some websites that it links out to in that story world… is that one platform, two, as many as there are sites? Is it transmedia at all? [13:43] Not necessarily, at least [13:43] web to me seems broader than a single platform -- like "visual experience" [13:43] (b) you know when you've consumed it all [13:43] Well, the web is interactive, at least [13:44] especially with multiple ways of consuming the same content - browser, rss, apps, etc. [13:44] Unlike a movie [13:44] <~Andrhia> I don't think interactive is a necessary element to transmedia ~_^ [13:44] andrhia - brian clark would argue (fairly successfully, i think) that it's one platform [13:44] i think "platform" is a distraction [13:44] we should be talking format or channel [13:44] well i think that goes back to imbri's argument from before regarding platforms vs media [13:44] Andrhia not nescessary but recommanded to increase engagement no? [13:44] But there is certainly a more active consumption of the message in transmedia. [13:44] I would want to require interactivity from Transmedia. I want to be able to email/call/chat with characters. I want to be a part of the story. [13:44] <~Andrhia> This is why I headed toward 'fragments' [13:44] imbri: so twitter, facebook, youtube, custom sites, and everything else on the web count as part of the same channel? [13:45] <~Andrhia> A fragment could be one tweet or it could be one book [13:45] what if I post a full movie online? [13:45] i would say they're the same platform, different channels [13:45] <~Andrhia> It's just a piece of the story that is experiences separately from the rest of the story [13:45] exactly bscofield [13:45] Interactive perhaps implies agency, which is not quite what I mean... perhaps it comes back to this ergodicity thing. That it requires some level of effort, however small, from the user [13:45] @imbri thx :) - yeah, i've been saying for a while that "transmedia or not" has to be separate from "good or not" [13:45] imbri: then I'm with you on "platform" being a distraction :) [13:45] twitter is a different channel than facebook, but they share a platform (to the masses) of being web based [13:46] <~Andrhia> Yeah, I can agree with that [13:46] <&catherwood> or social-media-based as a mega-channel [13:46] Mentapurpura (and others): what is the distinction between "story" and "message" or "idea" or "sense of the thing" ? [13:46] Re platform, channel, media: the important thing is that you have to switch contexts, yes. [13:46] technically speaking, they are built on very distinct platforms. but to most - they're a web-based stream of info that you can put updates on [13:47] Someone mentioned above that we should decide if we're talking about a definition according to how the user is involved and a definition according that how the producer creates... [13:47] *to how [13:47] <~Andrhia> I reject any definition involving how the producer creates [13:47] * kulturvulturz (kulturvultur@chat-solu-b8744a9a.cable.rogers.com) has joined #transmedia [13:47] <~Andrhia> Production is going to vary very much depending on the structure of the project, and there are a whole lot of structures I'd call transmedia. [13:47] Andrhia depends if the producer is the real creator/author, [13:47] I agree with Andrhia [13:48] OK, because in a way that seems to be how we're going into it right now, or rather mixing both. [13:48] Recapping (since I'm getting lost): The themes that have surfaced so far deal with control of story, coordination of story, variance of media (e.g., is Facebook and an external website one medium), interpretation by participants to make sense of discontinuity, and active participation of the "reader" to seek the next piece. [13:48] dammit...my irc keeps crashing.... :( [13:48] <~Andrhia> kmakice: I'd say "experience of story" more than "control of story." [13:48] i wonder if we're too focused on questions like "media" platform" "channel" and not enough on user experience. In the cinema, the kinetoscope projector and the vistavision projector and the cinerama projector are different platforms, but the basic user experience in the same [13:49] From the perspective of the participant, or the author(s)? [13:49] jaybushman: exactly! [13:49] <~Andrhia> For the participant. [13:50] By control, I considered the authors (as in, does the movie producer have any say in helping with online games) [13:50] <&catherwood> a movie producer can complete a film project entirely without an audience ever seeing it; can a transmedia project exist as a completed work without an audience? [13:50] <~Andrhia> I could make the same exact project as a single auteur, as a hired contractor building out someone else's creative vision, or as a part of a collaborative team, or even by contributing a single piece of story to a whole created by someone else. [13:50] jay- agree. i think i use "format" as an inexact way of saying that. the experience of reading text is different than the experience of viewing a video [13:50] is transmedia a success term? i.e., if I create a story across multiple channels/media, but no one ever consumes more than one piece -- was it transmedia? [13:50] <~Andrhia> And in fact I have done *all of these things*, but these different modes of creation have absolutely no bearing on what you should call the result when it's done. [13:50] catherwood: Yes! It would be tm, just not successful TM [13:50] and this is where we differ from the PGA-style version of transmedia. A user's experience of a franchise is COMPLETELY different that user's experience of an ARG, or of "Twitter Theater", etc. [13:50] whoops, xpost :) [13:51] Jay - agreed. it's also where henry jenkins has seemed to have changed his position [13:51] If I publish a novel so dreadful that no one reads beyond chap 1, it's still a novel [13:51] (FWIW, I think the PGA definition is a straw man. It only has the weight is has because it's the only large organization that has set forth a definition. But the PGA has no responsibility — or power — to define "What is Transmedia?" Rather, they are charged with figuring out how their members — producers only — work in transmedia.) [13:52] <~Andrhia> I would love to hear more about Henry's new definition. [13:52] AlexisKennedy: but we've already looked at potential def'ns (and pieces of def'ns) that rely on effects on the audience [13:52] in convergence culture, he made a big to do about how to get the complete story of the matrix the audience had to move between the various pieces [13:52] <~Andrhia> I haven't really seen a robust explanation [13:52] now he seems to be all "well, there's a bunch of pieces" [13:52] Bscofield: bur can be intended, non- realised effect [13:52] (is this an epistemological vs. metaphysical problem? how can we recognize TM vs. what is TM?) [13:52] THe PGA definition is the equivalent of the ASCAP creating a category for punk music [13:52] that seems to fall back on authorial intent, though [13:52] ha! [13:53] <~Andrhia> (Alexis: Yes, love it. It doesn't become a short story just because it's bad.) [13:53] is transmedia an adjective or a noun? [13:53] <~Andrhia> I am strongly against any definition that requires scrying into the heart of a creator [13:53] Also [13:53] adjective [13:54] PGA is just a US organisation ;) [13:54] :) [13:54] <&catherwood> if you call The Matrix universe a single TM property, who gets the TM producer credit? (individual creator contributions already have their traditional media credits) [13:54] <~Andrhia> I think the adjective/noun thing is a red herring. Yellow is an adjective, too. [13:54] How bout into the heart of the user? [13:54] From a user/consumer perspective, perhaps transmedia is a verb...? [13:54] another anti-author argument: I set out to create TM, but only produce the first channel before getting hit by a bus. Intent says my one-channel is TM, but lack of any actual story in another channel argues against it [13:55] * jonny81 (jonny81@chat-solu-a7befdb2.bb.sky.com) has joined #transmedia [13:55] Bscofield: if you put the primer on a wall and are hit by a bus, it's an unfinished mural [13:55] It is meant to be an interactive experience, no? I don't think you can separate the creator from the user because both are participating. [13:55] why PGA matters - i've been working with the state of georgia on how to approach transmedia productions [13:55] <~Andrhia> And on the reverse of bscofield's example, if I start with a single piece and build a gorgeous multithreaded universe from there... [13:55] Bscofield: this is sorites paradox [13:55] I feel like we're moving towards a "looking into the effect / experience of a story on an abstract experiencer" [13:55] <~Andrhia> Can it never be transmedia because it wasn't what I had in mind? [13:55] the first month or so of conversations were spent getting them to see beyond the PGA definition [13:56] * hamcake (email@0292B0.78093D.B1C166.A7FD8B) has joined #transmedia [13:56] kmakice: goog point. Hadn't looked at it that way... [13:56] *good [13:56] AlexisKennedy: interesting, but sorites can mislead [13:56] primer on wall == unfinished mural [13:56] sketches in sketchbook == unfinished mural(?) [13:56] folks in other countries may not face that problem, but here it's one of the only public examples of written guidelines [13:56] Bscofield: I'm ok with idea that if no one experiences ten parts of eleven-part project, it's a failure rather than a miscategorisation [13:56] had the idea == unfinished mural(?) [13:56] and folks love to copy off of each other [13:57] I'm certainly not saying that PGA doesn't matter, but it's interesting how it has uniquely driven the debate in the US as opposed to the rest of the world; where, of course, people still do argue about what 'transmedia' means [13:58] <~Andrhia> So let's get the WGA to write a different definition, then [13:58] <~Andrhia> Or the IGDA. [13:58] Bscofield: good one! But primer is important cos it's there to experience publicly. Sketch isn't unless you leave it deliberately on a train [13:58] Anyways [13:58] I think the problem with the PGA credit is that it embodies a way of thinking about transmedia that has been brewing for a while. [13:58] the igda definition seems to be going towards "gamification" because that's here to stay and transmedia is just a franchise fad ;) [13:58] * tomliljeholm (Tom@chat-solu-4b61052b.tbcn.telia.com) Quit (Client closed the connection) [13:59] AlexisKennedy: completely agreed if all those parts exist. if the only one who ever knew of their potential to exist goes away, though, it feels like a miscategorization (unless we *do* want to go with authorial intent, which is a bad idea in almost any field of inquiry :) [13:59] AlexisKennedy: but with just primer, you could have 1) an unfinished mural, or 2) an unfinished painted wall (like housepaint) [13:59] we're back to intent :( [14:00] Bscofield: you're right, mural was dubious metaphor. Parts need to exist. Back toy hypothesis dreadful novel ! [14:00] to go with authorial intent is pretty much a modernist take on creation that supposed an auteur or author...i think that is pretty mute in postmodernist landscape [14:01] especially when much of transmedia depends on cocreation with participants [14:01] ok, time to finish packing -- i'll stop back in to derail things later :) [14:01] we've been skirting the "intent" issue by going with the way the piece moves between media [14:01] I'm less interested in the idea of multiplatform or mutlichannel, and more interest in the gestalt of the entire system. Without looking at the whole, its too easy to get bogged down in "did it use a large enough quanitity of platforms to count as transmedia." it needs to be more than a numbers game. [14:01] * ~Andrhia winces [14:01] this also helps us to avoid intermedia [14:01] which is fascinating, but I think, wholly distinct from transmedia [14:01] <~Andrhia> Co-creation as a phrase gives me hives. I'm going to have to blog about that at some point. [14:02] * SisterApril (naomialderman@chat-solu-0d8eb97f.range86-183.btcentralplus.com) has joined #transmedia [14:02] why so andrhia? [14:02] <~Andrhia> It implies an equitable balance of power in an inherently inequitable relationship [14:03] jaybushman: "gestalt of the entire system" : yes, from the consumer/"reader" pov [14:03] is there a term you prefer? [14:03] <~Andrhia> I find it a fundamentally deceptive term for the thing it is meant to describe. [14:03] <~Andrhia> I like "collaboration," when that applies. [14:03] * tomliljeholm (Tom@chat-solu-f88bea13.tbcn.telia.com) has joined #transmedia [14:04] the consumer doesn't care about how many different channels the story reaches them, only that the story appears to be embedded in their entire network. [14:04] depends on the consumer [14:04] (I've been thinking for a while that NETWORK is potentially a key word) [14:04] jaybushman: AND embedded into their consciousness [14:04] <~Andrhia> I don't know that the consumer even cares about that, jay ^_^ [14:04] * hamcake (email@0292B0.78093D.B1C166.A7FD8B) Quit (Quit: ) [14:04] Yeah, I don't know about that [14:04] <~Andrhia> Hmm [14:04] jay - but that implies fully integrated experiences [14:04] * SisterApril is now known as NaomiAlderman [14:04] <~Andrhia> Something about the relationships between the pieces [14:04] but collaboration wont get you very far with television networks [14:05] One of the most interesting projects we had a TM London was basically just an iPhone app [14:05] its not a very legal term [14:05] which is ok, but won't get much support from the franchise crowd [14:05] which didn't integrate into any networks [14:05] <~Andrhia> I'm thinking of network not as a thing to integrate to, but as a descriptor of the thing itself [14:06] That's an interesting take, yes [14:06] @andrhia - exactly [14:06] <~Andrhia> "A network of pieces of story that you have to join up yourself" [14:06] Well [14:06] Adrianhon: i'd argue the toss there. It wouldn't have had same effwct wothout work in other context too [14:06] Perhaps] [14:06] I am not convinced that you have to 'join it up yourself' [14:06] and i'm not convinced that story is key [14:06] But I guess you are probably doing *something* [14:06] (blasphemy, i know) [14:07] Why not, imbri ? [14:07] <~Andrhia> Well, as compared to, say, reading all five books in the series. [14:07] Even if it's just picking up your phone to listen to a voicemail or read an email [14:07] what about an amazing piece of art that moves between platforms [14:07] you can join it up in your own head, that's part of the joy [14:07] 'resolve tension between' rather rhan 'join up'? [14:07] i mean "network" as a stand in for "I have all of these tools and devices I get info on. I watch a TV show on my TV. I listen to a song on my music player. but these kinds of stories can come from any or all of these tools and devices" [14:07] no need to be a story bloodhound [14:08] where there may be some statement, but the "story" if it exists is up to the individual [14:08] Yeah [14:08] <~Andrhia> That's fair. [14:08] [remembering now how hard it is to follow multiple conversation strands on IRC :)] [14:08] jay: seriously [14:09] i've thrown up that forum at wecreatetransmedia.com [14:09] So... perhaps it's about message but not story? I'm not sure I agree completely with that. Isn't inmersion easier if you get your audience to identify with your characters and plot? [14:09] which could be a place to continue in different threads [14:09] iglumedia: Agreed. Story hound just one way of setting up / resolving tension of assemblt [14:10] Mentapurpura: easier? absolutely. manditory? i dunno [14:10] honestly dont have a clue what you's are going on about [14:10] <~Andrhia> There's also been a "defining transmedia" forum up at TAG for months. [14:10] lost totally [14:10] taking on a 'what is art' feeling [14:11] I would completely avoid the "what is art" question. [14:11] @jonny81 paintings and stuff? :) [14:11] Mentapurpura: immersion not essential. I can imagine a piece of Brechtian transmedia that constantly reminds you it's not real [14:11] <~Andrhia> That's our problem, really, it's too much like the "what is art" conversation ^_^ [14:11] how narrow do people want the definition to be? [14:11] <&catherwood> immersion is for ARGs -- totally different definition and property [14:11] <~Andrhia> Or worse, "what is pornography" [14:11] Mmmmm... good point. Ok then, perhaps I did not use the correct word. I would use "engagement". [14:11] exactly andrhia lol [14:11] late to the party: I presume you guys long ago discarded the good old "transmedia storytelling is storytelling which uses more than one medium to communicate"? [14:12] Engagement, though, in my book, is more effective through storytelling. [14:12] Naomi that's my preferred starting point tbh [14:12] <~Andrhia> Naomi: That's a nonstarter. That's every film with a website. [14:12] ideally, i'd love a definition that was both broad and simple. Precision is less important. [14:12] agreed with jay [14:12] <~Andrhia> I prefer a broader definition, too. [14:12] Mentapurpura: I basically agree, i think story like vowels. Not vital but generally wh wld y d wtht? [14:12] it's inevitably going to be vague [14:12] yep, agreed alexis [14:12] I think I could probably be open to saying that every film with a website is OK? If the website actually adds to the story and doesn't just reiterate? [14:12] How about 'a network of content' then? [14:13] (as a starting point) [14:13] i think naming the thing pre a definition is trouble [14:13] to paraphrase Nina Bargiel - we need definitions that will help us get work. let the academy argue about shadings and nuances [14:13] i'm not saying i'm out to create non-story driven transmedia whatevers. just that i think they could exist :) [14:13] define what you WANT it to be and then name it [14:13] 'a story with some assembly required' [14:13] ecosystem of content [14:13] <~Andrhia> That's why I'm not lobbying against ex. Star Wars; there are enough family resemblances there that I think it's worth including under the same umbrella, even though it isn't as sexy to me as the stuff I want to make [14:14] is it cross-platform by nature? [14:14] Network of interwoven content? [14:14] I don't think so, no [14:14] every time I talk about it now, I say that Seder night is transmedia [14:14] oh [14:14] excuse my english [14:14] haha [14:14] and when i say cross-platform i mean the "app test" [14:14] TransmediaThis: I think that's a very cool definition for a Starwarsesque subcategory [14:14] interweaved? [14:14] i kinda like Network of Content as a starting point [14:14] i.e anything that can have it's own app (twitter, facebook) can be a platform [14:14] where i work, cross platform has been around for a long time [14:14] people know what that means [14:15] <~Andrhia> Star Wars is at its heart a collection of single-platform experiences. But it's also true that if you consume all of it, you'll wind up with a clearer picture than if you just watch three movies and stop. [14:15] What is the network in network of content? [14:15] <~Andrhia> Or even six movies... [14:15] A single website is a network of content [14:15] NaomiAlderman: Pale Fire is transmedia! The commentary is part of the project [14:15] when i think of transmedia, i think of expansion of the universe across media. but i think you start to define any deeper than that you will just go around in circles [14:15] and it wont matter to the funders [14:15] A network is just a bunch of things that are connected together [14:15] agreed with jonny [14:16] i disagree with jonny, it does matter [14:16] it's the Gomez definition almost [14:16] Which is what many people here are calling 'franchise transmedia' :) [14:16] because if you start applying for funding on the state level, they can shuffle you from department to department [14:16] <~Andrhia> "expansion of the universe" is incredibly limiting to the kind of story you're trying to tell [14:16] think of "network" as not from the perspective of the pieces of the network. think of it as the cloud of information channels surrounding the Audience [14:16] or from grant to grant [14:16] which, truthfully, can be beneficial [14:17] AlexisKennedy: if I understood what the word 'postmodern' actually meant I would probably be bandying it around [14:17] as you can say "ooo i have a website - give me funds for "new media"" and "ooo i have a video element, give me funds for film" [14:17] imbri as a Brit that isn't much of an issue [14:17] I think franchise transmedia as subcategory is vital. But if you exclude the grassroots stuff then you are condemning us all to 20 years of'what about marble hornets' [14:18] imbri, why then would you want to be more closely defined then? [14:18] because that fragmentation of funding means that integrated experiences fall through the cracks [14:18] surely its better to allow your project to be able to access a number of different streams [14:18] and it means that you might get funds to produce part of your project in 2011 and part in 2013 [14:19] not true imbri. what you need is a fund set up as a transmedia fund [14:19] or cross platform fund [14:19] indd [14:19] right, which means there needs to be some sort of guidelines for "transmedia" [14:19] <~Andrhia> 'A network of closely related content across multiple media' [14:19] yeah but in canada that's not how funding really works [14:19] no one here is going to set up a tranmedia fund in the future [14:19] i like what Andrhia just said [14:19] Well [14:19] but imbri, the funders want YOU to integrate it [14:19] <~Andrhia> And now "closely related" is in the eye of the beholder [14:20] you just need to be open and honest about what you want to do [14:20] rather, producers need to piggyback transmedia projects on funding for film, webseries, etc. [14:20] yes and no, in my experience [14:20] Allow me to continue; 'A network of closely related content across multiple media and/or internet' [14:20] ;) [14:20] and also, by 2013 id hope your project would be more commerically viable [14:20] need to step away. back in a bit [14:20] and perhaps not require funding [14:20] * jaybushman is now known as coronersweborg [14:20] I still don't like this multiple media thing [14:20] I'm not sure if it will even make much sense in a few years time [14:20] exactly adrianhon [14:21] <~Andrhia> See, the thing about the PGA's definition that I find most upsetting is this: Now we're all talking about producers. And I don't consider myself to be a producer. [14:21] right! [14:21] Why are you againt multiple media adrianhon ? [14:21] I like Andrhia's definition but needs 'some assembly required' I think - cos that also speaks to funder's q of 'why are we doing this'? Engagement , loyalty [14:21] I guess I'm not sure whether we're talking about 'TV' or 'web', or rather, 'videos' and 'text' [14:22] <~Andrhia> Tom and Adrian: I go back and forth on multiple media. Because of Cthalloween, and because of video games. [14:22] I think it bumps up against my (personal, hypothetical) 'single platform transmedia' iPhone app [14:22] And yes, video games [14:22] andrhia, what do you consider urself to be [14:22] [back] what does "some assembly" entail? isn't just consuming all the pieces enough? [14:22] ~Andrhia: 'A network of closely related content across multiple media' : I like that. It's from my assessment that THAT is what I have that I "invented" the term transmedia myself, only later finding out that is was a contested term among you all. [14:22] andrhia: why is it important that cthalloween be transmedia? [14:22] Adrianhon: someone asked me last week - is print a platform? Still don't have satisfying answer beyond ' I guess so' [14:22] Heh [14:22] <~Andrhia> Me? I call myself a 'game designer and writer' because it sounds less douchey than 'creator' [14:22] * kmakice (Adium@chat-solu-9f48ff8f.in.comcast.net) Quit (Quit: Leaving.) [14:22] Alexis: not that this is necessarily relevant but... I find the 'some assembly required' stories less engaging than the ones that guide you round, that self-assemble in front of you [14:22] (sorry for picking on cthalloween, jay) [14:22] I'd stretch to call single-medium entertainment transmedia only if they interacted with audience. I think participation possibilities are vital. [14:23] What would that interaction entail? [14:23] but we're talking about tv/film terms here [14:23] * kmakice (Adium@chat-solu-9f48ff8f.in.comcast.net) has joined #transmedia [14:23] <~Andrhia> imbri: It isn't important in itself, except that it feels precisely like the things I'm trying to describe: Fragments of a single thing spread out across the world to be collected and pieced together by an audience. [14:23] If it was like, 'press button to read another mail', would that count? [14:23] How about 'constellation' rather than 'network'? All the stars are there but it's you that joins them up [14:23] the fact is, its simpler to use the term producer [14:23] In-story correspondence. [14:23] you dont want to have to provide a dictionary of terms [14:23] every meeting [14:23] I don't like externalising the audience [14:23] Hmm, I disagree [14:23] or perhaps you all do. im not sure [14:23] (politely :) [14:24] <~Andrhia> Alexis: Constellation sounds intriguing to me [14:24] Haha [14:24] <&catherwood> then can you count the audience as the other media, to let a single platform twitter story unfold as transmedia? [14:24] * tomliljeholm (Tom@chat-solu-f88bea13.tbcn.telia.com) Quit (Connection reset by peer) [14:24] Must've been something I said ;) [14:24] * tomliljeholm (Tom@chat-solu-4b61052b.tbcn.telia.com) has joined #transmedia [14:24] Naomialderman: submitting to guidance is still a process of assemblt compared to watching a series [14:24] constellation [14:24] wtf [14:24] constellation's nice because it opens up the possibility of different schemes for connecting the dots [14:24] "Constellation" - yes. [14:24] omg [14:24] please [14:24] constellation [14:24] please people. dont [14:25] jonny81: what would you prefer? [14:25] constellation sounds a bit too sci-fi/cringeworthy [14:25] its awful [14:25] you start talking 'constellations' in a buiness meeting [14:25] ur screwed [14:25] <~Andrhia> Jonny, you're bringing down the tone of the debate here [14:25] apologies. ill refrain from such comment [14:26] but seriously now [14:26] Re cthalloween: the reason not to exclude it is that the intuitive 'but it is TM!' reaction is worth examining [14:26] <&catherwood> you produce a static set of dots, and the audience connects them into a variety of patterns (one culture's Big Dipper is another Great Bear) [14:26] He does have a point in keeping business in mind though. [14:26] <~Andrhia> Please bring up specific objections [14:26] so here's the thing: when coming up with a definition, we're playing with meanings and nuance. there might be cringe-worthy words along the way, but that doesn't mean that's where the thing will end up [14:26] i object to the term constellations [14:26] instead of constellation, how about 'pattern' [14:26] I don't like constellation as a final term, but as a step on the way I think it's helpful [14:26] constellation not as a name, but as a metaphor for how elements are pieced together by user. cf rhorschach test. [14:26] I personally prefer 'network' [14:26] I'll second network [14:26] same adrian [14:26] <~Andrhia> Pattern I think gets too far away from the meaning we're looking for of "a bunch of related things" [14:27] alexis - agreed, but i was hoping to get to "why" it's transmedia as that may help :) [14:27] * NaomiAlderman thinks about words [14:27] network definitely [14:27] <&catherwood> or a bucket of Lego blocks, the project is about creating the set, but the audience will build what it will out of the blocks [14:27] so: [some word meaning a special sort of set] of related content? [14:28] a [something] of [something] ;) [14:28] heh. a 'bucket' of content is a nice thing to bring up in conversation if not to put on your website [14:28] I talk a lot about 'bucket phase' in making a project [14:28] a conceptual system, more or less coherent, carried by the user/consumer/reader/etc [14:28] I think the important stuff if about how the relationships of said content looks, though [14:28] does "map" help? [14:28] <&catherwood> a twitter story is not a single Lego brick, but a sequence of bricks (tweets) [14:28] when you just throw lots of stuff in your conceptual bucket and then get to sift through and piece it together [14:28] tends to lead towards ecosystem/landscape imagery, though... [14:28] I'm happy with network as def, constellation to pull out as metaphor. I don't want to bust up jonny81's biz meeting [14:29] well, you can if you want [14:29] a "sense of the thing" - no matter what may consiste of, or appear to consiste of, to any given consumer [14:29] feel free alexis [14:29] you do what you like [14:29] word that came to mind was "concoction", which is not really what I would go for, but... there ya go. [14:29] an "arrangement", which has something of an art connotation to it [14:29] A soupcon [14:29] hahahahah [14:29] the "ness-ness" of it. [14:29] a dash of content, a sprinkle of magic [14:30] lol [14:30] arrangement feels too after-the-fact [14:30] Collection... arrangement... group... [14:30]